|
I ONCE saw a nice sketch in a political
cabaret: on the stage several people were speaking in unconnected
sentences, all of which ended with the word "but". For example: "Some of
my best friends are Jews, but…", "I have nothing against blacks, but…",
"I really detest racism, but…"
During the recent war, I frequently heard similar phrases: "I am a
leftist, but…" These words were invariably - but invariably! - followed
by a rightist statement.
It seems that we have a whole community of "leftists-but", who propose
the annihilation of entire Lebanese villages, the turning of Lebanon
into a heap of ruins, the destruction over the heads of its inhabitants
of any building where Hassan Nasrallah may (or may not) be staying. And,
while we are at it, also to wipe Gaza from the face of the earth.
Encountering such sentences on TV, on the radio and in the papers, I am
sometimes tempted to pray: Dear God, give me honest to goodness fascists
instead of these leftists-but.
WHILE ANALYZING the Second Lebanon War, it is impossible to ignore the
role played by the Leftists, with or without quotation marks, during the
fighting.
The day before yesterday I saw on TV an interview with the playwright
Joshua Sobol, a likeable person known as a regular leftist. He explained
that this war has brought us important benefits, and sang the praises of
the Minister of Defense, Amir Peretz.
Sobol is not alone. When the government started this war, an impressive
line-up of writers supported it. Amos Oz, A.B.Yehoshua and David
Grossman, who regularly appear as a political trio, were united again in
their support of the government and used all their considerable verbal
talents to justify the war. They were not satisfied with that: some days
after the beginning of the war, the three published a joint ad in the
papers, expressing their enthusiastic backing for the operation.
Their support was not purely passive. Amos Oz, a writer with
considerable literary prestige throughout the world, wrote an article in
favor of the war, which appeared in several respected foreign
newspapers. I wouldn't be surprised if "somebody" helped to distribute
it. His two comrades, too, were active in propagating the war, together
with a long row of writers like Yoram Kaniuk, assorted artists and
intellectuals, real or imagined. All of them volunteered for the
propaganda reserves without waiting to be drafted.
I doubt that the war would have attained its monstrous dimensions
without the massive support of Leftists-but, which made it possible to
form a "wall to wall consensus ", ignoring the protest of the consistent
peace camp. This consensus carried away the Meretz party, whose guru
Amos Oz is, and Peace Now, in whose mass rallies Amos Oz used to be the
main speaker (when they were still able to stage mass rallies).
Some people are now pretending that this group was really against the
war. To whit: some days before the end they published a second
tripartite ad, this time calling for its termination. At the same time,
Meretz and Peace Now also changed course. But not one of them apologized
or showed remorse for their prior support for the killing and
devastation. Their new position was: the war was indeed very good, but
now the time has come to put an end to it.
WHAT IS the logic of this position?
The government decided on the attack in apparent response to the action
of Hizbullah, which captured two Israeli soldiers on the Israeli side of
the border and proposed exchanging them for Lebanese prisoners held in
Israel. In this action, several comrades of the captured soldiers were
killed, and some more soldiers died when their tank hit a mine while
pursuing the captors on the Lebanese side of the border.
The Israeli public reacted, of course, with fury and cries for revenge.
But one would have expected intellectuals, and especially "leftist"
ones, to keep a cool head, even - and perhaps especially - during times
of emotional upheaval. In similar circumstances, even Ariel Sharon
avoided extreme reactions and agreed to exchange prisoners.
Those who did not possess the courage for that ("oz" in Hebrew means
strength and courage), or those who really believed that the Hizbullah
action must be met with a strong reaction, could have justified a
limited military reprisal. On that day it was legitimate to join those
who demanded such a reasonable reaction. But already after 48 hours, it
was clear that the reaction was not proportional but massive. It was not
designed to "send a message" to Hizbullah and all the Lebanese people
that such a provocation would not go unpunished. It had quite different
aims.
On the second or third day of the war, it was already quite clear to any
thinking person - and don't intellectuals pride themselves on being just
that? - that this was a real war, which went far beyond the problem of
the two captured soldiers. The systematic bombardment of the Lebanese
infrastructure bore witness to the fact that it was prepared well in
advance and that its aim was the annihilation of Hizbullah and the
changing of the political realities in Lebanon. For that it was enough
to listen to the declarations of Olmert, Peretz and Halutz.
THAT WAS the real test of the intellectuals. One can forgive them for
their first reaction. One can say that they were carried away, as
happens to people at the beginning of a war. One can say that they did
not understand the context (a terrible accusation, when thrown in the
face of intellectuals). But from the third day on, such justifications
and excuses do not stand up anymore.
The army chiefs did not hide the horrible devastation they were causing
in Lebanon - on the contrary, they boasted about it. It was clear that
appalling suffering was being caused to hundreds of thousands, that
civilians were being killed in large numbers, that many, many people
were losing all their possessions in the villages and towns that were
being systematically destroyed. At the same time, great suffering was
caused to the population of Northern Israel.
How could writers with a conscience, and even more so "leftists" with a
humane outlook, keep quiet while these atrocities were being committed?
How could they go on serving the propaganda machine of the war?
True, the writers could not know that already on the sixth day of the
war the army chiefs had told the government that all achievable aims of
the war had by now been achieved, and that nothing more could be
attained (such as the return of the prisoners, the restoration of the
army's deterring power, the disarming of Hizbullah etc.) In other words,
that even from a purely military point of view, there was no point
continuing the horror, which nevertheless went on for another 27 days
and nights. But if any protest from the famous writers, even a faint
one, had been heard, it could have induced the political and military
leaders to think again. But there was no such protest.
When the writers did wake up after all, in the 5th (fifth!) week of the
war, and called for its termination, it was too late. There was no need
for them anymore. The cumbersome machinery of the UN was already engaged
in achieving the cessation of hostilities.
One tragic event was the death in combat of David Grossman's son, Uri,
in those last hours of the war.
WHAT CAUSED the "Left-but" to behave like that?
One can find superficial reasons. It is very hard for leftists to rise
up against a government in which the Labor party plays an important
role. That was also true in 2000, when the Labor leader, Ehud Barak,
wrecked the Camp David summit and returned with the fatal slogan: "We
have no partner! There is no one to talk with!"
But that was not true in the First Lebanon War, in 1982, when the Likud
was in power. Because even then the "Left-but", under the leadership of
Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin, did support the war. During the siege of
Beirut, Rabin was the guest of Sharon, and, standing on the ruins,
proposed cutting off the supply of water and medicines to the population
of the besieged Western part of the city (where I was meeting with
Yasser Arafat at the same time). Only after the third week of the war,
did Peace Now join the protest against it.
After the Sabra and Shatila massacre, Peace Now called for the protest
rally on which its reputation has rested since - the rally with the
fabled 400 thousand protesters. That was its brightest spot and the
beginning of its eclipse. Because, in order to assure the dimensions of
the demonstration, Peace Now made a pact - not with the devil, but with
hypocrisy. In return for the help of the Labor Party, they invited Peres
and Rabin to be the main speakers - in spite of the fact that on the eve
of the war, the two had met with Menachem Begin and publicly requested
him to invade Lebanon.
BUT THERE are more profound causes for the behavior of the "Left-but" in
times of war.
From the beginning of the Jewish Labor Movement in the country, the Left
has suffered from an internal contradiction: it was both socialist and
nationalist. Of the two components, nationalism was by far the more
important. Therefore, membership in the trade union organization (Histadrut)
was based on a strictly national classification: not a single Arab was
allowed to become a member in the body whose official name was "The
General Organization of the Hebrew Workers in Eretz-Israel". Only years
after the foundation of the State of Israel were Arabs allowed to join.
One of the most important tasks of the Histadrut was to prevent by all
means, including violence, the employment of Arabs in Jewish working
places. For that, blood was shed.
That is true also for the most glorious of socialist creations: the
kibbutz. No Arab was ever allowed to become a member. That was no
accident: the kibbutzim saw themselves not only as a realization of a
socialist dream, but also as fortresses in the Jewish struggle for the
country. The creation of a new kibbutz, like Hanita on the Lebanese
border in 1938, was celebrated as a national victory.
The most leftist part of the kibbutz movement, Hashomer Hatsa'ir, (the
basis of the late Mapam party, now Meretz) had an official slogan: "For
Zionism, Socialism and the Brotherhood of Peoples". The order was not
accidental, either: it expressed the real priorities. Hashomer Hatsa'ir
did indeed adore Stalin, "the sun of the peoples", until his death, but
its main creations were the settlements, generally on land bought from
rich absentee landowners, after the Fellahin, who had tended them for
generations, had been evicted. After the founding of Israel, the
Hashomer Hatza'ir kibbutzim were settled on the lands of the refugees
and lands expropriated from the Arab citizens of Israel proper. The
kibbutz Bar'am is sitting on the land of the village Bir'am, from which
the Arab inhabitants were evicted after the end of the fighting in 1948.
Much Zionism, very little Brotherhood of Peoples.
In every real test, this internal contradiction of the "Zionist Left"
(as they like to call themselves) becomes obvious. That is the root of
the split personality of the "Left-but".
When the guns are roaring and the flag goes up the pole, the "Left-but"
stands at attention and salutes.
More Features |
