Those Who Forget the Past (63 page)

AMOS OZ

Two Middle East Wars

TWO PALESTINIAN-ISRAELI WARS have erupted in this region. One is the Palestinian nation's war for its freedom from occupation and for its right to independent statehood. Any decent person ought to support this cause. The second war is waged by fanatical Islam, from Iran to Gaza and from Lebanon to Ramallah, to destroy Israel and drive the Jews out of their land. Any decent person ought to abhor this cause.

Yasir Arafat and his men are running both wars simultaneously, pretending they are one. The suicide killers evidently make no distinction. Much of the worldwide bafflement about the Middle East, much of the confusion among the Israelis themselves, stems from the overlap between these two wars. Decent peace seekers, in Israel and elsewhere, are often drawn into simplistic positions. They either defend Israel's continued occupation of the West Bank and Gaza by claiming that Israel has been targeted by Muslim holy war ever since its foundation in 1948, or else they vilify Israel on the grounds that nothing but the occupation prevents a just and lasting peace. One simplistic argument allows Palestinians to kill all Israelis on the basis of their natural right to resist occupation. An equally simplistic counterargument allows Israelis to oppress all Palestinians because an all-out Islamic jihad has been launched against them.

Two wars are being fought in this region. One is a just war, and the other is both unjust and futile.

Israel must step down from the war on the Palestinian territories. It must begin to end occupation and evacuate the Jewish settlements that were deliberately thrust into the depths of Palestinian lands. Its borders must be drawn, unilaterally if need be, upon the logic of demography and the moral imperative to withdraw from governing a hostile population.

But would an end to occupation terminate the Muslim holy war against Israel? This is hard to predict. If jihad comes to an end, both sides would be able to sit down and negotiate peace. If it does not, we would have to seal and fortify Israel's logical border, the demographic border, and keep fighting for our lives against fanatical Islam.

If, despite simplistic visions, the end of occupation will not result in peace, at least we will have one war to fight rather than two. Not a war for our full occupancy of the holy land, but a war for our right to live in a free and sovereign Jewish state in part of that land. A just war, a no-alternative war. A war we will win. Like any people who were ever forced to fight for their very homes and freedom and lives.

 

 

1
http://www.sicmuse.com/weblog/

2
Just as this book was going to press, I had an interesting discussion with Jonathan Alter, the
Newsweek
and
Washington Monthly
writer. He suggested there are two types of anti-Semitic utterances: those that come from an almost unconscious resort to a preexisting external “template,” one such as the
Protocols,
and those that come from within, where they are embedded in the consciousness of the utterer like a “virus” (his word), or meme. It's important to remember: just as not all Jews are alike, neither are all anti-Semites.

3
That was what I found so fascinating in Dr. David Zangen's account. He was someone who was an eyewitness in Jenin, now witnessing the unveiling of a film that would perpetrate the lie about Jenin: a slick, deceptive propaganda “documentary” that would soon be shown throughout the world. It was as if he were there to watch the composition of the
Protocols
. He seeks to speak the truth, knowing it may be too late, and is shouted down. Jenin is one of a number of moments that you will find described from various perspectives by various authors herein, such as the incident at San Francisco State University and the Egyptian TV dramatization of the
Protocols
. I don't consider these recurrences repetitious; I'd call them cumulative testimony to the iconic status these events attained, and the grim reality they represented.

4
There are similar arguments over whether “Holocaust” is the preferable term, as opposed to “Shoah” (Hebrew for “destruction”), “Final Solution,” or just plain “genocide.” I have some reservations about the sacralizing origin of “Holocaust” (Greek for “burnt offering in a religious ritual”) but have gone with it because it has become the most familiar, and now historically specific, usage for Hitler's crime.

5
I suspect this is why Robert Jan van Pelt, historian of Auschwitz, prefers the term “negationism” to “Holocaust denial.” Negationism is a cynical, knowing attempt to erase something that happened, while “denial” pretends to believe it never happened at all.

6
www.memri.org/

7
As Christopher Caldwell put it recently, “Land once ceded is hard to reclaim; peace can be revoked by merely changing one's mind.”

8
News report, November 21, 2003: “Israeli Deputy Chief of Staff Ashkenazi warns: ‘Iranian nuclear threat to Israel is a matter of time.' ”

9
It has been said that the Arab states can lose a thousand wars and still survive; Israel will not survive if it loses one.

10
Beyond
Belief: The American Press and the Coming of the Holocaust, 1933–1945.
See also
The Terrible Secret: The Suppression of the Truth About Hitler's Holocaust,
by Walter Laqueur, as well as Wyman and Medoff 's
A Race Against Death.
In his new book,
The Return of Anti-Semitism,
Gabriel Schoenfeld calls the phenomenon “anti-Semitism denial.”

11
Daniel Gordis's piece captures the emotional reality of those living under this threat.

12
See Hitler's “Table Talk,” October 24, 1941.

13
See Yehuda Bauer's important challenge to the “mystifiers” in “Is the Holocaust Explicable?,” originally published in the journal
Holocaust and Genocide Studies
and reprinted in
Rethinking the Holocaust,
Yale University Press, 2001.

14
In an important British anthology called A New Anti-Semitism? Debating Judeophobia in 21
^st
-Century Britain (ed. by Paul Iganski and Barry Kosmin), the source of Jonathan Freedland's essay.

15
In November 2003 the U.K. Political Cartoon Society gave its annual first prize to a depiction (in The Independent) of a bloodthirsty Ariel Sharon biting off the bloody head of a Palestinian child. “Mere” anti-Zionism or repulsive anti-Semitism?

16
I had sought to reprint herein the whole text of Ms. Klein's important caution to the Left, about “all the recent events I've gone to where anti-Muslim violence was rightly condemned, but no mention made about attacks on Jewish synagogues, cemeteries and community centers,” but permission was not granted.

17
This enrages certain figures on the Left, whose most fervent political belief seems to be that they've always been
right,
ever since, as undergraduates, they accepted Marxism as a “science of history,” and see no need to reexamine this premise as more genocidal history emerges. There are some, however, such as Tony Judt, who
will
concede that such history is “the demon in the family closet of the Left.” It's no accident that Harvey Klehr and John Earl Haynes call their account of the response of Left academics to Marxist genocide
In Denial
. They could have called it
It Wasn't Important
.

18
Could it be, as one of Roth's characters suggests in
Operation Shylock,
that a better model for anti-Semitism than template or virus might be alcoholism, which has components of organic disease and psychological syndrome? (You can see it in the way some anti-Semites literally seem to get drunk on their hatred.) Roth offers (apparently) in jest one character's notion that the only way anti-Semitism can be cured is by a quintessentially modern self-help solution: the twelve-step program. And he gives us, in the novel, the steps he suggests for “Anti-Semites Anonymous.” Step One: “We admit that we are haters and that hatred has ruined our lives.” If only.

19
And Wieseltier's dissection (in the October 27, 2003, issue of
The New Republic
) of Tony Judt's proposal, in
The New York Review of Books,
to dismantle the Jewish state was Wieseltier at his best.

20
The single most pessimistic remark on this subject may be the one uttered by the Max von Sydow character in
Hannah and Her Sisters
. Denouncing Holocaust documentaries on TV, he says, “Given what people are, the question is: Why doesn't it happen more
often
? Of course it does, in subtler forms.”

21
The whole text will appear in a forthcoming MEMRI anthology.

22
Well-tempered optimism, alas. The morning I first reviewed this draft, a report appeared in
The New York Sun,
which described the dramatic depiction of the ritual-murder “blood libel” on Hizbollah TV, based in Lebanon, broadcast throughout the Arab world. The drama depicted “the murder of a 12-year-old Christian boy to make the unleavened bread” for a Jewish ritual.

23
Senator Jadwiga Stolarska, in the Polish Senate, September 13, 2001. Cited in Anna Bikont, “Seen from Jedwabne,”
Yad Vashem Studies
XXX, 2002, p. 8.

24
Norman Davies,
Europe: A History
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996); reviewed by Tony Judt,
The New Republic,
October 27, 1997.

25
Translated by the Middle East Media Research Institute, available at www. memri.org.

26
Typical is the initiative at Princeton; see www.princetondivest.org/faculty.htm.

27
In a December 2001 lecture delivered in Beirut, Lebanon, Finkelstein likened Israeli actions to “Nazi practices” during World War II, albeit with some added “novelties to the Nazi experiments.”

28
Had the Observer's narrow columns permitted, and had I had input into the original headline, it would have read: “Second Holocaust”? Roth's Phrase Isn't Necessarily Novelistic Fantasy Anymore.”

29
[ellipsis in original]

30
In his “Hitler Is Dead” piece, Leon Wieseltier omits the words before the asterisk in this sentence. Just thought you'd like to know.

31
The evidence has been abundantly documented. In Commentary, see, for example, Hillel Halkin, “The Return of Anti-Semitism” (February 2002); Gabriel Schoenfeld, “Israel and the Anti-Semites” (June 2002); and Michel Gurfinkiel, “France's Jewish Problem” (July–August 2002).

32
Gahr subsequently sent an e-mail to David Horowitz (who has denied the attack on Weyrich was the reason Gahr is gone from FrontPage), in which Gahr states: “I know full well that Weyrich has never advocated, suggested or implied that anybody should harm Jews.”

33
This subtitle is my addition for this excerpt; it was not in van Pelt's original.

34
[Auschwitz commandant Rudolf Höss—
ed.
]

35
Torah-based commentary on current events criticizing Israel, by a rabbinical student, Jill]

36
As I write, fresh news arrives—evidence of the fulfillment of one martyr's hope. An Israeli doctor and his twenty-year-old daughter have this day been blown up together in a café, where they had gone for a father-daughter talk on the eve of the young woman's marriage. She had been devoting her year of national service to the care of children with cancer; her ambition was to study medicine for the sake of such children. Her father was an eminent and remarkable physician, the tireless head of a hospital emergency room which tends the victims of terror attacks. He had just returned from the United States, where he was instructing American doctors in the life-saving emergency techniques he had pioneered. Father and daughter were buried on what was to have been the daughter's wedding day.

AFTERWORD

CYNTHIA OZICK

The Modern
Hep! Hep! Hep!

WE THOUGHT IT WAS finished. The ovens are long cooled, the anti-vermin gas dissipated into purifying clouds, cleansed air, nightmarish fable. The cries of the naked, decades gone, are mute; the bullets splitting throats and breasts and skulls, the human waterfall of bodies tipping over into the wooded ravine at Babi Yar, are no more than tedious footnotes on aging paper. The deportation ledgers, with their scrupulous lists of names of the doomed, what are they now? Museum artifacts. The heaps of eyeglasses and children's shoes, the hills of human hair, lie disintegrating in their display cases, while only a little distance away the visitors' cafeteria bustles and buzzes: sandwiches, Cokes, the waiting tour buses.

We thought it was finished. In the middle of the twentieth century, and surely by the end of it, we thought it was finished, genuinely finished, the bloodlust finally slaked. We thought it was finished, that heads were hanging—the heads of the leaders and schemers on gallows, the heads of the bystanders and onlookers in shame. The Topf company, manufacturer of the ovens, went belatedly out of business, belatedly disgraced and shamed. Out of shame German publishers of Nazi materials concealed and falsified the past. Out of shame Paul de Man, lauded and eminent Yale intellectual, concealed his early Nazi lucubrations. Out of shame Mircea Eliade, lauded and eminent Chicago intellectual, concealed his membership in Romania's Nazi-linked Iron Guard. Out of shame memorials to the murdered rose up. Out of shame synagogues were rebuilt in the ruins of November 9, 1938, the night of fire and pogrom and the smashing of windows. Out of shame those who were hounded like prey and fled for their lives were invited back to their native villages and towns and cities, to be celebrated as successful escapees from the murderous houndings of their native villages and towns and cities. Shame is salubrious: it acknowledges inhumanity, it admits to complicity, it induces remorse. Naïvely, foolishly, stupidly, hopefully, a-historically, we thought that shame and remorse—world-wide shame, worldwide remorse—would endure. Naïvely, foolishly, stupidly, hopefully, a-historically, we thought that the cannibal hatred, once quenched, would not soon wake again.

It has awakened.

In “The Modern Hep! Hep! Hep! ” — an 1878 essay reflecting on the condition of the Jews—George Eliot noted that it would be “difficult to find a form of bad reasoning about [ Jews] which had not been heard in conversation or been admitted to the dignity of print.” She was writing in a period politically not unlike our own, Disraeli ascendant in England, Jews prominent in liberal parties both in Germany and France. Yet her title points to something far deadlier than mere “bad reasoning.”
Hep!
was the cry of the Crusaders as they swept through Europe, annihilating one Jewish community after another; it stood for
Hierosolyma est perdita
(Jerusalem is destroyed), and was taken up again by anti-Jewish rioters in Germany in 1819. In this single raging syllable, past and future met, and in her blunt bold enunciation of it, George Eliot was joining bad reasoning—i.e., canard and vilification—to its consequences: violence and murder. The Jews, she wrote, have been “regarded and treated very much as beasts hunted for their skins,” and the curse on them, the charge of deicide, was counted a justification for hindering them from pursuing agriculture and handicrafts; for marking them out as execrable figures by a peculiar dress; for torturing them . . . spitting at them and pelting them; for taking it certain that they killed and ate babies, poisoned the wells, and took pains to spread the plague; for putting it to them whether they would be baptised or burned, and not failing to burn and massacre them when they were obstinate; but also for suspecting them of disliking their baptism when they had got it, and then burning them in punishment of their insincerity; finally, for hounding them by tens on tens of thousands from their homes where they had found shelter for centuries, and inflicting on them the horrors of a new exile and a new dispersion. All this to avenge the Saviour of mankind, or else to compel these stiff-necked people to acknowledge a Master whose servants showed such beneficent effects of His teaching.

As an anti-Semitic yelp,
Hep!
is long out of fashion. In the eleventh century it was already a substitution and a metaphor: Jerusalem meant Jews, and “Jerusalem is destroyed” was, when knighthood was in flower, an incitement to pogrom. Today, the modern
Hep!
appears in the form of Zionism, Israel, Sharon. And the connection between vilification and the will to undermine and endanger Jewish lives is as vigorous as when the howl of
Hep!
was new. The French ambassador to Britain, his tongue unbuttoned in a London salon, hardly thinks to cry Hep! ; instead, he speaks of “that shitty little country.” European and British scholars and academicians, their Latin gone dry, will never cry Hep! ; instead they call for the boycott of Israeli scholars and academicians.

Even Martin Luther (though his Latin was good enough) failed to cry
Hep!
Instead, he inquired:

What is to be done with this wicked, accursed race, which can no longer be tolerated? The Talmud and the rabbis teach that it is no sin to kill Christians, to break an oath to Christians, to rob and plunder them. The one and only aim of the Jews is to weaken Christianity. They have poisoned the springs, they have murdered Christian children for their blood for their rites. They are becoming too prosperous in Germany, and in consequence have become insolent. Then what is to be done? Their synagogues must be reduced to ashes, for the honor of God and of Christianity. Christians are to destroy the houses of Jews, and drive them all under one roof, or into a stable like gypsies. All prayer-books and copies of the Talmud are to be wrested from them by force, and their praying and even the use of God's name is to be forbidden to them under pain of death. Their rabbis are to be forbidden to teach. The authorities are to prohibit Jews from traveling, and to bar the roads against them. Their money must be taken from them. Able-bodied Jews and Jewesses are to be put to forced labor, and kept strictly employed with the flail, the axe, the spade. Christians are not to show any tender mercy to Jews. The emperor and the princes must be urged to expel them from the country without delay. If I had power over the Jews, I would assemble the best and most learned among them and, under penalty of having their tongues cut out, would force them to accept the Christian teaching that there is not
one
God, but
three
Gods. I say to you, the Jews do great evil in the land. If they could kill us all, they would gladly do so, aye, and often do it, especially those who profess to be physicians— they know all that is known about medicine in Germany; they can give poison to a man of which he will die in an hour, or in ten or twenty years; they thoroughly understand this art.

So much for sixteenth-century Hep!— a reprise, under the guise of Reformation, of three hundred years of abusive Christian power. But it foreshadows twentieth-century
Hep!
as well: the flaming synagogues, the prohibitions, the expropriations, the looting, the forced labor, the phantasmagorical lies, the Stalinist doctors' plot, the bloodthirsty reversals of intent: “if they could kill us all, they would gladly do so.”

Luther came late to these pious inspirations. Nearly all had their precedents in the Church he renounced; and even the medieval Church practiced mimicry. It was Pope Innocent III who implemented the yellow badge of ignominy (Hitler was no innovator, except as to gas chambers)—yet Innocent too was innocent of originality, since he took the idea from Prince Abu-Yusef Almansur, a Moroccan Muslim ruler of the thirteenth century. Post-Enlightenment France may be known for its merciless persecution of a guiltless Dreyfus, and for the anti-Jewish rioting it set off; and, more recently, for the gendarmes who arrested and deported the Jews of Paris with a zeal equal to that of the Germans. But Paris had seen anti-Jewish mobs before—for instance, in June of 1242, when twenty-four cart-loads of Talmuds were set afire in a public square. And while elsewhere in France, and all through the Rhineland, the Crusaders were busy at their massacres, across the Channel the Archbishop of Canterbury was issuing a decree designed to prevent the Jews of England from having access to food.

All this, let it be noted, preceded the barbarities of the Inquisition: the scourgings, the burnings, the confiscations, the expulsions.

Any attempt to set down the record, early and late, of Christian violence against Jews can only be a kind of pointillism—an atrocity here, another there, and again another. The nineteenth-century historian Heinrich Graetz (as rationalist in temperament as Gibbon) summed up the predicament of Jews across the whole face of Europe:

If Jewish history were to follow chronicles, memorial books and martyrologies, its pages would be filled with bloodshed, it would consist of horrible exhibitions of corpses, and it would stand forth to make accusation against a doctrine which taught princes and nations to become common executioners and hangmen. For, from the thirteenth to the sixteenth century, the persecutions and massacres of the Jews increased with frightful rapidity and intensity, and only alternated with inhuman decrees issued by both Church and the state, the aim and purport of all of which were to humiliate the Jews, to brand them with calumny and to drive them to suicide. . . . The nations of Europe emulated one another in exercising their cruelty upon the Jews. . . . In Germany they were slain by thousands. . . . Every year martyrs fell, now in Weissenburg, Magdeburg, Arnstadt, now in Coblenz, Sinzig, Erfurt, and other places. In Sinzig all the members of the congregation were burnt alive on a Sabbath in their synagogue. There were German Christian families who boasted that they had burnt Jews, and in their pride assumed the name of
Judenbrater
(Jew-roaster).

And all this, let it again be noted, before the Shoah; before the Czarist pogroms and the Czarist fabrication of the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”; before the exclusions, arrests, and gulag brutalities of the Soviet Union; before the shooting of the Soviet Yiddish writers in the basement of Moscow's Lubyanka prison; before the rise of contemporary Islamist demonization of Jews; before the eight-decades-long Arab assault on Jewish national aspiration and sovereignty; before the Palestinian cult of suicide bombing. Anti-Semitism feeds on itself from continent to continent, from Iceland to Japan: it scarcely requires living Jews. Its source is commonly taken to be the two supersessionist Scriptures that derive from Judaism—in Christianity, the Jews' cry (in the Gospel of Matthew) of “His blood be on us and on our children,” the fount of the venomous deicide curse; in Islam, the unwillingness of Jews to follow Mohammed in the furtherance of a latter-day faith which accused the Hebrew Bible of distorting the biblical narratives that appear, Islam claims, more authoritatively and genuinely in the Koran.

But anti-Semitism originated in neither Christianity nor Islam. Its earliest appearance burst out in Egypt, in the fourth century B.C.E., during the reign of Ptolemy II, when Manetho, an Egyptian priest, in a polemic directed against the biblical account in Genesis and Exodus, described a people who “came from Jerusalem” as the descendants of a mob of lepers. Against the Hebrew text, which records Joseph as a wise and visionary governor, Manetho charged that Joseph defiled the shrines and statues of the gods and set fire to villages and towns. Nor did Moses liberate the Hebrews and bring them, under divine guidance, out of Egypt, from slavery to freedom. These offspring of lepers, Manetho declared, were ignominiously expelled, having savagely despoiled the country for thirteen years. Such calumnies soon infiltrated Hellenic literature. The Greeks, detecting no plastic representation of the divine order, were quick to name the Jews atheists—lazy atheists, since once in seven days they refrained from labor. The Greek scholar Mnaseas of Patara recycled an Egyptian myth (traces of it later turned up in Plutarch) which asserted that the Temple in Jerusalem harbored the golden head of an ass, the sole object of the Jews' worship. Another version had the Jews praying before an image of Moses seated on an ass while displaying a book containing laws of hatred for all humanity.

Greek enmity was most acutely encapsulated in the canard spread by Apion, whose contribution to the history of antiSemitism is the infamously enduring blood libel. In its earliest form a Greek, captured by Jews, is taken to the Temple, fattened, and then killed; his entrails are ritually eaten in conjunction with an oath of hatred toward Greeks. Christian mythology altered Greek to Christian, usually a child, whose blood was said to be drained at Passover for the purpose of being baked into matzah. (A curious projection of the Eucharist's draught of blood.) From its Christian source, the blood libel leached into Muslim societies. It surfaced most recently in a Saudi newspaper, which fantasized Muslim blood in Purim cakes. Mustafa Tlal, the Syrian defense minister, is the author of
The Matzah of Zion,
which presents the 1841 Damascus blood libel as an established “Jewish ritual.” And in a writing contest sponsored by the Palestinian Education Ministry, the winning entry, by a tenth-grader, described a Mother's Day gift an Israeli soldier brings to his mother: “a bottle of the blood of a Palestinian child he has murdered.”

Current anti-Semitism, accelerating throughout advanced and sophisticated Europe—albeit under the rubric of anti-Zionism, and masked by the deceptive lingo of human rights— purports to eschew such primitivism. After all, Nazism and Stalinism are universally condemned; anti-Judaism is seen as obscurantist medievalism; the Vatican's theology of deicide was nullified four decades ago; Lutherans, at least in America, vigorously dissociate themselves from their founder's execrations; and whatever the vestiges of Europe's unregenerate (and often Holocaust-denying) Right may think, its vociferous Left would no more depart from deploring the Holocaust than it would be willing to be deprived of its zeal in calumniating the Jewish state. It is easy enough to shed a tear or two for the shed and slandered blood of the Jews of the past; no one will praise Torquemada, or honor Goebbels. But to stand up for truth-telling in the present, in a mythologizing atmosphere of pervasive defamation and fabrication, is not a job for cowards.