Jews and Anti-Jews (Part 1)
By RUTH WISSE
JERUSALEM -- The day after Israel's failed assassination attempt on
Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi, a "deeply troubled" President Bush
let it be known that he did not think such attacks helped Israeli
security. He was concerned lest the strike undermine the momentum he
is trying to create for a "two-state" solution to the Palestinian
crisis, part of his larger effort to extend peace and democracy in the
Middle East. In response, the Jerusalem Post declared itself deeply
troubled, too -- by the failure of the said operation to eliminate the
man who directs terror operations in Gaza. The Post believed that the
American president would have done better to recognize the threat
Rantisi represents to American security.
The Jerusalem Post has a point. President Bush may understand more
clearly than his predecessors the nature of the threat to Israel's
security. The attacks of Sept. 11 brought home to him the similarities
between the two democracies. Along with most Americans, the Bush
administration now grasps how the freedoms of an open society leave it
vulnerable to assault. If America is duty-bound to strike the bases of
those who threaten its security, no matter how far they are from its
shores, then Israel, too, which constitutes the fighting front line in
the war against terror, must root out the terrorists within and along
its borders.
Yet the White House still cannot bring itself to admit the true nature
of the aggression against Israel. It still tends to treat the regional
crisis as "a conflict of two people over one land" that can be
resolved by the creation of a Palestinian state. According to this
view, since Jews and Arabs both lay claim to the same territory of
Israel-Palestine, some division of the territory between will bring
about a peaceful resolution. This is the assumption behind the "road
map" the president presented at the recent meetings in Egypt and
Jordan, inviting the Palestinians to halt their terror and Israel to
withdraw some of its settlements from the disputed lands.
Unfortunately, the Arab war against Israel is no more a territorial
conflict than was al Qaeda's strike against America, and it can no
more be resolved by the "road map" than anti-Americanism could be
appeased by ceding part of the U.S. to an Islamist enclave. From the
moment in 1947 when Jewish leaders accepted and Arab rulers rejected
the U.N. partition plan of Palestine, the Arab-Israeli conflict bore
no further likeness to more conventional territorial struggles. Arab
rulers defied the U.N. charter by denying the legitimacy of a member
state. Arab countries refused to acknowledge the existence of a single
Jewish land. Arab rulers did not object to Israel because it rendered
the Palestinians homeless. Rather, they ensured that the Palestinians
should remain homeless so that they could organize their politics
around opposition to Israel.
At any point during the past 55 years, Arab governments could have
helped the Palestinian Arabs settle down to a decent life. They could
have created the infrastructure of an autonomous Palestine on the West
Bank of the Jordan and the Gaza territory that Egypt controlled until
1967, or encouraged the resettlement of Palestinians in Jordan, which
constitutes the lion's share of the original mandate of Palestine.
Rather than fund the Palestine Liberation Organization to foment
terror against Israel they could have endowed Palestinian schools of
architecture, engineering, medicine and law. What Israel did for its
refugees from Arab lands, Arabs could have done much more sumptuously
for the Palestinians displaced by the same conflict. Instead, Arab
rulers cultivated generations of refugees in order to justify their
ongoing campaign against the "usurper."
***
This is hardly the first time that the Jews have served as the pretext
for a politics of opposition. To cite only the most notorious example
(whose outcome President and Mrs. Bush witnessed during their recent
tour of Auschwitz), Hitler used the supposedly illegitimate presence
of the Jews as the excuse for tightening control over all the
instruments of state. His promise to rid Germany of "the Jewish
vermin" ushered in an assault on democratic culture that gained
popular support by targeting an unpopular minority. Anti-Semitism
camouflaged the Nazi will to power and the imposition of totalitarian
controls: In the name of limiting the "influence" of the Jews, Hitler
delimited the power of the courts, the media, and the educational
system. As a young German named Sebastian Haffner noted at the time,
"[the Nazis] provoke a general discussion not about their own
existence, but about the right of their victims to exist." Suddenly,
the Nazis had everyone debating the question of the Jews rather than
questioning the legitimacy of the discriminatory laws against them.
In almost identical ways, the autocrats who govern Arab societies have
used the "Zionist entity" to deflect attention from the worst aspects
of their rule. The unwanted presence of the Jews became the rallying
point for internal dissatisfaction with the mounting problems of Arab
regimes. The drumbeat against Israel invited the world to debate the
iniquities of the Jews rather than question the legitimacy of the
attacks against them. This comparison is not intended to equate the
Germans with the Arabs, except in the ways that both exploited
anti-Semitism to achieve broader political goals. Both used the
alleged threat of "the Jews" to excuse their own failures.
Anti-Semitism in both situations linked otherwise warring groups of
the Left and Right.
The problem with anti-Semitism in its older and newer varieties is
that it seems to serve its patrons so well. Without question, Arab
rulers successfully deflected attention from their offenses by their
decades of war and propaganda against Israel. Even the liberal Western
media that might have been expected to support a besieged fellow
democracy have long since focused on alleged Israeli abuses instead of
on the abuses of their Arab accusers.
But, just as happened in Europe, the Arab obsession with Israel grew
increasingly destructive not only of its Jewish targets but also of
the sponsoring regimes. Attacking Jews consumed energy that should
have been directed at alleviating the misery of Arab subjects. Blaming
the Jews postponed democratization, which begins with people taking
responsibility for themselves.
Moreover, anti-Semitism metastasizes very quickly; its culture of
hatred and its appeal to violence cannot be contained. Although Arab
governments tried to direct the war against Israel according to their
political needs, Islamist and nationalist groups espousing the same
ideology sprang up independently, sometimes in defiance of government
control. Anti-Semitism morphed into anti-Americanism -- not because
America supported Israel but because America represented the same
challenges of an open, democratic, competitive society. The Jews'
function as a bulwark of democracy was determined by the despots who
tried to crush them. America did not so much fight on the side of the
Jews as find itself forced to tackle the anti-Jews.
***
It goes without saying that President Bush must subordinate other
considerations to America's security and interests. And Americans
obviously would be better served if there were no conflict in the
Middle East. Yet until Arab leaders give up the crutch of
anti-Semitism they can make no real progress toward responsible
self-government, and it is futile to pretend that obsession with
Israel is compatible with Palestinian independence. Rantisi greeted
the "road map" by organizing major attacks against Israel, which he
calls "our land, not the land of the Jews." America can't hope to win
its war against terror while ignoring some of its major perpetrators
and propagandists.
Ms. Wisse, a professor of Yiddish and comparative literature at
Harvard, is the author of "If I Am Not for Myself: The Liberal
Betrayal of the Jews" (Free Press, 2001).
URL for this article
click here
Jews and Anti-Jews (Part 2)
By RUTH WISSE
JERUSALEM -- The day after Israel's failed assassination attempt on
Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi, a "deeply troubled" President Bush
let it be known that he did not think such attacks helped Israeli
security. He was concerned lest the strike undermine the momentum he
is trying to create for a "two-state" solution to the Palestinian
crisis, part of his larger effort to extend peace and democracy in the
Middle East. In response, the Jerusalem Post declared itself deeply
troubled, too -- by the failure of the said operation to eliminate the
man who directs terror operations in Gaza. The Post believed that the
American president would have done better to recognize the threat
Rantisi represents to American security.
The Jerusalem Post has a point. President Bush may understand more
clearly than his predecessors the nature of the threat to Israel's
security. The attacks of Sept. 11 brought home to him the similarities
between the two democracies. Along with most Americans, the Bush
administration now grasps how the freedoms of an open society leave it
vulnerable to assault. If America is duty-bound to strike the bases of
those who threaten its security, no matter how far they are from its
shores, then Israel, too, which constitutes the fighting front line in
the war against terror, must root out the terrorists within and along
its borders.
Yet the White House still cannot bring itself to admit the true nature
of the aggression against Israel. It still tends to treat the regional
crisis as "a conflict of two people over one land" that can be
resolved by the creation of a Palestinian state. According to this
view, since Jews and Arabs both lay claim to the same territory of
Israel-Palestine, some division of the territory between will bring
about a peaceful resolution. This is the assumption behind the "road
map" the president presented at the recent meetings in Egypt and
Jordan, inviting the Palestinians to halt their terror and Israel to
withdraw some of its settlements from the disputed lands.
Unfortunately, the Arab war against Israel is no more a territorial
conflict than was al Qaeda's strike against America, and it can no
more be resolved by the "road map" than anti-Americanism could be
appeased by ceding part of the U.S. to an Islamist enclave. From the
moment in 1947 when Jewish leaders accepted and Arab rulers rejected
the U.N. partition plan of Palestine, the Arab-Israeli conflict bore
no further likeness to more conventional territorial struggles. Arab
rulers defied the U.N. charter by denying the legitimacy of a member
state. Arab countries refused to acknowledge the existence of a single
Jewish land. Arab rulers did not object to Israel because it rendered
the Palestinians homeless. Rather, they ensured that the Palestinians
should remain homeless so that they could organize their politics
around opposition to Israel.
At any point during the past 55 years, Arab governments could have
helped the Palestinian Arabs settle down to a decent life. They could
have created the infrastructure of an autonomous Palestine on the West
Bank of the Jordan and the Gaza territory that Egypt controlled until
1967, or encouraged the resettlement of Palestinians in Jordan, which
constitutes the lion's share of the original mandate of Palestine.
Rather than fund the Palestine Liberation Organization to foment
terror against Israel they could have endowed Palestinian schools of
architecture, engineering, medicine and law. What Israel did for its
refugees from Arab lands, Arabs could have done much more sumptuously
for the Palestinians displaced by the same conflict. Instead, Arab
rulers cultivated generations of refugees in order to justify their
ongoing campaign against the "usurper."
***
This is hardly the first time that the Jews have served as the pretext
for a politics of opposition. To cite only the most notorious example
(whose outcome President and Mrs. Bush witnessed during their recent
tour of Auschwitz), Hitler used the supposedly illegitimate presence
of the Jews as the excuse for tightening control over all the
instruments of state. His promise to rid Germany of "the Jewish
vermin" ushered in an assault on democratic culture that gained
popular support by targeting an unpopular minority. Anti-Semitism
camouflaged the Nazi will to power and the imposition of totalitarian
controls: In the name of limiting the "influence" of the Jews, Hitler
delimited the power of the courts, the media, and the educational
system. As a young German named Sebastian Haffner noted at the time,
"[the Nazis] provoke a general discussion not about their own
existence, but about the right of their victims to exist." Suddenly,
the Nazis had everyone debating the question of the Jews rather than
questioning the legitimacy of the discriminatory laws against them.
In almost identical ways, the autocrats who govern Arab societies have
used the "Zionist entity" to deflect attention from the worst aspects
of their rule. The unwanted presence of the Jews became the rallying
point for internal dissatisfaction with the mounting problems of Arab
regimes. The drumbeat against Israel invited the world to debate the
iniquities of the Jews rather than question the legitimacy of the
attacks against them. This comparison is not intended to equate the
Germans with the Arabs, except in the ways that both exploited
anti-Semitism to achieve broader political goals. Both used the
alleged threat of "the Jews" to excuse their own failures.
Anti-Semitism in both situations linked otherwise warring groups of
the Left and Right.
The problem with anti-Semitism in its older and newer varieties is
that it seems to serve its patrons so well. Without question, Arab
rulers successfully deflected attention from their offenses by their
decades of war and propaganda against Israel. Even the liberal Western
media that might have been expected to support a besieged fellow
democracy have long since focused on alleged Israeli abuses instead of
on the abuses of their Arab accusers.
But, just as happened in Europe, the Arab obsession with Israel grew
increasingly destructive not only of its Jewish targets but also of
the sponsoring regimes. Attacking Jews consumed energy that should
have been directed at alleviating the misery of Arab subjects. Blaming
the Jews postponed democratization, which begins with people taking
responsibility for themselves.
Moreover, anti-Semitism metastasizes very quickly; its culture of
hatred and its appeal to violence cannot be contained. Although Arab
governments tried to direct the war against Israel according to their
political needs, Islamist and nationalist groups espousing the same
ideology sprang up independently, sometimes in defiance of government
control. Anti-Semitism morphed into anti-Americanism -- not because
America supported Israel but because America represented the same
challenges of an open, democratic, competitive society. The Jews'
function as a bulwark of democracy was determined by the despots who
tried to crush them. America did not so much fight on the side of the
Jews as find itself forced to tackle the anti-Jews.
***
It goes without saying that President Bush must subordinate other
considerations to America's security and interests. And Americans
obviously would be better served if there were no conflict in the
Middle East. Yet until Arab leaders give up the crutch of
anti-Semitism they can make no real progress toward responsible
self-government, and it is futile to pretend that obsession with
Israel is compatible with Palestinian independence. Rantisi greeted
the "road map" by organizing major attacks against Israel, which he
calls "our land, not the land of the Jews." America can't hope to win
its war against terror while ignoring some of its major perpetrators
and propagandists.
Ms. Wisse, a professor of Yiddish and comparative literature at
Harvard, is the author of "If I Am Not for Myself: The Liberal
Betrayal of the Jews" (Free Press, 2001).
URL for this article
click here
