By
Uri Avnery, 6.9.06
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.