By Uri Avnery, 9.9.06
IN EVERY language there
are some words that cannot be properly translated into any other. It seems that
they express something intimately connected with the speakers of that language
and rooted in their history, traditions and reality. Such words become
international expressions, appearing in other languages in their original form.
For example, the German word "Schadenfreude". Or the English word "gentleman" and the American word 'business". Or the Russian word "pogrom" (originally meaning devastation). Or the Japanese word "kamikaze" (divine wind, the title given to suicide bombers). Or the Mexican "manana" and the similar Arabic "bukra" (both meaning tomorrow. The difference between them? The joke says: Bukra is not so urgent.) And, lately, the Palestinian "intifada".
The
most prominent Hebrew addition to this international lexicon is
"chutzpah", a word that has no equivalent in any other language. Some
English words may come close (impertinence, cheek, insolence, impudence), but
none conveys the full meaning of this Hebrew-Yiddish expression. It seems that
it reflects something that is especially characteristic of Jewish reality,
which was transferred to the State of Israel, which defines itself as a
"Jewish State".
THE
PRESIDENT of Israel is supposed to symbolize the common denominator of all our
citizens. Therefore it is proper for him to symbolize this trait, too.
And
indeed, it is difficult to imagine a more quintessential chutzpah than the
behavior of His Excellency, President Moshe Katzav. He is the supreme symbol of
Israeli chutzpah.
Katzav
has been accused of the sexual harassment of several women who worked for him
in the President's office, as well as in his earlier public offices. At least
three of them accused him of rape.
Such
accusations are, of course, far from a conviction. The investigation is still
going on. The President, like any other citizen, must be presumed innocent
until found guilty in court. It is quite possible that in the end he will not even
be indicted, or - if this happens - that he will be acquitted, though perhaps
only for lack of proof.
But
that is not the point. The point is that the President of the state, like
Caesar's wife, must be above suspicion. It is sufficient that there be
reasonable grounds for suspecting the President - such as a criminal
investigation - for him to resign his office. If he is later acquitted, so much
the better.
Let
it be clear: I have nothing against Moshe Katzav personally. On the contrary, I
have praised him on TV for his readiness, in spite of belonging to the Likud,
to listen to Arab citizens. I once brought to him a delegation of leaders from
the West Bank, and he treated them with the utmost courtesy.
But
as a citizen of Israel I am ashamed. The affair in which he is involved
dishonors the office and, indirectly, the entire state. "Citizen Number
1" has become the butt of jokes.
One
thing can be said in his favor: in his chutzpah, too, he symbolizes the state,
or, at least, the ruling elite.
THE
KING of chutzpah, its very personification, is the Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert.
If
he had a gram of shame, the minimum of decency, he would have resigned the day
after the cease-fire. There is no need for an inquiry to decide the obvious:
that he is guilty of a long line of disasters that have caused the death of a
thousand human beings, including almost 200 Israelis - men, women, old people
and children.
It
can be debated of what exactly to accuse Olmert: the starting of an unnecessary
and hopeless war (as I believe), or "only" the incompetent conduct of
the campaign from start to finish. But any one of these is enough for a decent
person to go home and wait there for the results of the inquiries.
But
Olmert does not even dream of doing that. He continues as if nothing has
happened. In the US this is called "stonewalling". He stands there
naked like the emperor in the children's story. All the promises he made only a
few months ago, during the election campaign, have dissipated like smoke in the
wind. He has no political plan left. He has not even the ability to carry out
any plan, if he had one. He has no time to think about anything, except his
political survival.
Winston
Churchil once said about a former British Prime Minister: "The right
honorable gentleman sometimes stumbles on the truth, but he always hurries on
as if nothing has happened." Olmert, similarly, hurries on his way.
He
objects to the investigation of the war through the instruments prescribed by
law. He tries to set up a whitewash investigation by an unquestioningly loyal
group chosen by himself. He goes on using every opportunity to make another of
his banal, cliché-laden speeches, which do not contain a single word of truth,
or even of interest.
That
is chutzpah. Not chutzpah in the harmless, jocular sense often signified by
this word, but a dangerous, rude and aggressive chutzpah. In practice, the
state remains without leadership. It is unable to take bold decisions in a
situation which demands them. His personal survival overshadows everything
else, from the problem of the prisoner exchange to the daily killing of
Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza.
It
must be stated again and again: the
state is not private property. It is not some booty that belongs to whoever has
succeeded in laying his hands on it, accidentally or not. It is a national
treasure entrusted by the citizens to a particular politician, which must be
given back by him if he is proven unable or incompetent to exercise his duties.
Any other attitude is chutzpah.
NO
NEED to waste words on the chutzpah of Amir Peretz. It speaks for itself.
He
bears personal responsibility for all the blunders of the war, from the
unthinking decision to start it, up to the last military decision. From the
boastful beginning to the bitter end he showed a shocking inadequacy. A decent
person would have resigned the moment the guns fell silent. His refusal is
chutzpah.
The
chutzpah of Peretz is almost bizarre. He achieved political power on the basis
of his explicit promise to carry out basic social reforms. Not only did he
ignore this promise, he did the very opposite. His effort to continue now as if
nothing has happened and even to present himself as a social leader is
pathetic.
BUT
EVEN these three champions - Katzav, Olmert and Peretz - pale in comparison
with Dan Halutz.
Together
with likeminded people I demonstrated opposite the Ministry of Defense when he
was sworn in as Chief-of-Staff. It was clear to us that such a person, who had
behaved as he did behave and who had said what he did say was not fit to lead
the Israeli army. But even we did not foresee in our wildest imagination that
in such a short time, and in such an extreme manner, he would confirm our
darkest forebodings.
From
a purely military point of view, Halutz is the greatest failure in the annals
of the Israeli army. From a human point of view, he justified the prophecy that
he has a brilliant future in the court of The Hague. From a political point of
view, his understanding equals that of a primary school pupil (if the pupil community
will excuse me.)
The
boastfulness of the Air force, the arrogance of an incompetent general, the
brutality of a person who is able to bring tragedy to hundreds of thousands
without batting an eyelid - all of these were exposed during the war.
As
has been published, he told the government on the sixth day of the war that
from that moment on there was no possibility of achieving anything more. Said
so and did not demand to stop, said so and went on with the killing and
destroying, day after day, night after night. On the eve of the cease-fire he
sent his soldiers into a militarily senseless, completely unnecessary
offensive, in which the lives of 33 of his soldiers were sacrificed.
But
Dan Halutz does not resign. It doesn't even enter his mind. This week, at a
meeting of former generals, accusations and even insults were slung at him, and
he did not budge.
A
decent person would have resigned at once. It is clear that an officer who has
failed in this manner, who is so much distrusted by the army, cannot carry out
the general overhaul demanded now - the replacing of the entire general Staff,
and especially the replacing of all the commanders who were in charge of the
campaign. Can a person who refuses to bear the responsibility for this entire
bungled campaign demand that his subordinates shoulder theirs?
When
chutzpah is the norm in the army - what chance is there for its rehabilitation?
I
KNOW, there are several arguments for keeping the champions of chutzpah in
office. There are no obvious alternatives. The bad may be replaced by worse.
Olmert's resignation may lead to new elections, in which the more extreme Right
may win. His resignation may also lead to the inclusion in the government of
Avigdor Liberman, compared to whom the Frenchman Le Pen and the Austrian Haider
are bleeding-heart liberals. Who can guess who and what might come after
Halutz?
All
these arguments are valid, but they must give way to one simple demand:
Chutzpah must not be allowed to reign. The acceptance of personal responsibility
by the directors of the government and the army is an essential feature of a
healthy society. It is a simple moral imperative, like the categorical
imperative of Kant, an imperative that does not allow for any compromise.
The
Talmud warns against "chutzpah towards heaven" (God). We must warn
against chutzpah towards civil society, the sovereign on earth.