Time For the
Jews to Stop Being Tribal
By JONATHAN POWER
LONDON-- "If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle
us do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if
you wrong us shall we not revenge?" Shylock's lament (in
William Shakespeare's "Merchant of Venice") could be the
epitaph for Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel's beleaguered prime
minister. Through the fog of Netanyahu's war--a battle that
appears to rage just as fiercely against liberal-minded Jews
within israel as it does with the Palestinians
outside--there is the unbending conviction of a man who
believes absolutely that right is on the side of his deeply
wronged people in the historic divide between Jew and Arab.
To serve this cause he dispenses a bittersweet mixture of
justice and revenge. As Golda Meir and Menacham Begin
believed before him, not to seek compensation in blood and
territory for three millenia of wrongs is in some profound
way to forsake the deepest calling of one's religious
conviction.
It is a militancy of a deeply tribal kind that carries in
its certainties the deadly ingredients of irrationality and
unconditionality. It is uncompromising in goal, only
allowing for deviation as a tactical means of surmounting an
obstacle or foiling a countermove. It remains the religion
of the Old Testament, a part of their religious heritage
that most of Christendom has long sidelined, probably an
overwhelming majority of modern day Jews have diluted and,
it should be added, a good many Muslims too.
The truth is Netanyahu is a profoundly alienated figure.
His views on Israel's long-term mission is a minority one.
He does not command a majority in Israel to sabotage the
Oslo-negociated peace with the Palestinians. At best he has
a narrow majority (a mere 29,000 votes decided the election
in his favor) only to make a more watertight deal in terms
of ensuring Israel's long-term defences. Poll after poll
make clear an overwhelming majority of Israelis want a
durable live-and-let-live-peace with the Palestinians, as
respected neighbours.
Netanyahu's fervour, although it draws its militaristic
self-righteousness as much from the deep historical well of
the wrongs done to Jews by Christendom over centuries as it
does from the present hostility of the Muslim world, is now
totally out of step with the march of western civilization.
Aggressive tribal alignments are no longer acceptable. When
they do erupt as in ex-Yugoslavia there is a determined
effort to explain it away as Balkan marginalism, exacerbated
by years of communist misrule.
Thus, the Israelis have now to look deep into themselves
and decide not only do they want to make peace with
Palestine but do they want to be part and parcel of
contemporary western civilization, to which in art, music
and literature, not to mention economic and scientific
endeavour, they have over centuries contributed more than
their fair share? Or are they a tribal people from another
era, a Semitic people of the desert who live by the simple
rules of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth, who will
not countenance the greatest achievement of the twentieth
century that, after two terrible wars, there is now
discernible progress towards a practice of world order that
is defined more by law, arbitration and diplomacy than by
the sword.
Before President Bill Clinton came into office America,
through a long succession of presidents, had tried to be a
calming and civilizing influence on Israel. Sometimes
actively, sometimes rather passively, but usually usefully.
In contrast Mr Clinton seems willing to abrogate this
historic role and too often leave Netanyahu's government to
its own devices.
Although the Clinton Administration has finally got round
to deploring Netanyahu's decision to build a Jewish
settlement in occupied east Jerusalem it has twice vetoed,
otherwise unanimous, resolutions at the Security Council
condemning the move. Less and less, it seems, is America
prepared to use its muscle and its public voice--not least
the $3 billion it gives Israel every year--to keep Israel
from reverting to tribalism.
Washington is doubly to be faulted. First, on the merits
of the issues at hand and secondly because the reason for
the element of caution in American policy in previous years
is now an anachronism. In the Cold War years Soviet military
and rhetorical power provided support for potential Arab
military actions against Israel, tilting the balance of
power in the Middle East dangerously against Israel. Now
this is no longer so Washington should be free to become the
honest-broker it always strived to be.
Mr Clinton has allowed himself through lack of leadership
to become a prisoner of the highly active minority in the
American Jewish community that are militantly pro-Netanyahu.
They are not in the mainstream of informed western Jewish
opinion, much less the mainstream of non-Jewish opinion.
Thus the struggle to de-tribalise Israeli politics is for
the moment being lost. Under Netanyahu's stewardship an
ancient wrong is to be met by a present day revenge--and no
one with any power will gainsay him.
April 23, 1997,
LONDON
Copyright © 1997 By JONATHAN POWER
Note: I can be reached by phone +44 385 351172
and e-mail: JonatPower@aol.com
|