Clear Red Line: The Battle of Iran

There are two things I know for certain—no, not death and taxes this time—regarding Israel’s battle with Iran. And make no mistake about it; it is a fierce battle already, if not a full fledge war yet (it is coming, though, don’t worry). One: If Israel is to attack Iran, it will come at a moment of surprise to us all. Two: Had Bibi Netanyahu and Ehud Barak thought they could accomplish the mission of destroying Iran’s nuclear facilities without the help of America, they would have done so already by now. But they lost the element of surprise some time ago, and they are in the process, and danger, of losing the support of the American people for such a war, too. Let’s examine why.

Mr. Netanyahu’s positions is cut clear: A nuclear weapon, even one bomb, in the hands of the Iranian regime is one too many. It would be an existential threat to the Jewish state, with the still fresh memories of the Holocaust a central reminder of the reason to the existence of the state, and therefore must be eliminated at all costs. The Israeli PM is also certain Iran is pursuing such a weapon, and that the “clear red line”—i.e., the capability of enriching enough uranium to produce a nuclear bomb, as he cleverly demonstrated yesterday at the UN—is a matter of months, and that the Iranian leaders inflammatory rhetoric is indeed a proof of their intentions. Israel, of course, is already engaged in a battle with Iran for quite sometime now, assassinating its scientists, sabotaging the progress and development of its nuclear program with cyber attacks, computer viruses and so on. Mr. Netanyahu also firmly believes that the UN and International community economical, political and other sanctions on Iran are but cosmetic, and at best just delaying the inevitable outcome.

On that last point there is disagreement between Israel and America (and some other Western nations). The Obama administration—the president himself, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Panetta—believes these severe sanctions and diplomacy efforts, plus the battle behind the scenes, in which America is apparently a full participant, are taking their toll on the Iranians. They believe these measures are delaying the production of the nuclear bomb by Iran, and do make life miserable on its people, and therefore on the regime as well. President Obama, on his part, had expressed the same opinion Mr. Netanyahu is expressing in his speech at the UN (and before, too): i.e. that Iran should not posses a nuclear weapon, and that America will take a decisive action should that predicament becomes a reality.

There are also voices that challenge the central assumption of both nations. Another words, the need to attack Iran. In a major op-ed piece in the NYT on September 12, titled, “Nuclear Mullahs,” Jim Keller (the former Executive Director of the newspaper), had asked the question what’s better: To have an Iran with a nuclear weapon, or an all out war with all its dangerous consequences. And in Israel itself there are many voices, coming from important, serious people who also oppose such an attack, especially a unilateral, preemptive attack by Israel. Here’s a brief collection of these voices from an article in the New Yorker, September 3, by David Remnick: Yuval Diskin, head of Shin Bet from 2005 to 2011: “One of the results of an Israeli attack on Iran could be a dramatic acceleration of the Iranian program.” Aharon Ze’evi Farkah, former head of military intelligence: “Israeli attack would lack legitimacy, unite a fractured Iranian leadership, and make it clear that they need a bomb now so that we cannot attack them again.” Said a retired Israeli general: “Intelligence is something that is always debatable (just remember the pretext to the Iraq War, H.D). Remember, we had a kidnapped Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, who was held for five years just beyond our border and we didn’t know where he was. Are we really sure we know everything about the Iranian nuclear program?” To these voices of harsh criticism (of the rush to war, H.D.) of the Netanyahu/Barak’s position, add General Shaul Mofaz, former Defense Minister, and of course the familiar voice by now of Meir Dagan, the head of the Mossad from 2002 until January 2011. People “in the know,” wouldn’t you say?

Here then is the cardinal question: Is it better for Israel and America to live with the reality and danger of an Iranian regime possessing a nuclear capability, rather than to start an all out war against Iran and its facilities, with an unknown outcome, but with major dangers and consequences for the fragile stability of the Middle East, and the world for that matter.

Israel Today – Can You Believe?

Yes we can, you might want spontaneously to say. Or even shout. But wait a moment longer before you do that, and let me tell you why I’m asking you this question. And no, it’s not because of what happened last week in Jerusalem, the “lynch”—or attempted lynch of an Arab youth from East Jerusalem, who were attacked by a group of Israeli teenagers out to have some fun on a busy Jerusalem street and kill some Arabs for a good measure. They knocked Jamal Julani unconscious, while hundreds of Israeli bystanders stood ideally by without lifting a finger to help him. After the beating, one young Israeli man did give him a CPR, called an ambulance and may indeed saved his life. This racist incident, which exposed to the eyes of the world the kind of society the Israel of today is—is important enough for a separate article with the above title. And yet, so much has been written about it already that you probably don’t need me to hammer it home for you.

As it were, I’m here to tell you something else entirely. Something you probably were not even aware of—so was I, until lately—even though Israelis are aware of it very much. Here it is, then: The most read Israeli newspaper these days, according to the latest data, is a paper called “Israel Today.” Yes, very much in the vein—as a lot of things in Israel are—of the American paper “USA Today”. Here the big difference, though, and what makes this story so, well, unbelievable. This newspaper, which by all appearances resembles any old tabloid newspaper, is the most popular and read Israeli newspaper today (on weekdays). Yet it’s free! Can you believe?!… And the owner is none other than our dear old friend Sheldon Adelson—yes, the Las Vegas casino mogul who seems to be everywhere these days; buying politicians and opinion makers from the right—who is the financier of this vanity newspaper, to which the majority of Israelis are now exposed, mostly free of charge. Israelis such as my sister, for instance, who called it “Our Pravda;” or a woman friend of mine living in Tel Aviv who called it bluntly “Bibi’s Paper,” are apparently in the minority.

Another words, the newspaper from which most Israelis get their information, analysis and opinions these days is Netanyahu’s Shofar (horn). A right-wing newspaper, paying well enough—remember who own it!—so that even some known, respected Israeli journalist write in it daily. No diversity of opinions is allowed, as I understand—full disclosure: I never set my eyes on that paper—and as far as political coverage go, only what serves Netanyahu and his Likud party is allowed to be loudly heard. “A danger to democracy,” said the Israeli journalist Ben-Dror Yemini. And since a Jewish “Ropert Murdoch” finances it—it’s free! Read all about it, people of Israel, sports and culture and the economy if you like, but as far as politics are concerned, you better believe what we are telling you, even if it’s so one-sided.

No wonder, then, that Israeli teenagers are growing up the way they do. No wonder they believe that “a good Arab is a dead Arab.” Or, as the 15-year-old suspect standing outside court said (according to the NYT, 8/20/12), “for my part he can die, he’s an Arab.” Reflecting on that was Nimrod Aloni, head of the institute for educational at a Tel Aviv teachers college, who said, “… this is directly tied to national fundamentalism that is the same as the rhetoric of neo-Nazis, Taliban and K.K.K.” No wonder, therefore, that there are more and more signs that the enlightened, democratic, educated, tolerant Israel we knew and loved is a thing of the past, as it rapidly becoming “Israel Today:” a darkened, undemocratic, racist and ignorant. I don’t want to believe it, but it seems to be true.

THE DARK KNIGHT RISES – AMERICA AND ISRAEL UNITED

United in grief, to be sure, but in blame too. Let’s start with the grief: On Wednesday morning, July 18, in the town of Burgas, Bulgaria, a bus was detonated and exploded. In the aftermath of this terrorist attack, which ripped the bus apart and blew it in flames, five young Israelis lay dead and lost in the ashes, together with the Bulgarian bus driver and the presumed terrorist. The Israeli dead, and the many more wounded, were mostly young innocent victims, on their way to have some fun in the sun in a Black Sea resort. Their stories, as told later by their grieving relatives, were united in the wish to get away from it all: leave the troubles of life behind back home and enjoy life a bit in a peaceful European resort. Their end was tragic and so very sad,

And so was, still is, the blame game. PM Netanyahu was quick to accuse the Iranians, as he’s so good at doing at every opportunity, and their terrorist arm of Hezbollah. Of course, he promised to punish the culprits. Revenge, an eye for an eye – the old game of the Middle East, of Jews and Arabs – will continue. As if nothing had been learned from those old bible days. Mr. Netanyahu is a very good actor at this blame game. But the one thing that can prevent, ultimately, all this madness-of-death from happening – i.e. peace; solving the Palestinian conflict once and for all – he is so bad at. Or as the NY Times wrote in an editorial Saturday July 22: “a disappointing, risk-averse leader.” And yet, he carries some responsibility for this attack as well. He had helped, with his inflaming rhetoric, bring the tragic end to Yitzhak Rabin’s life and efforts, when he was about to make peace with the Palestinians. And when Ehud Olmert was also getting closer to achieve an agreement with the Palestinians, he and his cronies had probably helped behind the scenes in launching the investigation – which ultimately came to nothing – that toppled Olmert from power. He is so good at doing nothing; he possesses no vision for peace. Until there are leaders strong, determine and willing to take chances on peace, the terror will continue, on both sides. And the dark knight will surely rise again.

As it did in America, just two days later. In Aurora, Colo., in a movie theater screening of “The Dark Knight Rises,” twelve innocent people lost their lives in another mass-shooting attack. The evil that caused the death, with many more wounded, fancied himself the “Joker”. His young smiling face indeed reminded me so much of Jack Nicholson playing that part in a “Batman” movie some years ago. “I am the Joker,” he allegedly said before opening fire. He had no difficulty whatsoever in amassing the guns and assault rifles, as well as the insane amount of ammunition, to carry his deadly nightly attack. An hour before he launched his rampage he was a law-abiding citizen, apparently an intelligent one, who bought all his weapons legally. An hour later, he was a law-breaker, a criminal of the worst kind. Now he is in jail, awaiting trial.

Yet he is not alone in blame. This society we live in, to my mind, carry an even heavier burden of guilt. For on the one hand, its culture—in which the Batman films, as other fantastically violent films, play a big part – are so obsessed with the simplistic fight of good and evil. Mostly, though, with the detail execution of violent acts. This is a violent society that teaches its young from an early age how to be one, and how to carry and use guns. These insane gun laws are allowing and encouraging such mass-killings, make no mistake about it. Yet here, as in Israel, the leaders are spineless, and therefore are averse to any effort to fight the N.R.A – The Darkest Knight of theme all.

Yes, I know, there’s the “second amendment.” So What? It was written more than two hundred years ago. Knowledgeable, important scholars dispute the fact that the amendment spells the allowing of every citizen to own a gun. Only a “Militia” it said. Therefore a government should be responsible for holding and distributing guns. Even if this is not the case, as indeed the Supreme Court had ruled, it can be changed. But not here—of course not. In Japan, a nation of some 126 million people, there are strict laws about gun ownerships, and about showing then in films. Eleven people had died there of gun wounds the whole of last year. Less than the twelve who died in this tragic attack in Aurora. (Here in old USA there are 30,000 firearms deaths a year, about half from suicide, or more than 80 people a day.) So is the case of strict gun-laws in most, if not all industrial, western countries. But not here, where the blame should not be squared solely on the derange lunatic who lost his mind and pressed the trigger, but on the leaders and citizens who allow him the access to these weapons, and the culture that develops and encourages such acts. As a result, mark my words, the dark knights will continue to rise and take their heavy toll on us all.

The Obama Interview

For quite some time now, I’ve been dreaming that President Obama would grant me an exclusive interview. But the White House gatekeepers stood in the way and prevented it from happening. And then suddenly, out of the dark summer skies, he appeared to pay me an unexpected visit. Startled, I said, “Mr. President, thanks for stopping by.” “My pleasure,” he replied, “what’s up?” “May I ask you a few questions,” I quietly, humbly said. “Shoot,” he said, “I’m all yours.” So I did (not shoot him, of course), and here’s how it went:

Me: Mr. President…
He: Drop the Mr. President, Hillel, this is unofficial.
Me: Sure (I swallowed hard, before continuing). You hardly unpacked in the White House, as I recall, when you visited the Middle East and made a grand speech in Cairo. It was a speech full of hope and the wish for change and peace. Where did it all go?
He: Well, this speech ushered the Arab Spring, as you know. The winds of hope and change I brought with me spread like wild fire throughout the region, where we now have democracy in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Yemen and soon Syria. This speech ignited that fire.
Me: Excuse me, but I thought this Tunisian man who set himself on fire in the marketplace was the one who ignited that fire. And maybe the war in Iraq helped a bit, too.
He: As for the Tunisian vendor, of course, his contribution was immense. However, that horrific and heroic act could not by itself have brought about such major changes. There was a strong force pushing it from behind. And as for the war in Iraq, which my objection to it helped propelled me into the Presidency, I will say only this: We pulled our troops out, as I promised we would do, but not before insuring that the infant democracy there has some legs to stand, and maybe walk on. We can now direct our attention and resources to advance peace and prosperity elsewhere.
Me: Like Afghanistan, which is really your war now, is it not? Why don’t you own up to it, sir?
He: I do, my friend, I do. But you see, I had to finish the job there and killed that master terrorist Osama bin Laden. Which we did! And now we’re in the process, slow as it is, of pulling our troops out from there too. I just need some more time, maybe four more years, to complete the job.
Me: But here at home, the economy sunk meanwhile, don’t you…
He: Yes, I should’ve paid more attention to the home front, I agree, jobs and all.
Me: But you fell in love with being the “Commander in Chief,” wouldn’t you say so?
He: It gets to you, man, what can I tell you, especially that I never wore army uniform myself. But my grandfather did, you know?
Me: I heard you saying that a number of times before. But allow me, even though you received the Noble Peace Prize before you even finished your first year in office, you became a war president, drones and all, instead of a peace maker?
He: Not accurate, my friend, not accurate. Look at Burma, for instance, where due in large part to our persistent efforts and foreign policy stand of supporting the opposition, we now have a democracy blooming. Again, look at Iraq, too. It’s a tough world out there, you see. And the absence of war in many parts, even without full fledge peace, is sometimes all we can get, and maybe a second best.
Me: Like in Israel, with the Palestinians?
He: You got that right, no war there, while I’m in office.
Me: No peace, either. What happened to all the grand plans, all the elaborate peace initiatives and ceremonial peace conferences? You and your administration gave up on it, so it seems?
He: Not exactly. We’re working on it, still, though behind the scenes mostly. And I tell you what, the Palestinians themselves seem to get on with their lives, working and going about their daily businesses. The Israelis are prospering, and from all I hear, are just having fun in the sun there in Tel Aviv.
Me: But in the west bank, settlement activity continues full speed. You’ve failed miserably in your efforts to stop Mr. Netanyahu, that’s very clear. Why?
He: Don’t be so harsh, my friend. Mr. Netanyahu is a tough nut to crack, I admit. And yet he’s the legitimate leader of Israel, democratically elected. I cannot enforce on him and his people resolutions they are not willing to take. It’s up to them to decide whether they want to live in a constant state of peace or war.
Me: But now he has almost unlimited power with this new coalition. And he always seems to get the upper hand on you in every fight, why is that? Even here in Washington he might be more popular than you.
He: Right, King Bibi. I hear that how Time magazine has labeled him.
Me: Yes, but without your unyielding support: money, fighter planes, bunker-buster bombs, you name it, and everything else in between, he won’t be so powerful, would he?
He: Well, he needs me, and I need him. Now more than ever. It takes two to tango, as they say here in Washington. I have a big fight on my hand in this coming election. I even invited all those ultra-orthodox Jews to visit me in the White House. Just give me four more years, guys, and I’ll bring peace there too.
Me: But what about Iran? Before peace in the Middle East can be established, you need…
He: We are working on it, my friend, working on it real hard. You may have heard about our coordination with the Israelis on these cyber war attacks against their nuclear facilities and computer systems. That’s just an example of what we can do together.
Me: Not the real deal, though. And some actually call it cyber terrorism?
He: Let them call it what they want. We’ll do whatever needs to be done to stop Iran from having the capability of producing a nuclear bomb. Let me be very clear about that, for you and your readers.
Me: So no aerial attack any time soon?
He: One never knows. After the election, that’s a possibility, too.
Me: Even a visit to Israel, at last.
He: Affirmative. A visit to Israel is in the planning, too, you heard it here first. Just give me four more years!

I woke up in terror, sweat streaming down from my forehead. I stayed still in bed for a while, staring blankly at the ceiling, questioning whether I should trust him again.

Israel’s Golden Moment

The coalition deal announced in the wee hours of the night on May 8th, had created an unusual set of opportunities for the people of Israel and its leaders. For Netanyahu, in particular. His stroke of genius—or political putsch in the dark hours of the night—of salvaging his term as Prime Minister and establishing the largest coalition in Israel’s sixty-four years of existence, and thus preventing an early election (the more usual course of action), brought with it accolades and condemnations alike. Friends and foes of the PM alike cannot deny the fact that now, should he so wish, he can shape the course of Israel for many years to come. He has the political power to survive, until now his main objective, but now also an opportunity to take, and make, dramatic moves forward. What will he choose remain to be seen. Here are, as I see it, his two main choices:

WAR. This is the more natural choice for Netanyahu, and the course he’s been taking about, and preparing Israel and the world for, the last three years or so. The attack on Iran nuclear facilities, which he has been threatening to launch, is now at hand for him. He can push the trigger at will, and on his left he would have the support of Ehud Barak, the former Israel’s army chief, prime minister and current defense minister; and on his right he now has Shaul Mofaz, admired chief of staff of the army himself, defense minister under Arik Sharon, an Iranian Jew who while not a declared supporter of such an attack, will go along with it as part and parcel of the coalition deal. Against the background of what seem to be forward moves, and then setbacks, towards Iranians compromises with IAEA (the International Atomic Energy Agency), an air attack would unleash—according to most objective observers—another, and disastrous, Middle East war. It will drag America into another war, just as a break from it is finally looking within reach, and would give a good opportunity not only for Hamas in the north and Hezbullah in the south to launch a missile attack of their own against Israel civilians, but the Arab Spring may turn all its fury—and frustration—towards Israel. The benefits of such an attack are very doubtful; the dangers are ominous and not doubtful at all.

PEACE. Should Netanyahu choose the course of peace and compromise, it would be unlikely for him, but just as unlikely as Begin and Rabin, and even Sharon did before him. He now has the power to stop all settlement activity in the West Bank, sit down with Mahmoud Abbas, his counterpart on the Palestinian side, talk peace and finally bring it about. If he chooses not to do that, he has a way, still, of bringing about an acceptable, if not desired, resolution of his own. His Kadima’s party partner, Mofaz, is designated to be in charge of dealing with the Palestinians. And he’s apparently a supporter of the 60/ 40 percent solution. It means evacuating unilaterally some 60 percent of the West Bank’s territory even before an agreement of two-state solution is in place. Deciding in advance, therefore, and regardless of the Palestinians’ position, what Israel can afford and be willing to give up, and “just do it”. A group of former army generals had created a political pressure group—“Blue White Future, Keeping Israel Jewish and Democratic—espousing taking such unilateral steps to insure Israel’s future as a Jewish State. In this scenario, the 40 percent remaining settlements, occupied territories and issues yet to be resolved, will be settled later while Israel is creating facts on the ground—this time facts of peace for a change, gearing towards a two-state solution—while the Palestinians, hopefully, will come to the realization of what’s best, and possible for them to achieve in order to have, finally, a state of their own. It is not an ideal outcome, of course, but real and achievable, now that there’s such a large coalition in power, not threatened anymore by extremists.

DEMOCRACY. There are people in Israel that view this coalition agreement as an unarmed “coup d’état,” at worst, and as a very undemocratic move at best. Let’s not forget that Netanyahu came to power following Aric Sharon’s sudden fall into coma, as the leader of the Likud, and did not win the last Israeli elections as the largest party in the Knesset. Still isn’t! Kadima actually won the election, but it’s leader, Tzipi Livni, was unwilling to capitulate to the demands of the extremist on the right, to which Netanyahu gladly agreed, and therefore was able to form a government. And the rest is history, as they say. But not so fast, the people of Israel have a say in it too. Time Magazine had a cover story on Netanyahu last week calling him “King Bibi;’ and Abbas actually termed him an “emperor” now—this does not sound good for democracy. And yet, this is also the golden moment for what used to be called the “Sane Israel.” The Tel Aviv of Israel, if you will, the secular part of Israel; and yes—the leftist side, the Labor Movement that had ruled Israel in the early and mid days and now is almost extinct. These people and forces, the forces of peace—and indeed that what we did with “Peace Now” when we pushed Begin towards peace with Egypt—should now rise for the occasion. Go out into the streets and push Netanyahu to choose the course of peace with the Palestinians; and to negotiate, for once, and not just dictate. And by doing so, not only protect and reinvigorate the precious Israeli democracy, but resurrect the left from the dead as, once more, a true force in Israel’s political life.

This Must Be Heard!

Foes or friends, this must be heard:
In Germany, a poem was written so bad,
It caused some people to go insane;
But before it goes to your head as well,
And even though it shook the world;
This must be said: what a mess!

Gunter Grass’ poem, “This Must Be Said,”—which very few people have read—caused a major international uproar, especially in Israel. This makes sense, actually, since Grass’ poem, published in a German newspaper on April 3, was directed at Israel. This must be said, though: the arrow hit the target full speed, causing the wounded state to react in many ways as if, indeed, it is guilty. Growing up in Israel, we kids had a favorite saying: “The hat on the thief’s head is burning.” In other words: the guilty party is always “crying wolf” and shouting loudly the most. Stop crying all the time about anti-Semitism every time someone criticizes Israel. It lessens the memory of the Holocaust, the Jews who died there, the survivors who are still alive, and all of us to boot. Stop it!

Now to the facts: The poem is bad (and I’ve read it). This is not Yevgeny Yevtushenk’s Babi Yar, not by a long shot. This is not Emile Zoal’s J’accuse (I accuse) letter, published in a Paris newspaper in January 1898, at the height of the Alfred Dreyfus’ affair. This is hardly a poem, anyhow, more like a political pamphlet. Mr. Grass—author of the renowned anti-war novel “The Tin Drum, and the winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1999—could do much better. Here’s a stanza from it (translated by Alessandro Ghebreigziabiher):

And then why do I avoid myself
to call the other country with its name,
where since years – even if secretly covered -
there is an increasing nuclear power,
without control, because unreachable
by every inspection?

This arrow hit the target because, essentially, there is some truth in it; and as Grass pointed out, it should’ve been said a long time ago. Another words: that Israel posses a large arsenal of nuclear weapons, and that it protects its right to posses it, while doing everything in its power not only not to admit to it, but that nobody else should have it. And while, supposedly, it protects the Jewish State, it also threatens the peace. Because it allows Israel, as a result of that, to behave like a bully—killing and kidnapping people all over the Middle East and beyond, occupying the West Bank and essentially depriving the Palestinian People not only of a country of their own, but of basic human rights as well.

And yes, Mr. Netanyahu was right when he reacted and said: “It is Iran, not Israel, that is a threat to the peace and security of the world. It is Iran, not Israel, that threatens other states with annihilation.” So while Grass’ comparison between the two countries—one, Israel, a democracy; the other, Iran, a theocracy—might be wrong, and the accusations misleading, the essential part is true: if one country can have nuclear weapons, why not the other? Just because you believe you’re right and they’re wrong? Modern history proves, in fact, that when you have two powers with nuclear weapons against each other—America and Russia, India and Pakistan—the deterrent creates peace, not war.

Some commentators, even in the left leaning Haaretz, such as Mr. Anshel Pfeffer, wrote that “Having served in the organization that tried, with a fair amount of success, to wipe the Jews off the face of the earth he (i.e. Mr. Grass) should keep his views to himself when it comes to the Jews’ doomsday weapon.” Now, this is a very strong statement. But what it says, really, is shut up! Only we Jews have the right to say whatever we want to say, and do whatever we want to do—and posses the weapons we want to posses—because we suffered the Holocaust!

Even worst, was the action of the Israeli Interior Minister, Eli Yishai, who declared Grass persona non grata, preventing him from entering Israel. This is like silencing your critics (as Israel just did by preventing activists from flying into Israel; Mr. Michael Oren, Israel’s Ambassador to America, tried to prevent CBS from airing a story on 60 Minutes this past Sunday). Oy Vey, what’s going on here? We lost our marbles it seems. Thankfully, Haaretz finally wrote an editorial pointing out that the decision of the Interior Minister was wrong. I see it as the height of hypocrisy: Israel, of all nations and people, trying to prevent other people from speaking their mind. What are they afraid of over there? The truth, maybe?

We better remember, these days in particular, of that seminal humanistic, political statement—we can safely call it a poem: “First They Came…”—that a pastor named Martin Niemoller (yes, a German!) wrote about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets.

First they came for the communists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a trade unionist.
Then they came for the jews,
and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

American Jews not Jews Enough

This false assertion came from the mouth of A.B. Yehoshua, a renowned Israeli author. Israelis living in America are faring even worse, according to him. Here we go again then, the centuries-old question of “Who is a Jew?” coming at us from an unexpected, secular leftist writer in Israel, raising an undue dust storm while he, and all of us here and there, should be concentrated on more crucial questions, like war and peace, separation of religion and state, women’s rights, etc. But let’s start with what he said.

“They are partial Jews while I am a complete Jew,” the Israeli Prize laureate Yehoshua claimed at a lecture recently, referring to American Jews. “In no way are we the same thing – we are total and they are partial; we are Israeli and also Jewish. In recent years, my friends and I have needed to defend Israel against the matter of the state, as if it is merely an issue of citizenship, while Israel is the authentic, deep concept of the Jewish people … in no siddur is there a mention of the word ‘Jew’ but only ‘Israeli’. The name of our country and the territory is Land of Israel – and it is about this deep matter that we must defend against a Jewish offensive.”

Got it, my friends? You’re not good enough, you’re not Jews enough, because you’re not living in the land of Israel. What a lot of baloney. Being a Jew is not a political concept, nor it is a matter of where you live. If you’re a Christian, you have to live in the Vatican, right? Or, if you’re a Muslim, do you have to live in Mecca? If we go by the Halacha, you’re a Jew if you were born to a Jewish mother. Full stop. And even more so, according to the Bible, if you converted to Judaism you’re more Tzadik (righteous) than a regular Jew. Maybe even more than Mr. Yehoshua. And while I do understand what he means by the deep meaning of living in Israel as a Jew, I fail to understand what he means by “Jewish offensive” against him and people living in Israel. What in the hell is he talking about?

To me, as an Israeli and an American Jew, it looks more like there is no one without the other. It is very questionable if Israel would even still be in existence without the support of American Jews (a new survey just come out, testifying to the fact that American Jews give more money to Israel now than ever). Of course, Israel is central, you might even say the heart of the Jewish life. Absolutely. And yes, as we were growing up in Israel, we considered ourselves Israelis not Jewish. Jews lived abroad, in the “Galut,” in America and elsewhere, but we here were Israelis, living in and working the land of Israel. That’s fine with me. I liked this outlook as I was growing up. If he wants to say he’s more Israeli than a Jew, that’s fine with me too. But don’t go around dividing the Jewish people yet again, telling us who is a Jew and who isn’t. We have enough troubles as is.

Just a few days after Yehoshua’s lecture, a man leading his two kids to a daycare school in Toulouse, France, was murdered, together with his kids and another little girl because they were Jews. So what, then: The young Rabbi and the three innocent kids are still less Jewish than Yehoshua because they lived outside of Israel. As a matter of fact, they were probably much more Jewish than him. Because, truth be told, it takes more courage and pride—much more—as well as strong belief, to stay Jewish among the Goyim, being true to your heritage and values, than among Israelis. There—no big deal, just a fact of life; here—a big deal indeed, a constant choice and will to practice it.

As for us Israelis living in America, here’s what he said: “There are about 500,000 Israelis abroad who can easily glide into their Israeliness, which they consider only citizenship and not identity … there is nearly no home without a convertible outside.” Walla! “Nearly no home without a convertible outside.” Well, Mr.Yehoshua (I read your last novel in Hebrew, BTY; an excellent one), let me tell you that I know, let’s say, some thirty Israelis give or take, living in Sacramento, the capital of California. None of them has a convertible in their garage or driveway. For all of them, however, politically left or right, being an Israeli here in America, as well as an American Jew, is not a matter of citizenship (they cannot vote in the Israeli election, as you know); it is very much a matter of choice and identity.