Reading Howard Jacobson’s piece on theIndependent Jewish Voices in Saturday’s Indy, I was struck by the thought that the IJV weren’t just asserting themselves against the consensus amongst the mainstream Jewish community on I/P, but, in fact, also against the prevailing view within mainstream Media and commentary. For example, check out the following excerpt from Jacobson’s piece:
The idea of a national home is intrinsic to Judaism and dear to many traditional Jews, so it would be surprising if there were no expressions of alarm when that home appears to be in jeopardy. Hence the rally convened last summer when the war with Hizbollah was raging. Hence the Chief Rabbi’s affirmation of solidarity and pride.
Though they believe in a broad spectrum of opinion, the IJV does not believe in pro-Israel rallies. I let the question linger whether they would approve a rally calling for the destruction of the Zionist Entity and chanting “We are all Hizbollah”. As for expressing “pride” in Israel, you might as soon drop a nuclear bomb on a schoolyard. Professor Susie Orbach fesses up, the rather - for there is something of the confessional about all this - to being “ashamed” of Israel, and fellow signatory Sir Geoffrey Bindman to being “disgusted and appalled”. I see why the IJV might find the Chief Rabbi’s “pride” too uncritically familial, but they must see that their “shame” is nothing but its obverse. Too close, too psychologically on the line, too much about shedding embarrassing allegiances - too much about them - to be trusted.
Myself I don’t recall being proud or ashamed last summer. As the pictures of the carnage and confusion were relayed to us, and charges of provocation were pitted against charges of disproportion, I took my guidance from the Israeli writers Amos Oz and David Grossman*, neither of whom is uncritical of Israel and its military, but both of whom, whatever they thought of the conduct of the war as it unfolded - tragically for Grossman - understood its necessity, arguing persuasively from the first day that Israel had a right to defend its northern borders.
The example of Chief Rabbi Sacks’ “affirmation” of pride and solidarity with Israel at a time when it was committing foul acts of terrorism against Lebanese civilians was central to Brian Klug’s piece in the Guardian in which he gave his arguments for the necessity of an organisation like the IJV.
Yet Jacobson recycles the same old trite garbage about Israel’s being in jeopardy from Hezbollah, setting aside accusations of disproportionality to emphasise the importance of Israel acting to protect itself from the villainous attacks emanating from South Lebanon — of course, at the same time, blithely ignoring that Israel was actively targeting civilians and the civilian infrastructure of Lebanon, as part of a program of terrorism intended to force the native population to reject Hezbollah — all in complete and flagrant violation of international law, as is Israel’s prerogative.
The deaths of hundreds of Lebanese civilians, the probable future deaths of many more thanks to the laying of thousands of cluster bombs (including disgustingly just before the cessation of hostilities was due to take place), as well as the maiming of many others, let alone the whole-scale destruction of much of Lebanon — all in order to bludgeon the civilian population into submission — none of these provoked any kind of strong reaction in Mr Jacobson. Of course Israel had a right to defend its Northern borders, but it had no right to take the barbaric and bloody measures it actually went on to inflict. A “subtle” point that Jacobson fails to grasp.
Those defending Rabbi Sacks actions urge the rest of us to take into consideration the fact that many British Jews have family in Israel who were under bombardment and at risk of their lives. But surely, those taking this tack, and beseeching compassion from the rest of us, clearly feel next to no compassion, no empathy with the thousands of Lebanese who were suffering the merciless wrath of the Israeli army (with weapons supplied by the Americans through the British intermediary)?
I mean, it is patently self-evident is it not, that the BoD organising a Pride and Solidarity event with Israel during the peak of its terrorism sent out an implicit message of support of, and association with, Israel’s particular terrorist actions — and this is extremely important to emphasise — its targeting of Lebanese civilians and not just with the state of Israel itself. But to return to the point I was making above, the assumptions that underlie Jacobson’s article are common currency in the mainstream media’s coverage of Lebanon, and echo the views of the political establishment, both Labour and Tory. So if the ijv are to make any kind of headway, and if they want to challenge the accusations that Jacobson and others are levelling against the ijv, of being naive, pathological Israel hating lefties, blind to the subtleties of realpolitik, they have to confront the views held not only by the Jewish community, but also the wider community.
Now, that should be easy given the wealth of data from human rights organisations attesting to the need for a re-examination of Western involvement in the politics of that region, especially our support for Israel, but realistically speaking it won’t be. Therefore it is especially important for prominent Jews, religious or secular — since it is in the name of the Jewish people that much of Israel’s actions are being justified — to play their part in tackling the flood of misinformation.
Robert Fisk, in the same edition of the Indy, made an interesting and imho extremely incisive point about the Arab, and indeed Muslim, willingness –especially apparent among Muslim religious leaders — to downplay or even ignore instances of Arab/Muslim atrocities against other Arabs/Muslims. Of course it’s easier to blame Israel or the Great Satan for everything, much harder to confront the failings amongst those who you consider your own (yes, I concede I may be partially guilty of that myself).
It’s all too simple to retort that, well, most of the repressive regimes owe their continued existence to the munificence of their colonial benefactor, the United States, or point out that the factionalism between Fatas/Hamas, Shia and Sunni in Iraq and elsewhere, has been promoted and covertly abetted by the US and Israel. But still, it’s not enough, it conveniently neglects the part that Muslims themselves have played in their own troubles.
*The great Norman Finkelstein has an interesting take on Oz and Grossman:
[Uri] Avnery’s explanation for why Oz-Grossman-Yehoshua turned against the war just before it ended omits a central point. This trio loves to play the “beautiful Israelis” on the international stage: tough but ever-anguished. When international opinion began turning against Israel’s depredations, it was the moment to reverse roles: hold a press conference, display angst, so the whole world - or the gullible among them - can admire their beautiful souls. Unfortunately for Grossman, this revival of the old production didn’t go as planned. Before the curtain was drawn on the last act, his son was killed: or, more precisely, he murdered his son. It was no Greek tragedy, however. He lost no sleep over the killing of a thousand Lebanese, and the destruction of Lebanon. This was all in the script he agreed to perform. As it happened, however, the last line in this revival wasn’t written by Israel.
