To the Editor:
There are many things in Norman Podhoretz’s often touching article, “Israel—With Grandchildren” [December 1995] I might respond to. In connection with the McDonald’s “problem,” to take one example, I can only say that as one who participated in a bitter and often ugly struggle in the early 60’s to force Coca-Cola, in the teeth of Arab boycott threats, to allow an American to operate a bottling plant in Israel, I am grateful that, thanks to the peace process, a company like McDonald’s no longer hesitates to extend its franchise to Israel. . . .
I would also like to comment on Mr. Podhoretz’s statement that the “Hebrew University is not one of the best institutions of higher learning in the world.” This is undoubtedly true, yet not altogether accurate: the university’s mathematics department is considered one of the top departments in its field anywhere; its research in the natural sciences is nearly world-class; and, even at the risk of sounding self-serving, let me add that so is that of the Weizmann Institute. . . .
It is true that in the humanities our universities cannot compare with Harvard, Oxford, or the Sorbonne. Perhaps one day Israel will also produce an elite in these disciplines, but this will take time. After all, in 1840 neither American universities nor the country’s intellectual life were on a par with those of England or France.
But all this is only on the periphery of Mr. Podhoretz’s article. Its core, in my view, lies somewhere else. He seems to feel that Israel has betrayed its destiny and its Zionist ideals. . . . I am convinced he is wrong. Zionism was never conceived as a movement whose purpose was to build a fighting society, permanently at war with its neighbors. Its goal was, and must remain, to build a pluralistic, humane, and just society of and for the Jewish people. Yet throughout its existence Israel has not been able to do this. Our preoccupation, alas, has been of necessity with physical survival. Only if peace prevails can the country start to tackle the real problems it faces, first and foremost to mold a viable society and nation out of a population originating in 102 Diasporas. This can only be accomplished if a modus vivendi with our neighbors has emerged. Mr. Podhoretz is afraid that this is impossible; I am convinced that it is not only a necessity but that it is doable. Here, obviously, lies the crux of our differences.
Despite all the difficulties and dangers that still face us, there is no way out of our dilemma . . . except to pursue the peace process that is belittled and feared by Mr. Podhoretz and so many others. But no one entered into the peace process out of fear. . . . The opposite is true: those who initiated it were motivated by the stark realities of the region in which we live. Nor was the peace process begun because the country, its people, or its political class were tired of effort, austerity, and toil.
Mr. Podhoretz’s vision of disaster would, I am convinced, turn out to be true if Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres had not had the courage and political wisdom to engage our neighbors in a process that hopefully will lead to mutual accommodation. Only because of their intellectual honesty and political realism can we face our grandchildren with any certainty that Israel’s government and people have done everything in their power to advance the basic tenets of Zionism.
Hanan Bar-On
Weizmann Institute
Rehovot, Israel
_____________
To the Editor:
In “Israel—With Grandchildren” I detect a certain mellowing in Norman Podhoretz. . . . Admittedly, the change is hardly spectacular, a nuance here and there, but still I sense that the mountain is beginning to move. This momentum might have been enhanced if Mr. Podhoretz had endeavored to expand his Israeli (and I presume Washington) circle of friends and acquaintances beyond the ideological Right—perhaps to include a few members of Israel’s Labor party and perhaps (blasphemy of blasphemies) one or two Arab doves.
My! How the article would have changed. Mr. Podhoretz might then have said a tiny bit more about Israel’s peace treaty with Jordan than the fact that Jordanian maps do not show Israel. I had thought the treaty was a momentous event, but then, unlike Mr. Podhoretz, I may be somewhat naive and idealistic. By the way, the Jordanians have already started to correct the mistakes of the past, including their maps. He might also have admitted (grudgingly, of course) that the performance of Yasir Arafat and the PLO so far has not been unencouraging, particularly in suppressing the militant, anti-Israel elements inside Gaza (I understand that even Israel’s security forces agree that the PLO is doing a good job at this).
He might also have considered that Israel’s burgeoning political, diplomatic, and economic ties with Morocco, Tunisia, Oman, and Qatar possess at least some significance for its survival and well-being. And he might have mentioned in passing that the last time Prime Minister Rabin visited the United Nations, he was almost mobbed by members clamoring to shake his hand—a far cry from the good old days of military occupation when an appearance at the UN by an Israeli minister was met with icy glares, to say nothing of walkouts. . . .
And then, of course, there is Jerusalem, and Mr. Podhoretz’s conviction that a major conspiracy is at work which would allow for “shared sovereignty” in the city. Oh, Mr. Podhoretz, don’t you see what a spectacularly wonderful idea this is! “Shared sovereignty” would make Jerusalem the natural candidate to become the political and administrative center of a Middle East Economic Union which would be the ultimate guarantor not only of Israel’s survival but of its long-term prosperity and well-being.
Still, there is hope. Mr. Podhoretz is indeed making good progress. Nowhere is this more apparent than in his last sentence, in which he prays that his vision of disaster and war will ultimately be proved wrong. Allow me to let him in on a little secret: the Almighty has already answered his prayer!
Adeed Dawisha
George Mason University
Fairfax, Virginia
_____________
To the Editor:
. . . From the title of Norman Podhoretz’s article I expected a benign, sentimental account of a proud grandfather’s visit to his grandchildren, . . . along with some discussion and analysis of the social and political views of his Israeli son-in-law and daughter and their contemporaries. . . . This would have been quite relevant, for, after all, they are citizens of Israel who vote, pay taxes, serve in the military, and endure the uncertainties of a country which has fought so many wars and has been under siege since its founding.
But I was astonished to find an article so critical of the present Israeli government and its leaders so soon after the death of a prime minister who, regardless of one’s political leanings or disagreements with his policies, will be remembered as one of the greats in Israel’s history. . . . From the introductory note it appears that the editors and Mr. Podhoretz were originally disturbed about publishing the article so soon after the assassination, and their immediate inclination was that it was out of date and perhaps unseemly and should therefore be suppressed. Their first instincts were correct, and it is a pity they were not followed; this article is not one that either Mr. Podhoretz or COMMENTARY should be proud of. . . .
Moreover, it is out of date. The peace process is a fait accompli: Madrid, Oslo, the handshakes in Washington are irreversible. To consider all this a prelude to the destruction of Israel is to carry pessimism and defeatism too far. . . . The status of the Golan Heights and Jerusalem is still to be negotiated. We, from our safe havens and suburbs in America, cannot make these decisions. Nor should we. . . .
Robert J. Rosenthal
Washington, D.C.
_____________
To the Editor:
. . . Intellectuals, very much like the fanatics who may ultimately kill, are tragically bound by ideas that roam around inside their heads. . . . Other people’s ideas and aspirations are trivial. They do not live among real people who have to work hard, raise children, . . . and wish to belong to the modern, free world. Most people in Israel voted for Yitzhak Rabin because they wanted to try the peace route while coping with the dangers attending it. If there were someone who could reliably estimate the danger to Israel, it was Rabin, a soldier all his life and a Minister of Defense as well as Prime Minister when he died. No one was more qualified to chart Israel’s future. This is precisely why his loss is one of such incredible magnitude. . . .
Gideon Braude
Ramot-Hashavim, Israel
_____________
To the Editor:
Norman Podhoretz . . . says that a prime objective of Zionism is the creation of a normal people. Many of the other Zionist objectives, including the establishment of a Jewish state and a land to which all Jews can come, . . . have largely been achieved. Yet the issue goes far deeper.
Let us first note that Israel is not a normal nation, nor are its people a normal people. Other nations do not recognize its capital, and many do not even recognize it as a state. Perhaps the most unifying aim of the nations (as in the UN) is their denunciation of Israel. Nothing is as universal as the call for peace—once Israel starts winning a war.
Moreover, the Israelis do not behave as other peoples do. Does any other nation permit its citizens to cower in fear of bombs or gas without responding aggressively? Does any other people permit others to worship at holy shrines while preventing its own people from doing so? Does any other people abridge its own sovereignty, let alone its raison d’être (as a Jewish state)?
Jews have sought normalcy everywhere. . . . Yet even the idea of normalcy, of trying to be the same as all other peoples, seems never to have occurred to any other people. . . There is an alternative. Jews can be a people apart, one that can become a beacon to mankind. This is not a simple matter of religious observance, but of the living-out of Judaism’s basic tenets. Judaism requires truth and justice. The truth is that peace has not been the issue in Israel; it has never been desired by the Arabs, and it is thwarted most when blackmail is paid to the aggressors. Justice is served by resisting aggression, never by accommodating evil. . . .
Many have said “Give peace a chance,” as though Israel has ever tried anything else. What has never been considered, however, is to give principle a chance. A policy based on truth and justice may be anathema to the world, but it is the only one that can work for the Jews. . . .
Mr. Podhoretz is likely to disagree with the above. But if he can suggest an alternative approach, he should provide us with it. . . .
Allen Weingarten
Morristown, New Jersey
_____________
To the Editor:
As an American-born Israeli, I can appreciate Norman Podhoretz’s political insights, both as a parent of five children whose grandparents still live in the “old country” and as a resident of the area now referred to as “Area C territory.”
I congratulate COMMENTARY on its decision to publish Mr. Podhoretz’s article, if only to permit your readers to gain an insight into the very real feelings of despair, held not only by Mr. Podhoretz but by many in Israel itself, on both sides of the Right-Left spectrum politically and living on both sides of the Green line. . . .
Yisrael Medad
Shiloh, Israel
_____________
To the Editor:
In my many years of reading COMMENTARY, I have never before been moved to tears by one of its articles. But Norman Podhoretz’s “Israel—With Grandchildren” made me cry. This is partly because one of my sons is a medic in the Israel Defense Force (IDF), which terrifies me, but also because I am overwhelmed by the possibility that in my lifetime I may witness both the birth and the death of this country.
Mr. Podhoretz has touched on the most dangerous ills we are suffering, although he seems to hold the naive belief that the IDF is still what it used to be. I wish he were right, but, alas, with the advent of drugs, political correctness, and reversion to Diaspora mentality, this is no longer the case. The army may be technologically up to date, but the government’s refusal to use it as it was designed to be used—i.e., to be the defender of Israel—has caused a loss of morale and decline in self-image in this sphere as well. I find it hard to believe that this has not affected Israel’s image in the world, especially among the Arabs, who certainly seem to have discovered every one of our vulnerabilities, both military and spiritual.
I also find my left-wing friends increasingly willing to accept each surrender, each instance of appeasement, as it comes along. I do not know whether native Israelis are stupider than I am or simply more tolerant of the feeling of wool over the eyes. . . .
Having been so taken with Mr. Podhoretz’s article, the only thing left for me is to castigate him a little: if Jews like him, who have developed so much clout in the intellectual and political sphere over the years, had realized ten or more years ago that their place was here, we might not be in this position. The excuse of the American-Jewish-Zionist intellectuals has always been that they were more useful in America, where they could influence the powerful U.S. government. . . . People like Mr. Podhoretz could have taken a place in the government or in influential intellectual circles, where they could have turned the establishment away from the disastrous road it is taking. But it is too late now.
If Norman Podhoretz thinks we wept by the rivers of Babylon the last time we remembered Zion, imagine how we are going to weep this time.
Marilyn Magen
Tel Aviv, Israel
_____________
To the Editor:
I was struck by Norman Podhoretz’s recounting of his recent conversations about the peace process with Israelis who are not ideological leftists. Sadly, I am not as lucky as he seems to have been. I too have spoken to many members of the Israeli establishment over the past few months, and I cannot seem to get a balanced conversation out of any of them, especially after the Rabin assassination. They seem to be participants in a “group think” that brooks no questioning.
Some examples: a few days after the assassination, I met with two Israelis who were studying in Boston for the year, both highly-placed in the Israeli government bureaucracy. . . . I tried to point out to them that it was inaccurate to allocate sole responsibility for the assassination to the opposition. Rabin himself had certainly contributed to the creation of a dangerous climate in which a significant portion of the population (those who disagreed with the government’s peace program) felt belittled, abandoned, mocked, and derided and had, accordingly, become desperate.
These Israelis, with whom until then I had enjoyed a friendly personal relationship, turned on me with a vengeance that left me shaken: “It’s exactly I that type of thinking that is responsible for the murder,” they exclaimed. “You’re no better than the rest of them. We really understand democracy and the limits of free expression, and we will crush those people!”
Surprised at their harshness, but encouraged by their apparent interest in discussing the democratic process, I pointed out the special responsibility of a majority in a democracy not to trample the rights of the minority, in this case the nearly 50 percent of the country that expressed severe reservations about the pace and quality of the government’s peace program. My Israeli friends responded, “We know how to run a democracy and when you win by one vote, you can set any policy you want!”
A week later, I had the opportunity to meet with a diplomat from the Israeli Foreign Ministry. I told him I thought that the fact Rabin had been called a Nazi and a murderer was overrated as the cause of the assassination. Israeli leaders had been called by both these epithets for years—Menachem Begin and Ariel Sharon being two prime examples—and during the intifada the Left had routinely likened the methods employed by the Israeli occupation to those of the Nazis. Indeed, many educated Americans my age had called the President of the United States a murderer in 1967 and 1968 (“Hey, hey LBJ, how many kids have you killed today?”). Yet none of that name-calling had led to assassination. The difference, I maintained, was the divisive and desperate climate that had been fostered in large part by Rabin.
The diplomat’s response was an emphatic, “Wherever do you get these ideas?” . . . We then ran into a colleague of his from the Foreign Ministry, and he said, “Come listen to what Josh is thinking,” as though I were a visitor from another planet. I again explained this rather simple theory of joint responsibility. The second man then stared at me as though his brain had short-circuited. . . . He then said, “You mean that it was OK to shoot Rabin?” Another expert.
So I envy Mr. Podhoretz his relatively clear-thinking Israeli interlocutors, however few they may be. I wonder what kind of a democracy the Israelis I have been speaking to will develop. It is true that there are countries in the world with the word “democratic” in their name, but, sadly, it has usually been preceded by the word “people’s.”
Joshua W. Katzen
Newton, Massachusetts
_____________
To the Editor:
I read Norman Podhoretz’s moving article with great interest, particularly because his account confirmed the same intense sensation of danger that I experienced during my recent, all-too-brief visit to Israel.
An Israeli friend has told me that the impact of Rabin’s death was powerful but short-lived, and that the atmosphere is now much as it was before the assassination. She has promised that on her next visit to England she will bring me one of those T-shirts which I presumed would have vanished from the shops but are apparently still on sale: the one on which an Indian chief in full war bonnet sits together with Rabin and says, “Let me tell you about land for peace.” . . .
I hope, like Mr. Podhoretz, that the views of the optimists will be reflected in events. But my own experience of living among Arabs does not point that way.
Herb Greer
Manchester, England
_____________
To the Editor:
Norman Podhoretz’s article brought tears to my eyes. As one who was born in Israel (Palestine then) and who was there to witness the birth of the state, with all its joy and pain, I can only say that Norman Podhoretz’s words echo my sadness, my helplessness, my anger, and, unfortunately, my resignation. I cannot for the life of me understand why Israel’s current leaders have given orders for the nation to march to suicide. . . .
Rachel Newman
Miami Beach, Florida
_____________
To the Editor:
I have learned from Norman Podhoretz, agreed and disagreed with him many times over many years, but after reading “Israel—With Grandchildren,” in which he writes so sensitively and lovingly about his daughter and grandchildren, I was also deeply touched. . . .
Like him, I worry about Israel, knowing the long reach of Islam. And like him, too, I hope that his predictions will prove to be wrong.
Reuven Bar-levav
Southfield, Michigan
_____________
To the Editor:
I have just read—with sadness for the content and admiration for its clarity—Norman Podhoretz’s moving article. I could not agree with him more, and share his sense of foreboding. It is so evident that those in the Arab world who wish to destroy Israel—and that includes nearly all its neighbors in the Middle East—have not been neutralized but encouraged by the “land-for-peace” process.
Robert Jastrow
Los Angeles, California
_____________
To the Editor:
“Israel—With Grandchildren” is a jewel of an essay, and I wish everyone in the country would read it. . . . I think it is Norman Podhoretz’s finest yet.
Atheist Wasp that I am, I have no right to be a Zionist, but I feel like one—yes, even a supporter of Likud. . . . I do not understand how so many Jews, of all people, could be so taken with the “peace process.” If territory could buy peace, the Arabs would seem to have enough of it. How do the peace processors plan to stop the process before the Arabs squeeze them into the sea? . . .
Winifred Scott
New York City
_____________
Norman Podhoretz writes:
My old friend Hanan Bar-On seems to have missed the humor in my little disquisition on McDonald’s, and he also missed my acknowledgment of Israel’s excellence in science and technology.
As to the peace process, I see no useful point in going over the same ground yet again. Mr. Bar-On, like Adeed Dawisha (though evidently without benefit of a special revelation from the Almighty), Robert J. Rosenthal, and Gideon Braude, believes that the peace process is working and has already begun to usher in a wonderful new era (of course they were writing before the recent horrible wave of bombings in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv); I think—for reasons I spelled out in “Israel—With Grandchildren” and in several other articles that have appeared in these pages—that it will lead to war (and indeed in a certain sense it already has).
As I have said countless times before, I hope and pray that I am wrong, and all the more so when I read what Marilyn Magen says about the current condition of the IDF, about which I hope and pray that she is wrong—as wrong as I know she is in imagining (flattered though I am by such an idea) that things would be different today if only I had moved to Israel ten years ago.
I thank Allen Weingarten and Joshua W. Katzen for their interesting observations, with many of which I concur, and I am grateful to Yisrael Medad, Herb Greer, Rachel Newman, Reuven Bar-Levav, Robert Jastrow, and Winifred Scott for their wonderfully generous comments.
