Khaled’s been our “fix-it” guy for a decade. When he was over recently, I came upon him in the living room as he was taking a break from his work. He was looking at a series of photographs on the wall, one of which is called “Rest in Pieces.”
“What is this?” he asked.
“It’s a Jewish cemetery in Argentina,” I told him. “See the Hebrew lettering on the tombstones?”
“But why are the tombstones shattered?” “People broke them,” I explained.
“But why would anyone do that?” “Because they hate Jews, I guess,” I told him.
“Why?” And a moment later, “But these Jews were dead,” he said to me. “They hate dead Jews, too?” Now things had gotten surreal. Was an Israeli Arab really asking me why anyone might hate Jews? Khaled wasn’t kidding. He seemed utterly perplexed, and continued studying the photograph.
I didn’t really know where to begin. I told him that in some places in Europe, people still destroy Jewish cemeteries. He was astounded. For a moment, I considered telling him what the Jordanians had done to Jewish cemeteries between 1948 and 1967, but for whatever reason, I decided not to. Maybe I just wanted to relish, even for a few moments, the hopeful moment of an Arab man who couldn’t understand why anyone would hate the Jews. It was the sort of moment that gives you some hope, even if but a faint flicker.
But flickers fade, especially in this region. A few days later, my wife and I were in Tel Aviv for an outstanding program on “The Law of Return: Just or Discriminatory?” sponsored by the Metzilah Center, founded by Prof. Ruth Gavison, one of the country’s most eminent jurists and a Zionist thinker of great profundity. Dr. Raif Zreik, of Tel Aviv University, whom I’d never heard before, was the first speaker.
Zreik, it was immediately obvious, is an intellectual to be reckoned with. Educated at Hebrew University, Columbia and Harvard, he is extraordinarily articulate, speaks a mellifluous Hebrew and doesn’t pull punches. Nor did he waste any time.
Zreik began by explaining why he knew he wouldn’t change our minds. The difference between an intellectual and an ideologue, he said, is that an intellectual can surprise himself. Intellectuals are sufficiently open-minded and rational that they occasionally find themselves adopting positions different from what they’d originally thought. An ideologue can never do that, he said.
But we immigrants, Zreik asserted, “don’t have the luxury of being intellectuals…. You are all small-minded intellectuals, not because you’re not smart, but because your bodies won’t let you be honest. If you were, you might have to admit you have no right to be here.”
From there, Zreik launched into what he called a macro-view of the Zionist story. The Palestinians were in Palestine, he said, and Jews in Europe. The Jews in Europe ran into deep trouble, but there was then a mismatch between the place of the problem (Europe) and the place of the solution (Palestine).
Everything that’s followed, he insisted, is the result of that original mismatch.
What was astounding was everything that Zreik did not mention. That the Jews also had a connection to this place and had been exiled from it. That before Israel was created, Jews had nowhere to go. That the world understood that and ultimately, with Balfour, Peel and the partition plan, collectively decided that the Jews should have a state, and that it should be here. That, ironically, it was Zionism’s success that ignited Palestinian nationalism. No, none of that would fit into his theory, so it went unmentioned. Zreik, brilliant though he clearly is, had become the very ideologue he’d just defined.
Ultimately, Zreik was a high-brow version of Helen Thomas. “Tell them to get the hell out of Palestine” – Thomas’ words, but Zreik’s position, too. And with the world almost everywhere turning on the Jews once again, saying “get the hell out Palestine” is tantamount to saying “rest in pieces.” Zreik may not intend that, but that’s where his theory must inexorably lead.
HOW DO we get more Khaleds, I wondered. Decent people, understandably not always happy with their lot as Israeli Arabs, but people who just want to live together, not to turn the clock back to a place it can never go.
I found myself missing Khaled’s bewilderment at the hatred. Of course, most people don’t use the word “hate.” They speak in terms of Palestine belonging only to the Palestinians, or the immorality of the Law of Return. Or the intolerability of the embargo. But ultimately, their positions boil down to this – you, unlike everyone else, do not need, or deserve, a home. Leave. And rest in pieces.
Which brings us to this week. There are Jews who wonder if the Ninth of Av still makes sense. After all, no one is slaughtering us. Israel is thriving. And Jerusalem is rebuilt. Why all the mourning? For me, moments like an evening with Dr. Zreik, articulate and brilliant though he is, make the case for this period of mourning. It’s not just about the past, but also about the future, about what could still happen, and what may already be beginning. “The Lord has summoned against Jacob enemies all about him,” says Lamentations (1:17). “Jerusalem has become among them a thing unclean.”
The Khaleds of the world are too few and far between. Today, for the most part, we’re surrounded by a world that has tired of us, once again. It has tired of its guilt, and has tired of the state that it re-created when that sense of responsibility was at its peak. Gone is the era when the world understood, even if momentarily, that we, no less than anyone else, deserve a place to be. We had it, briefly, but it’s gone.
Which is why, I suppose, we still conclude the reading of Lamentations not with its last verse, but by repeating the penultimate sentence: “Take us back, O Lord… renew our days as of old.”
(Photograph by Zion Ozeri, www.zionozeri.com)
Email
Print
Tags:
Dr. Daniel Gordis is Senior Vice President of the Shalem Center, where he is also a senior fellow. The author of numerous books on Jewish thought and currents in Israel...
The Jewish State must end, say its enemies, from intellectuals like Tony Judt to hate-filled demagogues like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Even average Israelis are wondering if they wouldn't be better off somewhere else. 
Dear Friend,
I am a survivor from Warsaw, Poland; I strongly believe that we the Jews have the right for a place!
One large place is America. The other large place is Israel. But, the western world [US, Europe] are committed to Israel’s survival; but not a Greater Israel; an Israel within defined borders, modified pre-67 with a shared Jerusalem. Please tell me why such a place i.e. not a Greater Israel is not sufficeient or ….
Jonas Rabin
732-536-4383
jrabin@optonline.net
While yet again a profound and meaningful article, it is somewhat counter-productive to time and time again point out the deficiencies in this world and to take such a pessimistic outlook. Many breakthroughs and advances in these areas are made each week, and it would be fitting that Gordis made mention of these as well.
Daniel, it is really good to hear from you. As you must know i am a new subscriber. I am astounded that this guy Khaled really exists. How is it possible that he would not know about JEW HATRED living as he does in ISRAEL, and being what he is, PALESTINIAN. I don’t know if he was kidding you or you are kidding me but if this is a true story and Khaled has expressed his feelings that reside in his heart, then he must be only 1 out of 1 1/2 billion Muslims who not only does not understand about Jew hatred and Jew murder but must also have tender feelings about Jews. I say this because were that not the truth, you would not have him as your fix-it guy or have him in your house.
Zreick may be an intellectual but not a very smart guy. Based upon his reasoning i submit that he would never be have been able to hold his head high and speak his mind and that the only reason that he is now able to do so is because ISRAEL DOES EXIST. His argument is not so profound; it just goes into the question of ownership and this is a question so profound as to render the answer impossible to seek in such a short space that i am in. The answer that i can offer right now is: SURVIVAL. This is a fundamental right of any animal that wants to live. Had the Jews not used that right that comes from the ONE HIGH JUDGE, then it is incontrovertible the Jews would not who lived at that time, right after WW 11 would not be alive today. As proof i offer POLAND: who continued a progrom after the war 1945-46. And POLAND did what many others would have done had ISRAEL NOT EXISTED.
Bravo, Daniel!
Interesting but not coincidental that Khaled is a simple fix-it man while Dr. Zreik is an “intellectual” (in this case, ideologue.) Although I have a Master’s myself, I have become increasingly disillusioned with society’s supposed “intelligentsia.” In the U.S., anti-semitism/anti-Zionism these days is most rampant on college campuses, while “middle Americans,” less likely to have been subjected to what ironically passes as a “higher education,” often have a stronger sense of moral, cultural and historical clarity. And during the worst human tragedy of all, European farmers often risked their lives to save Jews while there were many among Hitler’s elite who were university educated. In spite of delusions to the contrary, one can only conclude that universities serve the purpose of creating market competitive individuals, especially in the more pragmatic fields, but do not serve any greater, higher value.
Excellent article. It is now politically correct to be anti-Israel and anti-Zionist.
Dr. Zreik is not only not an intellectual. ( find that most people who call themselves that are not) but a hypocrite, repeating the new party line. “Israeli Jews are European, while Arabs in the area are Palestinians. He certainly must know there were Sephardim and Mizrachi and even some Ashkenazi in the area for eons – and that many of the people who now call themselves Palestinians are Arabs who came from other parts of the Middle East. But that would ruin his thesis and he would have nothing to lecture about.
Dr. Gordis is always thought-provoking and just as often disturbingly challenging. But in this essay he has chosen to do exactly what he accuses Zreik of doing: choosing to ignore critical and salient pieces of the puzzle. The question for mour time is whether lovers of Israel, those of us who have doggedly hung in there, can abide the government’s present policies and treatment of those whom we’ve occupied. It is dangerous and reductionist to totally ignore the context within which the hatred of Israel (and, admittedly, of Jews) has been fueled by an occupation often cruel and downright ignorant. It is not the entire story, indeed, but it is a significant enough part of whwre we now stand that to ignore or apologize for it is to join the ideologues (like Zreik)who cannot and will not listen or change.
Having read these comments, some erudite, some with arguments that will not hold water: If Israel did not exist to “occupy,” there would have been no Jew hatred. So don’t occupy, even for security and common sense.
Second, if you agree with me, we are intellectuals; if not, I am an “ideologue” and cannot be taught. I believe that this unique Muslim Arab should be encouraged to teach, to make himself heard, to seek the (non-politician’s) truth wherever he can find it. But he must find his equals among other intellectual Muslims, not among Jews only.
Danny is always brilliant and a beautiful writer. But, he dodges Zrieck’s point. We are ideologues. World history is full of nations and people displaced and dispossessed. Some were “at fault,” some were “innocent,” but that made little difference even in the second half of the XX century.
There is no “right” to a home or even to survival. Even if there were, there is certainly no higher court in which to enforce it. Sudan, tehCongo, Rwanda, and Kurdish Iraq are only the most recent proof.
When Gordis relies on Peel and Balfour for Israel’s “rights” his position is no stronger than the other disposessed people in history. The Palestinian Arabs make persuasive arguments, too.
Regardless of how Israel came to be, it is. Like any other victor, its people will retain their land and homes and their external support for as long as they can.
We can be judged by what we do in the future, we can abide by rules and be a “light to the nations,” but we can not make be responsible to correct the wrongs of history that we suffered, or that others suffered becasue we exist.
Perhaps we should stop justifying our historic right to Ertetz Yisroel, and focus instead on the present fact of our presence.
Arguing aboput the justice of history is, ultimately, a self serving waste of time. When the nations of the world rewrite history and restore the Kurds their homeland, the American Indians to their territories, and even the Jews to their homes in Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Poland, Spain, etc., Israel might itself reconsider. But until then, because there is no reason, and literally no place, to go,” it seems more suicidal than honorable to voluntarily give up and leave.
We are here regardless of whether, as Zreick says, we have “no business to be here.” And, we should not vlounteer to make any substantial changes as long as we remain under assault.
“We had it, briefly, but it’s gone.”
Did I read that line correctly?
Past tense- so soon. Is there no hope?
If there is, Daniel, then what are the minimal requirements of survival as a Jewish state within the present “borders?”
Perhaps that is the appropriate topic for Tisha B’Av.
Hi Daniel, Thank you again for your thoughtful commentaries. You always open a window to a new perspective. Todah Rabah.
The real question is why was this freak Zreik dreck invited to an Israeli conference. Inviting dreck like Zreik only legitimizes him. I believe that we have the right to the Land of Israel because the G-d of Israel promised it to us.
Thank you for sharing this article. As always, you are eloquent and thought provoking.
Questions regarding Israel’s right to exist seem always to focus on ancient or continuous history (in the case of the affirmative) and European guilt for the holocaust (in the negative).
But, where is the discussion of the 100 years of nation building that led up to the creation of Israel? It’s not as though the Jewish presence just magically appeared because of the holocaust. Even before WWII there was a thriving Jewish community with schools and hospitals and an economy and a cultural life that had started in earnest in the 1860s and continued full steam, with legal land purchases, right up to the actual creation of the state.
Doesn’t the fact that hundreds of thousands of Jews moved to the area, purchased land and built a community, doesn’t that give them a right to be there? What about the Arabs that moved from Egypt and Syria and other parts of the Middle East? Are their rights to live in the villages built by their grandparents also suspect because they originally came from elsewhere?
I suspect the idealogue is the intellectual. He doesn’t see the truth of history because he is so committed his vision.
Very interesting article Daniel. Manny said that he didn’t believe people like Khaled still exist. Well he sounded very much like our old fixit guy,Mohammed. Maybe it’s something about fixit guys. To reinforce the point however, I remember preparing my Year 12 class for the trip to Poland and asking why they wanted to go. One girl answered that she wanted to experience anti-semitism. It struck me that she never really had.
For those absorbed in the conflict, the everyday realities are the issues. Resolvable issues. Ideologues on both sides prevent the rule of pragmatism. Problem is ideology also keeps us grounded, give us our raison d’etre. Today,for whatever reason,I now view the situation from abroad. Anti-semitism is rife and anti-Israel feeling is assumed. Scary times.
May I point out that “Palestinian” for “Arab” is Arafat’s invention in 1964. Until that time, especialy during the British Mandate, “Palestinian” referred to Jews. The Arabs refused to be called “Palestinians.” I can show you sources where Arab leaders declare that they are “Arabs” as opposed to “Palestinians,” which means “Jews.”
To whom does Palestine belong?
Another excellent piece. Thanks!
Beautiful response, but it misses two facts. The first is that Israel is not populated by solely by European holocaust refugees. There has always been a significant Jewish presence in Israel — as demonstrated by numerous British and Turkish census counts over the past two centuries. In addition, a huge percentage of Israel’s Jewish population are descended from refugees from Arab countries. The notion that that the presence of Jews in Israel was the result of attempting to resolve a European problem in which the Arab World had no role is simply false.
The second omission is the fact that the Arab population between the Jordan and the Mediterranean is largely descended from non-Palestinians who emigrated in during the twentieth century. The notion that Jews have displaced Arabs who lived here for a thousand years is equally false.
JACK STEINER’S ANSWER: COULD IT BE POSSIBLE THAT WE HAVE DISCOVERED HOW TO RID THE WORLD OF ANTI-SEMITISM. SOLUTION: EVERYONE SHOULD LEARN AT A VERY YOUNG AGE TO BECOME A FIX-IT GUY. SIMPLE. OK JACK, BUT I HAVE HEARD OF STRANGER THINGS.
This piece is deeply thoughtful, and almost “right on.” Two small points trouble me, however.
My heart wants to believe that Khaled really does want peaceful coexistence. I wish you had asked him, in response to his incredulity about hate against dead Jews, how one is supposed to relate to live Jews. I felt the question hanging in the air after his remark. As I said, I want very much to believe that many Arabs truly do want to live in peace as my neighbors. But I remember a Jewish kablan friend relating a discussion he had with one of the Arab workers who was preparing a floor in a new Jewish home. “Ahmed,” my friend asked, “how do you feel about the whole Palestinian-Israeli conflict? Does it bother you to be helping to build homes for Jews?” Ahmed continued lovingly polishing the newly-laid floor by hand. Without looking up from his work, he answered, “It doesn’t bother me at all. I am only waiting for the Jews to be driven our or killed. Then, this will be my house.” So I remain cautious. Hopeful — but cautious. I always wish that the Arabs who work all over my yishuv would have a neon sign above their heads: “I hate Jews and want them dead,” or “I have nothing against Jews.” It would make loving my fellow man so much easier.
I grew up believing that the US was solidly behind the fledgling Jewish State, at least at the beginning, and that Europe understood the need for the State as well in those days. But the more history I study, the more I wonder if there were a full five minutes during which the commitment to a State for the Jews was seriously supported.
Color me increasingly cynical about anything but G-d’s love of us.
MY DEAR RUTIMIZRACHI:
Unfortunately there is no such thing as a neon sign shining on the heads of palestinians. My position is to just be on the safe side. Imagine the sign and what it would say:
I HATE JEWS. I WOULD LOVE TO KILL THEM. AND GIVEN THE CHANCE I WILL.
That is the reality of the situation. Anyone who believes otherwise does so at his own peril.
Daniel:
Evocative and meaningful words, as always. But one phrase puzzled me: referring to Israel as “the state that it (the international community) re-created”.
Israel was created as almost all other states were: by the toil and the blood of its people. Had the United Nations fought off the Arab armies in 1948, as they did the North Koreans in 1950, or even had they organized arms shipments to Israel, then they should indeed be giving the credit. But all the international community really did was endorse the right of the Jewish people to self-determination. Those who were there still had to fight to exercise that right– and they fought essentially alone.
Let’s stop referring to the myth that the UN “created” the state of Israel. If it did, then Israel also has a higher degree of obligation to the UN than other states do; and with a UN that has long since squandered whatever moral authority it once had, that’s a dangerous fiction.