Sadly the Twain Do Meet

Haj3It’s almost impossible to describe, for those who’ve never done is, what it is like to watch the national Yom Hashoah ceremony on Israeli TV. The air in the room feels too thick to breathe. The speeches say nothing new (for what hasn’t already been said?), the music is simultaneously beautiful and heartrending. Then come the stories: six individual people, six worlds destroyed, six lives rebuilt, six human beings who through luck and grit actually survived. It’s difficult – actually, impossible – to speak.

The siren the next morning is the perfect response. Stillness and silence – because no words suffice. Like the Biblical Aaron when he lost his sons, the very best that we can do is to do nothing.

But what are we really commemorating? On one level, obviously, it’s the enormity of the loss, the indescribable suffering of broken human beings, many of whose names are lost forever. It’s the unspeakable human capacity for unmitigated evil, the fact that seventy years later we are a people reborn but still broken, a people renewed and yet deeply and perhaps permanently scarred. And silence is, perhaps, the only response to the fact that the older we get, the less we comprehend.

For me, the silence is about all that, but also more. It is about the undeniable fact that though much has changed, too much remains the same. Hatred of the Jew –always illogical, often deadly and forever morphing to fit the times – continues, largely unabated.

There’s Iran’s obvious venomous rhetoric. And there’s Greece, where the Golden Dawn party, which regularly employs Nazi references, now sits comfortably in Parliament. Ukraine’s Svoboda party openly uses inflammatory language about Jews. In Hungary, the University of Budapest Student Council recently began keeping lists of Jewish students; Hungry’s Jobbik party, the country’s third largest, is expressly anti-Semitic. In the United States, where constitutional protection of free speech has virtually no limits, a vicious anti-Semitic underbelly of the internet has found a home for hundreds of web sites that Europe would never permit.Haj1

That is why the placement of Yom Ha-Shoah and Yom Hazikaron one week apart from each other was so brilliant. To most observers, the perennial hatred of the Jew and Israel’s interminable conflict with its neighbors have little to do with each other. The former, many say, is a despicable phenomenon that any decent human being must decry. But the second, they insist, is very different. It is a national conflict, a festering disagreement between two peoples about how to share one land, or even, perhaps, the desperate but legitimate campaign waged by a stateless people to achieve the same sort of sovereignty that the Jews won for themselves some sixty-five years ago.

But are the two really so unrelated? Is it really true that hatred of the Jew on the one hand, and Palestinian rejection of Israel on the other, are so thoroughly disconnected?

Hamas wants us to understand that they are not. That is why, as the ceremony at Yad Vashem was still unfolding, they launched a rocket towards Israel. It was fortunate that no one was hurt and no damage was caused; but it was unfortunate that the international press paid almost no attention to the hapless attack.

There was nothing accidental about the timing. “Us, too!” Hamas was saying. “At precisely the moment at which you pause to reflect on all that the Shoah still evokes in you – understand this. Even that, we will desecrate. Not because our national conflict takes precedence, but because we, too, will not rest until you are destroyed.”

It sounds counterintuitive, but sadly, it’s not. Too many people today simply have no idea that significant elements of Palestinian nationalism have long been tied not only to aspirations for sovereignty, but to hatred of the Jew no less. Haj Amin al-Husseini linked early Palestinian nationalist aspirations to the Nazi effort, seeking Hitler’s assistance in opposing the creation of a Jewish state. Mahmoud Abbas, on whom Barack Obama and John Kerry still pin their hopes for peace, wrote a doctoral dissertation on the link between Nazism and Zionism. He insists that he would not write that dissertation now, but is that because it would be impolitic, or because he knows that all the “research” for his doctorate was bogus?

Haj2If what drove the Palestinians was nationalism and not hatred, why would have Gazans have elected Hamas (Hitler, too, was elected, of course) – choosing continued conflict instead of a real future – when Israel departed the strip in 2005? And why would John Kerry have to offer Abbas concessions simply for the act of returning to the negotiating table?

With all this in mind, it’s worth revisiting President Obama’s recent trip to Israel. In many ways, the visit was a great success. His speech at the Jerusalem Convention Center, in particular, repaired much of the damage of his Cairo speech, evoked Jewish historical connection to the land, Israeli vulnerability, and acknowledged Israel’s yearnings for peace.

So why did the speech leave me worried? Because while it became clear that Obama understands Israel better than he did, it remains far from certain that he understands that the Muslim rejection of Israel is far more than a national issue and that it is deeply tied to the very sentiments that are at the heart of Yom Hashoah. Yom Hashoah and Yom Hazikaron are not as distinct as we might like to imagine. Not for naught does the eerie siren mark both days.

Zeev Jabotinsky has long since fallen out of favor in most circles. But Jabotinsky merits mention in this context, for both his beliefs and his prescience. Belief-wise, he held a view, now held by very few, that both Jews and Arabs were “natives” to this land. But he was also virtually prophetic, acknowledging that while there would be many Jews who would acknowledge Arab “indigenousness” in this land, there would be very few Arabs who would ever say the same about the Jews. That fact, he concluded, meant that the conflict would endure for far longer than many of Zionism’s leaders wanted to admit.

Without question, there have been Zionists whose ideological passions have been rooted in hate, and Israel has not done nearly enough to root them out. But as a whole, Zionism has been about something much more lofty, and the question that Obama, Kerry and others need to ask themselves is this: “Is the resistance to settling this conflict that the Palestinians continue to exhibit all about negotiations, or is about something much darker, a toxic hatred, the resurgence of dogma that the West would like to believe is on the decline, but is not?”Haj4

The seemingly inconsequential rocket attack on Yom Hashoah ought not to escape the notice of the West. In its own pathetic way, it speaks volumes about the difference between Jewish and Palestinian nationalism, about the difference between a movement rooted in the desire for sovereignty versus a movement rooted in hate.

Progress will come to this region only when leaders of the West make it clear, especially to Israel’s neighbors, that they have finally learned to recognize the difference.

About Daniel Gordis

Dr. Daniel Gordis is Senior Vice President and the Koret Distinguished Fellow at Shalem College in Jerusalem. The author of numerous books on Jewish thought and currents in Israel, and a recent winner of the National Jewish Book Award, Dr. Gordis was the founding dean of the Ziegler School of Rabbinic Studies at the University of Judaism.

4 Comments on "Sadly the Twain Do Meet"

  • Dr. Denis MacEoin says

    As usual, Daniel has hit it on the nail. Beyond that, however, it’s worth adding the facts that underlie Palestinian, Arab, Iranian and other Muslim resentment towards Israel. The great European authority on jihad, Rudolph Peters, argues convincingly that the Islamic concept of international law is based on the law of jihad. Among other things, this means that Muslims must reject Western-style understandings of international law, hence the rejection of the UN partition plan and the General Assembly vote that brought Israel and (if they had gone for it) a Palestinian state into being. Beyond simple rejection of international standards, however, lies something more radical: the jihad legislation that says that any territory once conquered by or converted to Islam must remain Muslim in perpetuity. Reclamation of Spain and Portugal or Cyprus or any of the former Ottoman states in Europe cannot be ventured until there is a guarantee of success. But if it is bad enough for countries like those to be free of the Islamic yoke, it is unspeakable for non-Muslims to rule over a majority Muslim population. During the colonial period, this caused great unrest against the British (in Egypt etc.) or the French (in North Africa). But with the colonial powers long gone, Israel is the last remaining case of non-Muslim rule. Of course, Israel does not have a majority Muslim population, but Jews do rule over land that was among the first to0 be conquered in the 7th century, and they have divided a territory originally under majority Muslim rule. Being Jews makes this worse than anything, even rule by Christians. For this reason and the impossibility of persuading Muslim to drop jihad (a Qur’anic duty), there’s little likelihood of peace. Given time, perhaps there will be a return to secularization, but that may only bring the Palestinians back to what they would perceive as a nationalist struggle. It is lack of knowledge of this situation that prevents Western politicians like Obama from ‘getting’ what this is about. Without a basic understanding of Islamic law and how it blocks action on the basis of international law, they have no way of understanding why the Palestinians and their allies won’t budge an inch on anything. It is like two teams on the same field, one playing American football, the other soccer. Until the West really hurts the Arabs (and Iran) for their failure to observe international law in this respect, they will continue to fight for something that will never happen.

  • David Brusin says

    Hello Dr. Gordis,

    I found your post today to be insightful and compelling. In particular, the case you make for answering these questions:

    “But are the two really so unrelated? Is it really true that hatred of the Jew on the one hand, and Palestinian rejection of Israel on the other, are so thoroughly disconnected?”

    If you haven’t read it yet, you will find that David Nirenberg’s new book, ANTI-JUDAISM: THE WESTERN TRADITION, offers the background, framework and narrative necessary to make the strongest case possible for the truth of your insights and arguments.

    By the way, I took a couple Bible classes with your father at Temple University back in the late 60′s and early 70′s, while I was studying for the rabbinate at RRC and in a doctoral program in philosophy at Temple.

    Y’asher Kochacha,
    David Brusin

  • Moishe (Thomas) Goldstein Toronto Canada says

    יי עז לעמו יתן יי יברך את עמו בשלום

  • David Leibowitz says

    Again, an insightful and concise statement of the situation. Dr. MacEoin’s comment is also helpful. The next step is obvious: These points about the Moslem position are so simple, so longstanding, so clear that one wonders why Western “Leaders” and “thinkers” never seem to “get it.” It can’t simply be that they are too rushed to comprehend the background briefings before they come to Israel for a photo opportunity, or host a visit from some Israelis. Explanations such as Prof Gordis’ have been around for years. It is not reasonable to accept that these “leaders” just haven’t been informed. Somehow, we are left with the remaining reason: they agree with the hatred. Thus, none have been part of the solution; they are part of the problem.

    Of course, I’m open to hearing another reason for their position.

Leave a Reply