
Website of Rabbi Shai Gluskin
Home
Haaretz Op-Ed
Piece, Monday, April 11, 2002.
The turning point
By Meron Benvenisti
No one has ever been able to predict exactly when the
opposition to war and bloodshed turns from treachery into a
legitimate, indeed proper approach; when moral condemnation
of acts of war becomes politically correct - and when a
phrase like "a war for our homes" changes from being a
battle cry into blathering nonsense. Nobody has predicted it
in advance, but experience shows that the moment when the
patriotism of the herd turns into critical skepticism does
inevitably arrive, sooner or later - sometimes in weeks or
months, or sometimes a generation or two later.
Past experience proves that international condemnations,
exposure to the horror, demonstrations and political
protests have a cumulative influence, but those are
countered by feelings of tribal unity, moral superiority and
self-righteousness. One would expect that the price of the
bloodshed from the continuing violence would lead to a
rational calculation of the value of human lives versus the
goals for which they are killed. But communities that grow
used to calculating their steps according to absolute values
do not do so according to pragmatic assessments of cost and
benefit. Even making the comparison between the cost in
human lives and its purpose is problematic: The most costly
price has already been paid in human lives and the need to
justify it requires inflating the value of what they were
paid for.
Leaders who inflict great sacrifices upon their people
cannot let it be known to all and sundry that they were
wrong, so they make the goals absolute: "A war for our
homes" or "a war for our existence" - goals with infinite
price tags. The issue of the relationship between the goal
to its price is decried as irrelevant, and raising rational
arguments is considered blasphemy, an attempt to quantify
something that has no price.
Nonetheless, experience shows that manipulating values to
justify the sacrifice of human lives can never ultimately
succeed because the survival instinct is stronger than the
manipulation. Eventually, the cynicism of inflated,
counterfeit patriotism is revealed, as happened in Lebanon
War.
Nobody can predict when the moment will come and all the
experts and commentators will start competing over who was
the first to expose the failure, the misguided strategy, the
uselessness, the illusions, the political stupidity, the
surrender to vengeance and the ruthlessness - the real price
of the current operation. But the manipulators should not
delude themselves: That moment will come. Will it arrive
when the scenes of destruction in Jenin are finally
revealed? Or when it becomes clear to everyone that the
operation "to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure" only
increased the terror? Or when it turns out that the
reoccupation of the Palestinian territories and the buffer
zones requires longer and longer reserve service? Or will
the sobering up occur when Israel becomes a "rogue state" in
the eyes of the entire world, or will it happen when the
economic situation deteriorates into an even worse crisis?
And if anyone has doubts about the arrival of the morning
after, they should take a look at the Jewish Agency's
patriotic advertising campaign, which calls on people to
"continue living the dream" - a pathetic attempt to postpone
the awakening on the shards of the Zionist dream and to
preach getting lost in dreams to escape reality.
When the time comes, and the curtain is pulled away from
this phony patriotism, it will turn out that the fifth
Israel-Palestine war (after the Arab Revolt, the 1948 war,
the Lebanon war, and the first intifada) will truly have
been another battle in the war of independence, but not
Israel's, as Ariel Sharon claims, but that of the
Palestinians. And nobody, neither side, will win that war,
because in conflicts between communities there are no
victors, only losers. All that will remain will be the
horrific memories, the profound hatred, the calls for
vengeance, and the bitter taste of missed opportunities,
since it almost, almost could have been different.
|