      |
|
|
 |
|
« Back to Revisionism Revisited main page    Transcript for: Revisionism RevisitedThink Tank Transcript: Israel, Revisionism, and History ANNOUNCER: 'Think Tank' is made possible by Amgen, recipient ofthe Presidential National Medal of Technology. Amgen, helping cancerpatients through cellular and molecular biology, improving livestoday and bringing hope for tomorrow. Additional funding is provided by the John M. Olin Foundation andthe Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation. MR. WATTENBERG: Hello, I'm Ben Wattenberg. Political power inIsrael has passed from Shimon Peres and the Labor Party to BenjaminNetanyahu and the Likud Party. Some observers say Likud places peacein peril, but supporters of Likud say hard-liners can be the bestpeacemakers: Nixon to China, Begin to Egypt. To better understand how Likud and its new leader might act, weexamine the roots of the party and the mythic founder of Zionistrevisionism, the highly controversial, Vladimir Jabotinsky. Joining us to sort through the conflict and consensus are: RuthWisse, professor of Yiddish and comparative literature at HarvardUniversity and author of 'If I Am Not for Myself: The LiberalBetrayal of the Jews'; Jehuda Reinharz, president of BrandeisUniversity and author of 'Chaim Weizmann: The Making of a Statesman';Judith Miller, correspondent with 'The New York Times' and author of'God Has Ninety-Nine Names: Reporting from a Militant Middle East';and Samuel Heilman, professor of sociology and Jewish studies at CityUniversity of New York and author of 'Defenders of the Faith: InsideUltra-Orthodox Jewry.' Also on this program, an interview in Israel with Shmuel Katz,author of 'Lone Wolf,' a new two-volume biography of VladimirJabotinsky. The topic before this house: Revisionism revisited. This week on'Think Tank.' Benjamin Netanyahu, 'Bebe,' and his Likud Party beat Shimon Peresand the Labor Party in Israel's first direct election of its primeminister. It was close, 50.4 percent for Netanyahu, 49.5 percent forPeres. On its face, the election appeared to break along right-left,conservative-liberal lines, but beneath the surface of theLabor-Likud split are deep and complex intellectual roots that longprecede the founding of the state of Israel. Shmuel Katz in Tel Aviv, welcome. You joined with and forJabotinsky and were a great admirer of his. When you see and hearBebe Netanyahu today and the Likud Party, do you hear echoes ofJabotinsky? MR. KATZ: I would say yes. The battlefield was a differentbattlefield then, but the spirit I think is there. My impression is,by the way, that the basic principle of Jabotinsky's activities, andthat is to face up to facts, I think that this has been inherited byBebe. MR. WATTENBERG: Could you give us a brief history of Jabotinsky'slife? MR. KATZ: He was born in Odessa in 1880, and he became famous as ayoung man as a Russian writer. But after he had some experience ofRussian and semitic pogroms, he became one of the greatest agitators,or shall we call it propagandists, of the Zionist movement in Russia.Subsequently, he became a foreign correspondent of a Russiannewspaper just before World War I, and as soon as Turkey entered thewar, he decided that the Jews must form an army in order to helpdrive the Turks out of Palestine, and thereby establish a stake forthe Jewish people in that country. He subsequently became a leader, a formal leader in the Zionistorganization, but he broke with Weizmann and their differencesconstituted the main element in Zionist history between the early'20s and the late '30s. MR. WATTENBERG: How did Jabotinsky's opponents characterize him atthat time? MR. KATZ: They characterized him as a fascist, as a militarist andas, consequently, an enemy of the workers. Now, none of this wastrue, of course. MR. WATTENBERG: What was Jabotinsky's influence in the Palestineof that day? MR. KATZ: You know as well as I do how many people used to regardJews as cowards and they wouldn't fight and so on, and Jabotinskyproved to the world that this was an archaic idea, that it wasn'ttrue, that Jews fought as well and perhaps sometimes better even thanmany of the non-Jewish people among whom they fought. When he started his career as a young man, one of the firstphenomena that he encountered was in the Kishinev pogrom, where Jewsyoung and old allowed the pogromists to murder and rape withoutlifting a finger to resist them. Jabotinsky at that time started thefirst self-defense movement in Russia, and the idea of defendingyourself, of standing up straight and not bowing the knee to attackson you and to fight for your rights and to fight for yourself andyour family, that was something that was foreign to the whole ghettospirit. Now, Jabotinsky made it one of his life's works to changethat. He had a tremendous, I think a unique influence on the youth ofperhaps two generations. MR. WATTENBERG: Thank you, Shmuel Katz, in Tel Aviv. And thank youall for joining us here. Let's go around the room quickly, startingwith you, Ruth Wisse. Do you hear echoes of the old revisionistZionist Jabotinsky in today's Israel, led by Bebe Netanyahu? MS. WISSE: I think that in the inclusiveness of his idea ofZionism, he is very much in the Jabotinsky tradition. That is to saythat for him, Zionism is not subordinate to any other consideration.It's not subordinate to socialism, and it is not subordinate toJewish religious fulfillment. And I think that that, too, is verysquarely in the Jabotinsky tradition. MR. WATTENBERG: Sam Heilman, is this sort of Jabotinsky revisited,or is there no connection? MR. HEILMAN: I'm not sure if it's Jabotinsky revisited, butclearly there is a division that has existed for a long time betweensocialist Zionism and that revisionist Jabotinsky version, and thatis that it seems to me that the revisionist Zionist point of view wasthat people exist for the sake of the state, for the land, whereasthe socialist Zionist point of view was that the state is a medium, amechanism for creating a particular kind of society. And in that kindof division, one sees, I think, echoes in today's politics. That is,does the state come before everything else in that without asovereign state and a powerful state, you can't have a powerfulnation, or does the society come first and the state becomes amechanism, a place, a locus for that society? MR. WATTENBERG: All right, we will return to that. Judy Miller. MS. MILLER: Well, I hear faint echoes of Jabotinsky in the wordsof Bebe Netanyahu. I hear much more direct echoes, immediate, in thewords of a profound influence on Bebe's life, and that is of hisfather, a great scholar, a man who was very close to Jabotinsky. Ithink to understand Bebe, you've got to understand the father and hisinterpretation of what Jabotinsky meant. But really when I listen to Bebe Netanyahu, I kind of see BillClinton. I listen to a man who will do whatever it takes to getelected and, I hope, to be successful. Otherwise we're in for a veryrough time. MR. WATTENBERG: Okay. Jehuda Reinharz. MR. REINHARZ: Well, Jabotinsky, first of all, was very often atodds with the party he led, and so many people have their ownJabotinskys. He used to have a favorite expression, that Zionism is90 percent settlement and 10 percent politics, but the politics is asine qua non for everything else. I think in that sense, perhaps,Netanyahu reflects some of the ideas of Jabotinsky. But let me say right off the bat that I don't believe that any ofus know enough about Bebe Netanyahu at this point. MR. WATTENBERG: What were the revisionists revising? Where doesthe term revisionism come from? MR. REINHARZ: I think that what he was revising, what the Zionistrevisionists were revising, beginning in 1922, more aptly 1923, wasZionist policy to, as they said, reflect Herzl's original purpose increating the Zionist organization. And here is the irony. MR. WATTENBERG: Theodor Herzl, really the founder of modernZionism. MR. REINHARZ: Theodor Herzl is the founder of political Zionism.We are now celebrating 100 years of political Zionism right as wespeak. Theodor Herzl of course called for a home for the Jews, a'heimstadt,' to use the German expression which he used. And ofcourse, what Jabotinsky wanted was a political state, that is, aJewish state. And I think that one of his contributions, of course,is to articulate exactly that, that what the Zionists wanted is aJewish state; to hark back to Herzl is not quite correct. MR. WATTENBERG: Right. What was the bitterness about? What was thefight? I mean, as I understand it, it turned violent at times. It wasa very difficult -- MS. WISSE: Well, I think the bitterness was there not just betweenJabotinsky and others. The bitterness was there because there hasbeen infighting in Jewish life. It always seems to me like aprinciple of physics, that as the external pressure on the Jewsincreases, the internal fighting among the Jews also increases, likeparticles, like atoms, you know, getting at one another. But I think, following up from what Jehuda said, that I think itis the question of his putting the emphasis on the politics. In otherwords, I think that what he saw was that the transformation of theJewish people politically was at the heart of the Zionist problem,that Jews had been a politically dependent people for the better partof their history and for all but about 120 of the last 2,000 years.And the transformation of a people from a politically dependentpeople -- it's not that they didn't have politics, but they werepolitically dependent, and everything in Jewish psychology andeverything in Jewish political organization had to do withaccommodation, with working things out, with playing things around.Now you had to transform the people, and that meant doing what ittook. MR. HEILMAN: I think to answer your question of what thebitterness was about is that really what we're dealing with here isan effort to define what will be the nature of the nationalliberation movement of the Jews which is called Zionism. Who willdetermine what its character will be and, through that, what thecharacter will be of the new Jewish people, who will no longer livean existence in exile as a minority, dependent upon someone else'sgood graces, subordinate. What will that require? And I think that what the socialist Zionists said was that theonly way that we can liberate Jews is to create a society in whichthey are sovereign and in which, in effect, all the principles ofsocialism can include Jews as well. And what the revisionist Zionists said is that that is all true,but the first and most important element of that is to havesovereignty over a particular piece of territory, only one piece ofterritory, not one that would be in Africa or that would be in GrandIsland in the river, in the Niagara River, but in what was thencalled Palestine, and that it should be totally defendable, it shouldbe as large as the biblical land of Israel. MR. WATTENBERG: The Zionists at that time were offered Uganda bythe British? MR. HEILMAN: Well, what is actually Kenya. MR. WATTENBERG: Kenya? MR. REINHARZ: In 1903, yeah. MR. HEILMAN: And some of them were willing to take it because theargument was we're interested in changing the nature of a Jewishsociety, and if we have to do it in Kenya or Uganda, we'll do itthere. In fact, that never worked because the recognition was thatthere are some historical elements here, that you can't just do itanywhere. MS. MILLER: What I'm struck by in Jabotinsky is this incredibleability and determination to face facts, and it's that that I thinkyou really hear the most echoes of in the current debate in Israeltoday. I mean, Jabotinsky knew and said what few people wanted toacknowledge then, few Zionists really wanted to face, which was theywere on, quote, other people's land, people who would not be moved,people who would not welcome them no matter how prosperous theirpresence made that society, that they would have to fight for theland, that there would have to be an iron wall between the localpopulation who were there and the new immigrants. And that ability,that determination -- MR. WATTENBERG: That was the title of Jabotinsky's famous book. MS. MILLER: Absolutely. MR. WATTENBERG: 'The Iron Wall,' right. MS. MILLER: Absolutely. You hear this now in the Likud calls forseparation, for 'We must face facts. They will never love us. ThePalestinians will never really accept us.' It's this unwillingness tosee the world as we would like it to be and a determination to see itas it is and to draw the proper policy conclusions from facts on theground. MR. HEILMAN: And it also says that under those conditions,democracy is not necessarily the highest ideal, that the highestideal is maintaining the integrity of the Jewish people and theircontinuity. MR. WATTENBERG: But he was always a democrat, small 'd', wasn'the? MS. MILLER: Absolutely. MR. REINHARZ: Absolutely. Jabotinsky really -- MR. WATTENBERG: He never wavered from that, as I understand it. Imean -- MS. MILLER: Not at all. MR. WATTENBERG: Judy mentioned the two magic words, I think, whichwere 'face facts.' I mean, that was sort of Jabotinsky's marchingsong, wasn't it? Is this argument between the people who are sayingface real tough facts and between those who say, well, this is whatwe would prefer the world to be like and we think it can be like? Imean, when I hear this argument, it just says to me, growing up inAmerica, Cold War. I mean, this is exactly the rhetoric that we heardin the United States for 30 years between the hawks and the doves. MS. WISSE: I think that a healthy society in fact probably splitsdown the middle between hard and soft because each person who'shealthy splits between a hard part of himself and a soft part ofhimself. But I think that the question here is really muchcompounded. It's not the comparison with the Cold War because,unfortunately, antisemitism happens to be a reality, not only areality, but it's one of the most powerful political forces in themodern world. This is not an invention of Jewish militarists. It isjust simply a fact. And facing that fact puts an intolerable pressure on the Jews. Imean, there are these people who organize their political idea of whothey are in contradistinction to the presence of the Jews in theirmidst, blaming the Jews for everything that's wrong in their society.And I think that that's one of the reasons that Jews are so temptedto look away, to try to strategize so that they can remain neutral. MR. HEILMAN: I think that in a way what Ruth is saying is that theface facts side of things is that the world is against us, and thatthe opposing point of view is a more humanist attitude that says thatit is possible for a coexistence to occur across religious and ethniclines. I think that one of the divisions that one gets here is that-- the idea that the Arabs will never be able to live with us, willnever be able to accept us, and the other that says that we cancreate a kind of egalitarian society, a socialist society in whichthe welfare of all people, regardless of who they are, can somehow bemaintained. And that has been in some ways really at the heart of the Zionistargument. MR. WATTENBERG: Judy, is that 'face facts' thing, is that whatdrove this last election? MS. MILLER: In part. I think there were so many factors involvedin this, it's going to take a long time for us to sort it out. Butthere were two visions of Israel offered in this campaign. One wasShimon Peres's new Middle East, what Sam has just described, thisworld in which Israel would be a normal country of normal people,citizens surrounded by normal people who also want -- the Arabs --the same thing, that they would seek common interests and mutualprosperity, that in other words, there would be a world in whicheconomic factors were more important than the traditional tribalreligious rivalries that have so plagued this region. Now, that's onevision. The opposite, of course, was the -- to be pejorative, you couldcall it almost a ghetto mentality, the notion that Israel is apeculiar place filled with people who will never be accepted, ever,by their neighbors, that it can depend on no one, despite itsalliance with the United States, or de facto alliance. MR. REINHARZ: I see this really more as a continuum. I don't seethis as a division between one side and the other. I think that bothelements really are reflected in both camps and have been since theinception of Zionism. If we can go back to the comparison ofJabotinsky and Netanyahu for a second, Jabotinsky was -- I think onething that characterized him as probably, I would argue, despite myfondness for Weizmann, as one of the probably most interesting of theZionist leaders. But there was also very strong pragmatism to what hedid. I think I see the same thing in Bebe. I think -- MS. MILLER: Pragmatism or opportunism? MR. REINHARZ: I would say that we have to differentiate betweenelection rhetoric and actually what's happening. And if we just lookat the cold facts -- and I have said before that we know very littleabout Bebe at this point; I know very little about Bebe at thispoint, despite the fact that I have read his books -- I would saythat if you look at what the campaign rhetoric was and what thestatements have been since then, I see a very pragmatic politician. Isee somebody who I would say is a combination of an AmericanRepublican in terms of his economic philosophy and a pragmaticIsraeli politician, perhaps with a tinge of revisionism there, if onecould say that. MR. HEILMAN: We have to look at all of these arguments anddivisions and ideological distinctions in context, and the contexthas changed. We're no longer talking about a nascent country. We'retalking about a nation that is accepted even by its enemies as areality in the world of -- in the community of nations. And I thinkfor that reason, exactly as Jehuda has pointed out, that we have tolook at Netanyahu in the context of the realpolitik of today. Thetrain has left the station. What he can do is he can push on thethrottle or he can pull back on the throttle, but he's not going tomake that train go a different direction. MR. WATTENBERG: Judy, you've covered the Arab world for severalyears. Does that sound a little -- MS. MILLER: Well, I think it would sound plausible if BebeNetanyahu were able to set the agenda. MS. WISSE: Exactly. MS. MILLER: The problem is there are other players out there onthat playing field. And the interests of Hezbollah and Hamas andIslamic Jihad are very different from that of Bebe Netanyahu's. Hecannot control how they will react no matter what the Arab states doto make his life easier or complicated. There are facts to be facedon the Arab side as well, and one of them is that if they choose toprovoke Bebe Netanyahu and the state of Israel, and I think that willbe their strategy, his options will be limited. He's not alone. MS. WISSE: I think that that's why it's important to perhapschange the rhetoric that you introduced and this concept of theghetto mentality, which I think is really not only not fair, but Idon't think it's accurate, and go back to what Jehuda was sayingbefore that is so characteristic of Jabotinsky. It's hardly aquestion of seeing the world as us and them, and certainly not thatthe whole world is against us. That was not at all what I intended toimply in pointing out the reality of antisemitism, where it exists,as the organizing principle of politics. It doesn't exist in all theworld. Therefore it's possible to make alliances, it's possible tolook reality square in the face and to be an optimist doing so, tosay we do have certain options. MS. MILLER: It's really not the issue of anti-Jewishness. That'snot what's going on in the Middle East. You have a struggle overterritory. That's what's happening in the Middle East. MS. WISSE: Well, I'm not sure. I know that -- I mean, you havewritten more about this from the inside than I have, but I do knowthat the kind of rhetoric that one hears even in the United States inMiddle East programs -- MS. MILLER: No, especially in the United States. MS. WISSE: All right, especially in the United States. And whatone finds -- MS. MILLER: In Middle East programs. But not in the Arab world. MS. WISSE: Well, I -- that may indeed be, but I do think that thepresence of Israel is used politically in very similar ways, notidentical ways, but very similar ways to the way the presence of theJews was used in European politics. MR. HEILMAN: I think it's not just territory. I think that it isthe question of will the world accept us as a people and as a peoplewith a right to exist -- and obviously, here is where we exist -- inIsrael, as indeed for the entire Jewish community throughout theworld? The antenna is always out there to look for the first signthat the world wants us gone in one way or another. I think that ispart of the equation. I think that's part of the struggle over theland. MR. REINHARZ: I think one dimension that we have not spoken aboutconcerning this new government is clearly some of the issues areland. I mean, it's incontrovertible. What is the peace process about?It's about land. MS. WISSE: It's about land. MR. REINHARZ: Of course there are larger issues around it, butland is obviously at the core. Is it going to be the Golan, is itgoing to be the territories, is it going to be -- et cetera. Thatclearly is there. MS. WISSE: Certainly. MR. REINHARZ: I'm just as interested to know, and I don't know,what is Netanyahu's vision of the Jewish people, of the people inIsrael, of the relations between Israel and the diaspora. My sense isthat he is going to fight for a very strong nation. I think that hehas, as much as he constraints that are political from the outside,he has, clearly, constraints from the inside. And I think there isgoing to be the art of the politician. MS. MILLER: And Jehuda, you talked about the Jabotinsky emphasison a Jewish state. I mean, that's a very open question. What does itmean to have a Jewish state? How do you define it? What is temporalversus spiritual authority? MR. HEILMAN: What is a Jew? What is a Jew? MS. MILLER: Who is a Jew? (Cross talk.) MR. WATTENBERG: That's another program. Thank you, Ruth Wisse,Jehuda Reinharz, Samuel Heilman, and Judith Miller. And thank you. We enjoy hearing from you. Please send yourquestions and comments to: New River Media, 1150 17th Street, NW,Washington, DC, 20036. Or we can be reached via e-mail atthinktv@aol.com or on the World Wide Web at www.thinktank.com. For 'Think Tank,' I'm Ben Wattenberg. ANNOUNCER: This has been a production of BJW, Incorporated, inassociation with New River Media, which are solely responsible forits content. 'Think Tank' is made possible by Amgen, recipient of thePresidential National Medal of Technology. Amgen, helping cancerpatients through cellular and molecular biology, improving livestoday and bringing hope for tomorrow. Additional funding is provided by the John M. Olin Foundation andthe Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation. Back to top  Think Tank is made possible by generous support from the Smith Richardson Foundation, the Bernard and Irene Schwartz Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, the Donner Canadian Foundation, the Dodge Jones Foundation, and Pfizer, Inc. ©Copyright Think Tank. All rights reserved. 
  Web development by Bean Creative. |