Tweet
ISRAEL'S MORAL DILEMMAS
by Shmuel Rosner, Slate.com
National Post (Canada)
August 30, 2007 Thursday
National Edition
The 1952 debate over the reparations agreement with Germany was
one of the bitterest in the history of Israel. "Sons of Jerusalem,
citizens of Israel," cried opposition leader Menachem Begin in the
speech he made while heading a mass demonstration that threatened
to prevent the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, from voting on the
arrangement. "This evening, the most shameful deed in the history of
our people is about to happen."
Prime minister David Ben Gurion was pushing the Knesset to approve
the deal. Simply put, it was financial compensation for the loss
of Jewish property during the horrific days of the Holocaust. "The
government of Israel," declared Begin, "is selling the honour of
Israel for greed." Less then a decade after the Holocaust, it was
a powerful accusation, and it still is. But Ben Gurion stood his
ground. He had a job to do -- securing the future of the young state.
So, he made a deal with the devil. Like it or not, reparations from
Germany helped Israel become the modern, thriving country it is today.
Israel still faces such moral dilemmas. In the past couple of weeks,
they have surfaced again around ongoing controversies in both Israel
and the United States. It is the inherent tension between making the
rational decision a "normal" country would and the need to occupy
the moral high ground that Jewish history has burdened Israel with.
Last week, House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel wrote a
letter to Israel's ambassador in Washington, Sallai Meridor, the son
of one of Begin's most prominent political supporters. "Israel has
returned 48 Sudanese people to Egypt and intends to refuse entrance
to refugees from the war-torn Darfur region of Sudan," reported the
congressman. "I am writing today to express my disappointment that
Israel would turn away any person fleeing from persecution...[I]f any
country should understand the special needs of those affected by the
genocide in Darfur, it should be Israel."
He was not alone in expressing discomfort with Israel's decision.
Dozens of Israeli legislators from across the political spectrum made
the same argument, urging the government to refrain from deporting
the refugees who fled to Israel from Darfur, via Egypt. Human rights
organizations blasted the deportations. American Jewish organizations
politely but firmly expressed disappointment.
But Prime Minister Ehud Olmert reached an agreement with Egyptian
President Hosni Mubarak under which any Sudanese citizens illegally
crossing into Israel through the Sinai Peninsula will be sent back to
Egypt. Ten days ago, Israel deported 50 such infiltrators -- and Olmert
ordered that Darfurians arriving at the gates should be rejected. Only
500 were lucky enough to be absorbed by the country indefinitely. That
number, say Israeli officials, is very high considering how small the
country is -- it is the equivalent of 20,000 refugees getting into
the United States. (The U.S. accepted fewer than 2,000 refugees from
all of Sudan last year.)
It was a calculated decision, but not a pretty one. Accepting the
first wave of Darfurians proved problematic, tempting more Africans
to attempt entry -- 50 per day and counting. If he wants to educate
himself about such problems, Emanuel can call his former boss Bill
Clinton. After CIA agents visited his house in Arkansas before he was
even inaugurated, Clinton had to roll back his criticism of the first
Bush administration's strict policy against accepting refugees from
Haiti. The agents presented him with satellite photos that showed tens
of thousands of Haitians hacking down houses and trees in anticipation
of the new, less restrictive administration.
The memory of the Holocaust and the Jewish refugees who wanted to
flee Europe but could find no country willing to accept them was a
handy weapon for those who criticized Israel for its coldhearted
decision. It became useful again last week, in an American-based
controversy involving the Anti-Defamation League, an American Jewish
organization that faces mounting criticism from both Jews and non-Jews
over its refusal to acknowledge the Armenian genocide at the hands
of the Turks in World War One.
This story is also an old one, but it never dies. Turkey, an important
international and regional player, refuses to make peace with its
murderous past and threatens to sever its ties with any country that
contradicts its version of events. Israel -- among many others --
chose a Turkish connection over truth and justice to history. The
ADL did what it thought was the responsible thing: defending Israel
and Jews in Turkey from the possible consequences of acknowledging
the genocide. But criticism threatened to tear the organization apart.
Eventually, after constant pressure from outside the organization and
also from its own activists, this led to a change of course by ADL
leader Abraham Foxman. Since advocating against anti-Semitism and
hate is the organization's core issue, its position seemed highly
hypocritical.
After consulting with his friend, Nobel Prize winner Eli Wiesel, Foxman
declared that "the consequences of those actions [by the Turks] were
indeed tantamount to genocide." But he is still holding his ground on
a practical matter related to this thorny issue. He refuses to support
a bill (submitted to Congress by a Jewish legislator, Adam Schiff,
D-Calif.) that would force the administration to take such a position.
"The Jewish people will always bear the burden of the memory of the
Holocaust and the comfort of redemption," said then-prime minister
Shimon Peres in 1996, while honouring German chancellor Helmut Kohl.
But last week, Peres took a morally indefensible stand on the Armenian
genocide. Israel has not changed its position on the killing of 1.5
million Armenians during World War One, President Peres assured the
Turkish prime minister last week. Ben Gurion's most brilliant student,
the last one standing, reiterated the always controversial Israeli
position: As it has always done, it chooses realpolitik over moral
purity. Call it an action-oriented morality. - Shmuel Rosner, chief
U.S. correspondent for the Israeli paper Ha'aretz, writes daily at
Rosner's Domain.
by Shmuel Rosner, Slate.com
National Post (Canada)
August 30, 2007 Thursday
National Edition
The 1952 debate over the reparations agreement with Germany was
one of the bitterest in the history of Israel. "Sons of Jerusalem,
citizens of Israel," cried opposition leader Menachem Begin in the
speech he made while heading a mass demonstration that threatened
to prevent the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, from voting on the
arrangement. "This evening, the most shameful deed in the history of
our people is about to happen."
Prime minister David Ben Gurion was pushing the Knesset to approve
the deal. Simply put, it was financial compensation for the loss
of Jewish property during the horrific days of the Holocaust. "The
government of Israel," declared Begin, "is selling the honour of
Israel for greed." Less then a decade after the Holocaust, it was
a powerful accusation, and it still is. But Ben Gurion stood his
ground. He had a job to do -- securing the future of the young state.
So, he made a deal with the devil. Like it or not, reparations from
Germany helped Israel become the modern, thriving country it is today.
Israel still faces such moral dilemmas. In the past couple of weeks,
they have surfaced again around ongoing controversies in both Israel
and the United States. It is the inherent tension between making the
rational decision a "normal" country would and the need to occupy
the moral high ground that Jewish history has burdened Israel with.
Last week, House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel wrote a
letter to Israel's ambassador in Washington, Sallai Meridor, the son
of one of Begin's most prominent political supporters. "Israel has
returned 48 Sudanese people to Egypt and intends to refuse entrance
to refugees from the war-torn Darfur region of Sudan," reported the
congressman. "I am writing today to express my disappointment that
Israel would turn away any person fleeing from persecution...[I]f any
country should understand the special needs of those affected by the
genocide in Darfur, it should be Israel."
He was not alone in expressing discomfort with Israel's decision.
Dozens of Israeli legislators from across the political spectrum made
the same argument, urging the government to refrain from deporting
the refugees who fled to Israel from Darfur, via Egypt. Human rights
organizations blasted the deportations. American Jewish organizations
politely but firmly expressed disappointment.
But Prime Minister Ehud Olmert reached an agreement with Egyptian
President Hosni Mubarak under which any Sudanese citizens illegally
crossing into Israel through the Sinai Peninsula will be sent back to
Egypt. Ten days ago, Israel deported 50 such infiltrators -- and Olmert
ordered that Darfurians arriving at the gates should be rejected. Only
500 were lucky enough to be absorbed by the country indefinitely. That
number, say Israeli officials, is very high considering how small the
country is -- it is the equivalent of 20,000 refugees getting into
the United States. (The U.S. accepted fewer than 2,000 refugees from
all of Sudan last year.)
It was a calculated decision, but not a pretty one. Accepting the
first wave of Darfurians proved problematic, tempting more Africans
to attempt entry -- 50 per day and counting. If he wants to educate
himself about such problems, Emanuel can call his former boss Bill
Clinton. After CIA agents visited his house in Arkansas before he was
even inaugurated, Clinton had to roll back his criticism of the first
Bush administration's strict policy against accepting refugees from
Haiti. The agents presented him with satellite photos that showed tens
of thousands of Haitians hacking down houses and trees in anticipation
of the new, less restrictive administration.
The memory of the Holocaust and the Jewish refugees who wanted to
flee Europe but could find no country willing to accept them was a
handy weapon for those who criticized Israel for its coldhearted
decision. It became useful again last week, in an American-based
controversy involving the Anti-Defamation League, an American Jewish
organization that faces mounting criticism from both Jews and non-Jews
over its refusal to acknowledge the Armenian genocide at the hands
of the Turks in World War One.
This story is also an old one, but it never dies. Turkey, an important
international and regional player, refuses to make peace with its
murderous past and threatens to sever its ties with any country that
contradicts its version of events. Israel -- among many others --
chose a Turkish connection over truth and justice to history. The
ADL did what it thought was the responsible thing: defending Israel
and Jews in Turkey from the possible consequences of acknowledging
the genocide. But criticism threatened to tear the organization apart.
Eventually, after constant pressure from outside the organization and
also from its own activists, this led to a change of course by ADL
leader Abraham Foxman. Since advocating against anti-Semitism and
hate is the organization's core issue, its position seemed highly
hypocritical.
After consulting with his friend, Nobel Prize winner Eli Wiesel, Foxman
declared that "the consequences of those actions [by the Turks] were
indeed tantamount to genocide." But he is still holding his ground on
a practical matter related to this thorny issue. He refuses to support
a bill (submitted to Congress by a Jewish legislator, Adam Schiff,
D-Calif.) that would force the administration to take such a position.
"The Jewish people will always bear the burden of the memory of the
Holocaust and the comfort of redemption," said then-prime minister
Shimon Peres in 1996, while honouring German chancellor Helmut Kohl.
But last week, Peres took a morally indefensible stand on the Armenian
genocide. Israel has not changed its position on the killing of 1.5
million Armenians during World War One, President Peres assured the
Turkish prime minister last week. Ben Gurion's most brilliant student,
the last one standing, reiterated the always controversial Israeli
position: As it has always done, it chooses realpolitik over moral
purity. Call it an action-oriented morality. - Shmuel Rosner, chief
U.S. correspondent for the Israeli paper Ha'aretz, writes daily at
Rosner's Domain.