Although I had already passed the biblical age of three score and ten by several years in February of 2001, when I wrote Whither Zionism?, I still held the belief that good will and reason exist in our government and that if its members were to be offered an easy to read version of the actual history of Zionism they might reconsider their policy towards the fractious Middle East. President Clinton’s efforts in December of 2000 towards an Israeli-Palestinian accord had failed and Chairman Arafat had been made solely responsible for the outcome. We were told that Arafat had not only rejected the “unprecedented generous” territorial offers by then Prime Minister (currently Minister of Defense) Ehud Barak, but also responded with increasing terrorism to extract further concessions from the Israelis which they could not possibly agree to. This was the official version of events Americans were treated to on a daily basis at that time and it was obvious that renewed violence of massive proportions was about to break out again in the “Holy Land.” 

            We were not told that the Camp David II talks never had a chance to succeed. Clinton was about to leave office on January 20 and any potential agreement could not have been implemented within that time frame. Ehud Barak faced a tough re-election campaign against Ariel Sharon and whatever promises he made would be meaningless because the Knesset would not ratify major concessions. This was, of course, obvious to anyone with a moderate degree of insight and Arafat knew that the deck was stacked against him. He had not wanted to come to that meeting. It was premature because Barak had not adhered to previous commitments and unless those steps were taken first no “final status” agreement on the “Two State Solution” was possible. But Arafat had no choice; when the president of the United States wants you to come it is impossible to refuse. Arafat did request, however, that he would not be made the exclusive scapegoat if the talks were to fail. Clinton promised, but he promptly broke the promise after the meeting and the version of the events as described in the first paragraph has remained official history. The documentation for these statements can be found in the March 1, 2007 article: Barak in Salt Lake City and March 1, 2009: Whither Zionism? Revisited.

            When the Bush administration took office on January 20 I had hoped that our Middle East policy might become that of an “honest broker” who takes the needs, rather than desires, of both sides into consideration which might lead, over a couple of years, to a resolution of this conflict, which can degenerate into a major war at any time. While the Balkans, with their national aspirations, were the powder keg for the 20^th century, the Middle East serves that function in the 21^st.  This was the background which prompted me to write the mentioned book and to send it to all members of the Bush Cabinet as well as key members of the Senate and House. I thought that if I kept the narration short they might read it on some of their plane travels and take the contents to heart. As I noted in a postscript in 2004 I was sorely mistaken. As an average citizen I had no idea what the Cheney-Bush administration (sequence corresponds to the facts and is not a typographic error) was really all about. The administration, including the Pentagon, was chock full of “supporters of Israel” and any understanding with Arabs became completely out of the question when Sharon took office and reoccupied the West Bank territories in reprisal against the second Intifada which was dominated by suicide attacks against Israeli civilians.

The 9/11 disaster was the final nail in the coffin of any potential “peace process” because Sharon and Bush succeeded in submerging the Palestinian national liberation struggle into the “Global War on Terrorism.” The official line was that the Israelis had been the first victims of this Muslim terror and they were now regarded as the experts on how to deal with it. Israeli generals could walk unannounced into Pentagon offices; Israeli “advisors” taught our troops how to conduct urban guerilla warfare and how to extract confessions from unwilling captives. They had, after all, decades of experience in the matter but the fact that this type of experience had merely prolonged the conflict, rather than ending it, did not deter anyone in Washington. The mantra, which continues to this day, is that Israel is a small country, surrounded by implacable enemies devoted to its demise and, therefore, has special security needs. Furthermore, as the only democracy in the Middle East it is our most reliable ally and its conduct must not be questioned.    

When the Twin Towers of the WTC collapsed, Osama bin Laden was immediately named as the culprit and any possible link to grievances against America’s unconditional support of Israel’s policies against the Palestinians was squashed as anti-Semitic rumor mongering. The fact that the chief plotter of 9/11, Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) was the uncle of Ramzi Yousef, who was responsible for the first WTC bombing in 1993, and had provided him with money, was relegated to the relative obscurity of the Internet. According to Wikipedia Yousef had sent a letter to The New York Times after the 1993 attack which provided the motive: "We declare our responsibility for the explosion on the mentioned building. This action was done in response for the American political, economical, and military support to Israel, the state of terrorism, and to the rest of the dictator countries in the region.” Since the bomb had failed to wreak the expected havoc the group vowed to repeat the attempt with improved means. 

This aspect of past history, especially the fact that KSM was also reported to have had ties to Pakistani Intelligence Services (ISI), clearly did not fit with the plans of the Cheney-Bush administration which required Osama bin Laden to be the sole instigator. Since bin Laden and Al Qaeda were protected by the Taliban in Afghanistan the country had to be taught a lesson.  Yet, even nearly 10 years later we don’t know to what extent bin Laden had personally been involved in the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks because there has never been an international inquiry into the events of that day. The 9/11 Commission report simply accepted bin Laden’s guilt without providing evidence which would hold up in a court of law. The Bush administration’s response to 9/11 was most revealing. If one were certain that bin Laden was the mastermind one would not have needed to invade the whole country of Afghanistan to capture about 50 or so people. That is what we have the CIA and our vaunted special forces for who have no compunction over capturing and/or killing undesirables wherever they may be found. The invasion of Afghanistan, ostensibly in retaliation of 9/11, had ulterior motives as has been previously discussed here (One Year later; October 1, 2002) .

While the fate of Afghan women, who had to be liberated from their burqas, was a good propaganda tool, a more powerful reason was the desire for a pipeline from the Caspian area through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Arabian Sea, south of the Strait of Hormuz. This would have bypassed Russia as well as Iran and thereby secured unhindered flow of oil to the Western world. Nine years later there is still no pipeline, Burqa clad women can still be seen even in Kabul, the only city we have some control over, the Taliban remain undefeated, Al Qaeda has moved to Pakistan and is training new recruits from all over the world including our own country. And what has become of the arch-villain bin Laden who had to be brought back dead or alive in 2001? The $25 million reward is still looking for someone to collect it and it is difficult to believe that, if the U.S. had really made a concerted effort, he would not have been found by now. David Ray Griffin, in Osama Bin Laden: Dead or Alive, advanced the thesis that the man is in all probability dead because he was reported to have had serious kidney disease requiring dialysis already in the summer of 2001. Politics demand, however, that he be kept alive, not only in memory but in fact, to provide a rationale for the continued War on Terrorism which is so vital for our some of our Republican perpetual warriors.

We are told that America’s security would be in serious danger if the Taliban were to succeed. They would create havoc in Afghanistan; allow Al Qaeda again a safe haven in that country and that would be the end of the U.S. as we know it. Let us stay with Afghanistan a moment longer because of last week’s events. The commanding general of the Afghan war, McChrystal, and his staff had made a fundamental mistake earlier in the year when they regarded a reporter as a drinking buddy with whom they could “spill their guts.” Their unvarnished opinions about how the war was going, which were essentially correct, appeared in Rolling Stone magazine, of all places, and thoroughly embarrassed the general. Now it was up to President Obama to deal with this problem, which came on top of the uncontrollable oil spill in the Gulf for the handling of which he continues to get hammered in the media on a daily basis.

General McChrystal had neglected the unwritten 11^th commandment which governs our society and states: Thou shalt never speak the truth as you see it in public. This had gotten him into hot water with the Obama administration last year but did succeed in providing him with at least thirty of the forty thousand troops he had asked for in order to order to bring that war to a successful conclusion. The Petraeus counterinsurgency “surge,” on the Iraq model, which I must admit I had not believe in at the time, was to be the key to victory and the capture of the town of Marjah earlier in the year was to have been the prelude to rooting out the Taliban in Kandahar during the summer. Well, the Taliban don’t play by our rules; they do what I said in December 2001 (War on Terrorism) they would. They temporarily melt into the civilian population and the mountains from whence they emerge intermittently to harass and frighten not only NATO troops but more importantly all those of their fellow citizens who show an inclination to side with the foreigners in their country.

The fact that the Karzai government has not succeeded in gaining the respect of the people and allows lawlessness as well as rampant corruption to exist undermines, of course, the basic premise of counterinsurgency. When the government is ineffective, people will accept any kind of order even if it is tyrannical. This has been the lesson of history and ignoring it will not help matters. Since the Marjah problem has not yet been satisfactorily solved the Kandahar operation was postponed to the fall while the rest of the additional 30,000 troops are on their way. Now we have to face another fact of life. I don’t think that any levelheaded person in the administration, including Obama and the Pentagon, believes that the Afghan war can really be won. The real problem for the administration is how to get out without jeopardizing the 2012 presidential election. The goal now seems to be to build and train an Afghan army. But the Afghans have known since time immemorial how to fight people they don’t like and hardly need any training for that. The important point is that they fight when they want to, whom they want, and no foreigner has ever convinced them to be subservient to a regime that they dislike; native or foreign.

Obama is regularly chastised by the Republicans as having no military experience and is now selling out the national security of our country simply to please foreigners. Under these circumstances the president had to show the “leadership” which his critics said he lacked. McChrystal was unceremoniously fired, General Petraeus was persuaded to take that thankless job, which he accepted, probably against his better judgment, and the whole country including FOX news applauded. Now comes the irony of the whole situation in form of a comment Petraeus had made earlier this year in a Pentagon briefing and which was reported by CNN in March to the effect that “America’s relationship with Israel is important but not as important as American lives.” This led to headlines such as “Israel’s intransigence is endangering American lives.” While we are paying lip service to the phrase that the world has become vastly interconnected the influential Jewish leadership in our country vehemently denies any linkage between America’s unquestioning support of any and all of Israel’s policies with the success or failure of our War on Terrorism.

When Obama took office there was again, briefly, the hope that America might now at last assume the honest broker role which the previous administrations had failed to carry out. He gave conciliatory speeches trying to please both sides, which also called for a stop of new Jewish settlements in Palestinian areas. It is obvious that any resolution of the conflict requires this as the first step. Even President Bush had asked for it from Prime Minister Sharon but when this was not forthcoming he quietly accepted “realities on the ground.” The same fate now befell Obama when he tried earlier in the year to convince Prime Minister Netanyahu that the settlements are a major obstacle to peace efforts and that before anything else can be achieved at least new settlements must no longer be allowed. But just like in previous years the plea fell on deaf ears and was ignored. Yet, unless this condition is met even the “proximity talks,” which Senator Mitchell has valiantly been trying to get going for the past year, are an exercise in futility.         

To understand the depth of the quandary we have to recognize that we are dealing with an identity problem which especially the Ashkenazi segment of the Jewish people has been grappling with since the end of the 18^th and beginning of the 19^th century when they emerged from the shtetl culture into the ferment of budding European “enlightenment” and nationalism. As mentioned in Whither Zionism? the modern impetus for Jews to regard themselves as a nation, rather than a religious-cultural ethnic community, did not originally come from a supposed ancient Jewish yearning for Jerusalem, as expressed in Psalm 135. Only verses 5 and 6, “If I forget thee, O Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy,” tend to be quoted to signify the eternal yearning of Jews for the lost homeland. The ending of this psalm, verses 8 and 9, “O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed, happy shall he be, that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us. Happy shall he be, that taketh and dashes thy little ones against the stones,” are not in the repertory of Christian, at least Catholic, worship services. It is obvious that the psalmist got a little bit carried away by his rhetoric because only a minority of the exiles felt that way. A larger number was quite content to remain in the cosmopolitan climate “by the rivers of Babylon” where they had grown roots and felt no need to move back to the intellectual isolation and harsh physical conditions of Judea.

Paradoxically the modern impetus to nationhood had come from the Christian community, especially that segment which takes the Bible literally as the inerrant Word of God, and was intent on hastening Jesus’ second coming. In their view this event is predicated upon the Jews’ returning to the ancient homeland and the rebuilding of the temple. Initially Jews were not intrigued with this idea since it is not particular good news for them. In case this were to happen as envisioned by these believers the Jews would be confronted with the stark choice: convert or be killed. 

Continental European nationalism started with the Napoleonic Wars. In the name of “La Grande Nation” Napoleon, or “Bonie” as the British sailors affectionately referred to him, smashed the moribund multiethnic Holy Roman Empire and created a variety of mini-States as well as duchies. But the idea took hold. If the French could be a nation, why should this not apply to Germans, Italians, Spaniards and Jews?  Napoleon was aware of this problem and, therefore asked the Jewish elders: are you a nation or a religion? They answered with: we are a religious group and good Frenchmen. Although it is clear that this was the only permissible answer they could have given, I am inclined to believe that they were sincere. The reason for this opinion is that throughout the 19^th and even the early part of the 20^th century those Jews who were socially and professionally integrated into their respective countries had no wish to jeopardize their hard won positions of influence in them. As Vienna’s Chief Rabbi Moritz Guedemann told Herzl who tried to convert him to the Zionist cause:

“In the Talmud it is written: ‘Vengeance is great; since the word ‘vengeance’ appears between two names of God, ‘A god of vengeance is God.’ You do not seem to be aware of this at all. I am to go away from here and clear the way for our enemies, who constantly abuse and curse the name of Jew and all those who bear it, in order to grow vegetables in Palestine. No, ten thousand horses could not drag me away from here, until I have the satisfaction of seeing the downfall of our enemies.”                            

This is not some anti-Semitic invention but was reported in Fraenkel’s book, The Jews of Austria.

The influential Jews of Herzl’s days, regardless of what country they lived in, were nearly unanimously opposed to the idea of a “Judenstaat” and I have excerpted portions of Guedemann’s Nationaljudenthum in War&Mayhem, as well as Whither Zionism? Since the latter can be downloaded cost-free from this website I shall limit myself here only to the first sentences and the last,

“The word Nationaljudenthum and the movement which is associated with it suffer from an inherent inner contradiction. Judaism on account of its historic mission, does not have the task to support let alone worship the addiction to or hankering after nationalism, but much rather to work towards the removal of the individualism of all nations and the unification of all human beings in one family. If Judaism would awaken in all its members the desire to become once again a nation, it would commit suicide.”

As a rabbi Guedemann ended his pamphlet with a quote of Zechariah 14:9, “And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day there shall be one LORD, and his name is one.” While this quote was for public consumption his private view, expressed to Herzl as noted above, was probably more in line with verse 14:12 of Zachariah, “And this shall be the plague wherewith the LORD will smite all the people that have fought against Jerusalem; their flesh shall consume away while they stand upon their feet, and their eyes shall consume away in their holes, and their tongue shall consume away in their mouth.”  

             This was written in 1897 when the word Zionism, coined by Nathan Birnbaum a few years earlier, was not yet en vogue. Herzl was undeterred, and pointed to the anti-Semitism of Europe as well as the dismal living conditions of the Jews in Poland and Russia which required redress. He felt that the Jewish race (Rasse) needed to be improved but this could only be achieved when the Jews had a country of their own and under those circumstances the Maccabees would rise again. Unfortunately he had not read the real history of the Maccabees because otherwise he would have known that his dream, even if it came to fruition, would end in a nightmare in the short span of about a hundred years. This is the tragedy of our era. We profess to have learned the lessons of history when in fact we live by myths which are regarded as facts and literally defended to the death. The best example is of course the Bible. It is mistakenly read as factual history rather than as a collection of documents from various periods with the purpose of edifying the populace so that it might lead to improved conduct. While the New Testament, apart from the Book of Revelation (Apocalypse), is relatively benign because it orders Christians to accept secular authority and promises a posthumous reward, this is not the case for the Old Testament, which has decided chauvinistic features. But this is the document upon which Israeli recruits take their oath of duty in front of the Western Wall of the Temple Mount, in spite of the fact that a great many of them no longer believe in the God of the Bible.

The Zionist enterprise was entirely secular and operated originally on Marxist principles where religion was tolerated as a necessary evil one had to make compromises with. Jews were a nation which required Lebensraum and religion was optional. I have deliberately used the German word because there are some eerie parallels to German policies between 1933 and 1937 in regard to how to deal with undesired minorities. People don’t want to be reminded that Zionist policies and those of the Nazis coincided. Hitler wanted to be rid of Jews and Ben Gurion was only too happy to accept them because he needed numbers to justify the creation of the State. Unfortunately for Ben Gurion and his successors most Jews were of the Guedemann persuasion and preferred to move to one of the Western countries when life in Germany had become intolerable. That Hitler would catch up with some of them in 1940 could not have been foreseen. The same reluctance to move to Israel was observed when the Soviet Union was forced to open its borders for Jewish emigration. Although a substantial number did arrive in Israel many relocated, however, to one of the Western democracies, especially the U.S. 

The majority of the American Jewish power elite still sees Israel in the idealistic terms of its founders: a secular democracy with equal rights for all, which provides a model for stability in the region that deserves emulation by its neighbors rather than their enmity. Furthermore, the hostility which actually exists is totally unfounded and purely grounded on ill-will and anti-Semitism. These groups, which still influence America’s policy toward Israel, have not come to grips with the changes the country has undergone in the past forty years as a result of the victorious 1967 war. While American policy makers have come during the past decade to the reluctant conclusion that the “two state solution” is the only viable one, facts on the ground have shifted to an extent that make it quite improbable. It is obvious that the Palestinians do not want to indefinitely live under military occupation and hanker after their own independent state. But it is equally obvious that Israelis do not want to grant them this privilege, unless conditions are met which are incompatible with genuine sovereignty. They suffer from what is called the “burned child syndrome” and regard themselves surrounded by implacable enemies. Under these circumstances, the prevalent idea is that only brute force, which strikes fear in the heart of the adversary, will provide security. While Netanyahu may verbally agree to peace talks he neither has the interest nor the ability to make the concessions which would result in a peace accord.

We know that our own government is currently stalled because Republicans and Democrats are at each other throats in order to win the November midterm elections, a goal which overrides everything else. The situation is even worse in Israel. In the aftermath of the 1967 war the religious parties have gained influence to an extent that they have a virtual veto over the government. They are the genuine successors of the Maccabees who feel that the land was given to them by God and no man has the right to give up even a portion of it. To secular nationalism religious fervor has been added which bodes ill for the future. The average Israeli, just as the average American, deplores the situation but is powerless to effect any change because emotions run high and the country is seriously politically fractured.

This is actually a replay of 2nd century BC. All we have to do is to change the former name of Hellenists to secularists while the “pious” or “faithful” represent the current ultra-orthodox segment. We know that the Maccabean era ended in civil war between two contenders for the High Priesthood, Hyrcanus and Aristobulus. They then appealed to the Romans for help, which they did and in due time even gave them a puppet king, Herod the Great. But when the country exploded again after his death the religious authorities asked that Rome take over the government. The Romans complied but since some of the procurators were rapacious and not attuned to local sentiments sporadic rebellions persisted, which eventually led to all out war in 67 AD. The destruction of the temple, which had been turned into a military fortress, occurred three years later. As if this totally avoidable tragedy had not been enough, Jewish nationalists rebelled again in 132 and after another fruitless three year struggle the country was so devastated that nobody wanted to live there any more. It is a myth that the Jews were exiled by the Romans and were never allowed to return. The historical truth is that there was no incentive to return. But this little piece of historical unpleasantness goes counter to the heroic myth of a downtrodden always victimized people, who have now at long last found freedom which they will defend to their dying breath. The outcome of this type of thinking is likely to be the same as nearly 2000 years ago but unfortunately on an infinitely larger scale.

Some of us, Jew and Gentile alike, who see this coming, can write books and articles as warnings but the influence is likely to be meager. America is the only country which can prevent this looming disaster but her citizens by and large don’t read much any more and don’t want to be bothered by topics which they regard as peripheral to their lives. But by the time these events reach center stage it will be too late. Since books and articles are no longer the prime medium, the only effective way would be through the cinema and especially Television. What would be needed to dispel the myths, which propagandists on either side live by, would be genuine historical dramas that show how, for instance, the Maccabean wars had come about, what really transpired during them, why the Romans ruled the country and why the temple was destroyed. Josephus has already written the script, which can be corrected from Roman sources for some inaccuracies. If this were shown in living color in all of its blood and gore, especially the final siege of Jerusalem, some people might come to their senses. TV is the most powerful medium but unfortunately its content currently is so mediocre and biased that it is hardly worth watching but if it were properly used it might yet be able to stave off disasters. 

The problem of Jewish self-identification: nation, people, race (DNA), religion, or ethnicity is currently hotly debated in Jewish circles with considerable differences in opinions. The ground is beginning to shift and thoughtful members of the Jewish people are recognizing that to close ones eyes to the new realities which are emerging is no longer advisable. Zionism as it has been practiced in the past is coming under increasingly critical review and some Israeli citizens are beginning to speak of the post-Zionist era. These are important developments for the US and they will be explored on basis of recent books and articles in the next installment.