JTA: The Global News Service of the Jewish People

Sharansky’s identity problem

By Uriel Heilman · June 26, 2008

Former Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky, who now chairs the Shalem Center's Adelson Institute for Strategic Studies (yes, that Adelson), says all of Israel's current problems can be traced to one core problem: the decline of Israel's Zionist identity.

It is to blame for changes made in the 1990s to Israel's code of military conduct, which hampers the ability of Israeli troops to defend themselves and the country; it's to blame for the culture of political corruption in Jerusalem, where Knesset members are more keen on keeping their jobs than on guiding the country to where it needs to go; and it's to blame for the persistence of the belief among Israel's enemies that they can wear down the Jewish state and eventually destroy it, he says.

Sharansky, who sat down with me Thursday in New York, strikes the same theme in his new book, "Defending Identity: Its Indispensable Role in Protecting Democracy."

In a nutshell, Sharansky argues that ethnic identity, rather than threatening freedom, guarantees liberty and democracy. He was in the United States for a book tour (which, he noted wryly, is less lucrative than it used to be, given the decline of the dollar against the shekel).

In our conversation, Sharansky told me Israel's enemies are becoming stronger only because Israel looks like it is becoming weaker.

Why does Israel look this way? Post-Zionism.

The cure? A Jewish, Zionist identity.

Sharansky sounds some of the same themes American Jews sound when speaking of the dangers of assimilation. Except whereas the price in America is the gradual watering-down or disappearance of Jewish identity among American Jews, in Israel the very survival of the Jewish state is at stake.

To promote the return of Zionist ideology to Israel, Sharansky is collaborating with the likes of Moshe (Boogie) Ya'alon, Martin Kramer, Michael Oren, Yossi Klein Halevi and others on researching the problems and suggesting possible solutions.

One of the things he's not doing is running for Knesset, which he left in 2005 to protest Ariel Sharon's withdrawal of Israeli settlers and troops from Gaza, which Sharansky insists was a big mistake.

Will Sharansky ever return to politics? "Nobody can leave politics in Israel," he says.

1 Comment | Share This | Israel, Zionism |

The Jackie Robinson of Yiddish

By Ami Eden · June 26, 2008

The New Standard, which bills itself as "Central Ohio's Largest Circulation Jewish Newspaper," has a profile on Colleen McCallum-Bonar, a graduate student at Ohio State who is poised to be the first African-American ever to receive a Ph.D. in Yiddish literature (at least she thinks she will be).

"I can count on one hand the other African-Americans doing Yiddish: none," McCallum-Bonar said. "Maybe there are some others out there and maybe we just haven't crossed paths, but I don't know any."

But the story fails to address the key question: How do you say "Buckeyes" in Yiddish?

7 Comments | Share This | Yiddish |

Freeing Samir Kuntar

By Uriel Heilman · June 26, 2008

In a follow-up to his recent piece arguing for ignoring Israel's national interest and releasing terrorists in exchange for captive Israeli soldiers, former Rabin aide Eitan Haber writes in Thursday's Ynet that convicted murderer Samir Kuntar should be freed by Israel, if needed. Kuntar is the Lebanese Druse who snuck into Israel in 1979 and killed four people, including a 4-year-old girl and her father.

0 Comments | Share This | Arab-Israeli Conflict, Israel |

Hitchens’ good war—against Pat Buchanan

By Ami Eden · June 26, 2008

Writing in Newsweek, Christopher Hitchens takes aim at Pat Buchanan's new book, "Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War." Hitchens levels several damning criticisms, including this one about Buchanan's view of the Holocaust:

As the book develops, Buchanan begins to unmask his true colors more and more. It is one thing to make the case that Germany was ill-used, and German minorities harshly maltreated, as a consequence of the 1914 war of which Germany's grim emperor was one of the prime instigators. It's quite another thing to say that the Nazi decision to embark on a Holocaust of European Jewry was "not a cause of the war but an awful consequence of the war." Not only is Buchanan claiming that Hitler's fanatical racism did not hugely increase the likelihood of war, but he is also making the insinuation that those who wanted to resist him are the ones who are equally if not indeed mainly responsible for the murder of the Jews! This absolutely will not do. He adduces several quotations from Hitler and Goebbels, starting only in 1939 and ending in 1942, screaming that any outbreak of war to counter Nazi ambitions would lead to a terrible vengeance on the Jews. He forgets — at least I hope it's only forgetfulness — that such murderous incitement began long, long before Hitler had even been a lunatic-fringe candidate in the 1920s. This "timeline" is as spurious, and as sinister, as the earlier dates, so carefully selected by Buchanan, that tried to make Prussian imperialism look like a victim rather than a bully.

Newsweek also has video of Hitchens talking about the book and a reaction from Buchanan.

Also, in the same issue, check out Evan Thomas' article on the uses (and misuses) of the appeasement card by American presidents and Jon Meachem riffs on Churchill.

3 Comments | Share This | Holocaust revisionism, Pat Buchanan, Shoah, World War II |

Time to bolster Hamas?

By Uriel Heilman · June 26, 2008

If Fatah militants are now firing Kassam rockets at Israel in a bid to embarrass Hamas and prompt the collapse of the group's cease-fire with Israel, does this mean Israel should bolster Hamas' military wing so that it cracks down on these renegade Fatah militants and can impose its rule on Gaza?

Madness, you say? Perhaps. But I recall Israel doing just that some years ago when the tables were turned and it was Hamas militants trying to ruin the truces between Israel and the Fatah faction of Yasser Arafat.

Now it's Hamas' gain, Fatah's loss.

1 Comment | Share This | Arab-Israeli Conflict, Israel, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict |

Beware of war

By Uriel Heilman · June 26, 2008

An editorial in Thursday's Daily Star of Lebanon suggests Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert may launch a war this summer in a bid to rally Israeli public opinion and ensure his political survival. Possible targets: Iran, Gaza and Lebanon, write the Daily Star's editorialists.

Though tensions long have been mounting on the Gaza and Iran fronts (click on those links for recent JTA pieces on the subjects), the Daily Star editorial relies on flawed logic to reach the conclusion that the likelihood of war with Lebanon is higher as a result of Olmert's political problems. It ignores the lack of public will in Israel for another confrontation in Lebanon of indeterminate success, Olmert's own bitter experience from the 2006 war with Hezbollah and (dare I say it?) the integrity of a prime minister who would not wage war merely for political survival.

But in the Hezbollah-dominated (and intimidated) state that Lebanon has become, it's telling to read the roundabout way the editorialists warn Hezbollah against provoking Israel (which really is an implicit plea to the Shiite militia not to invite more destruction upon Lebanon. The editorialists can't flat-out say that, because that would be blaming Hezbollah for the last war with Israel, in 2006, and that's a dangerous proposition in today's Lebanon):

All of these potential targets should take great care to avoid providing Olmert with a pretext that would both make an attack inevitable and dilute whatever condemnation might come from more responsible members of the international community... Rarely have so many factors converged so perfectly to increase the likelihood of Israeli aggression. Rarely has it been more important, therefore, for the region's indigenous forces - especially Hamas, Hizbullah and the Iranian government - to think long and hard about anything that might give the Jewish state an excuse to lash out. Indeed, even if an onslaught is launched without a pretext, all of these actors should consider turning the other cheek in hopes of preventing escalation and, thereby, of preserving the viability of the diplomatic solutions that such an attack would be designed to doom.

While I applaud the sentiment, it's highly doubtful any of these parties would even consider turning the other cheek. They don't really have a very long track record with that.

1 Comment | Share This | Arab-Israeli Conflict, Israel |