The new head of state in Israel took office some time after his earlier mentor was assassinated. He initiated at once a policy of appeasement.
Appeasement was openly advocated and declared, especially regarding the brutal dictator in Syria. The Israeli head of state offered the Syrian dictator everything imaginable and then some. When he was criticized by people opposed to his policies, he had them arrested for incitement.
The Syrian dictator refused to be satisfied with the terms of the appeasement. He demanded more and more, including rights to the very capital of Israel.
The above passage does not refer to Ehud Barak and his policies, nor to Shimon Peres, nor Yossi Beilin and his Geneva Boondoggle. It does not refer to the Assads of Syria. It is not the appeasement policy of Ariel Sharon being discussed, nor his offer to release hundreds of murderers from prison in exchange for Hezbollah releasing three bodies of murdered Israeli POWs and perhaps also a captive Israeli drug smuggler. It is not the parody of Dunkirk perpetrated by Ehud Barak in Lebanon.
It is a summary of the events described in the First Book of Kings, Chapter 20.
In Ecclesiastes, it says there is nothing new under the sun. The governments of Israelites over the past decade were not the first to attempt to achieve peace through appeasement. King Ahab, the one and the same, the husband of painted Jezebel, was also the head of the Peace Now movement of his days.
He offered the Syrian dictator, named Ben-Hadad, everything imaginable. For peace. He sent tribute to Ben-Hadad. He stripped his capital of gold and silver. He even sent his wives and children to the Syrian dictator.
But as in all forms of appeasement, the goodwill gestures for peace merely emboldened the dictator. They were interpreted as a sign of Israelite weakness. Ben-Hadad demanded more. Now he demanded direct access and sovereignty within the capital of Israel itself. He must be allowed to roam the capital freely, searching homes and taking what he wanted.
Meanwhile, like his Oslo disciples thousands of years later, the original King Ahab promoted his "peace movement" accompanied by a "secularist revolution," designed to detach the state of Israel from its Jewish roots.
He would deny any role or importance for Jewish religion, and instead pursue politically correct paganism. Anything to increase his prestige among the nations!
King Ahab had myriad faults and indeed is probably the very worst king of the Israelites described in the Bible. But unlike his direct Oslo and Beilinite descendants, King Ahab at least had some national pride and set a limit beyond which he was unwilling to pursue appeasement for "peace."
That limit was reached when the barbarians demanded parts of his capital.
Such a demand pushed Ahab over the edge. Never mind the massive hordes and sheer numbers of his enemy. Never mind his own track record of suppressing Judaism and promoting PC paganism. Ahab abandoned appeasement overnight, with the approval of the Prophets and the Bible. He discovered that there really is a military solution to terrorism and Syrian aggression after all, and he devastated the forces of his opponent. Ben-Hadad's Syria was annihilated. Even Ahab's arch-nemesis, Elijah, begrudgingly congratulates the King on his shift to sane national policies. Ahab whips the enemy twice, once on the mountains and once on the plains. Israel is redeemed, although not from Ahab's bad government.
Even a villain such as Ahab could display fleeting good sense and courage, and atone for his having pursued appeasement for so long. Perhaps some day Israeli political leaders will elevate themselves and achieve the moral courage and wisdom of King Ahab.
Professor Plaut teaches at the University of Haifa.
Much is being written on why anti-Semitism has escalated to frightening pre-World War II levels throughout Europe. There are those (Jews prominent among them) who blame the Jews themselves. George Soros has thrown his hat into this sordid ring, blaming the Sharon administration: "If we change that direction, then anti-Semitism also will diminish." Similarly, Martin Jay, in the Winter-Spring 2003 issue of the quarterly journal Salmagundi, divides the blame between Sharon, the "fanatic settlers," and, as Edward Alexander puts it, "American Jews who question the infallibility of the New York Times and National Public Radio or protest the antics of tenured guerillas on the campuses." There are arcane arguments such as that advanced by Mark Strauss in Foreign Policy who finds the explanation in a backlash against globalization. Modern anxieties (over lost jobs, shaky economies, and political and social upheaval) merge with old hatreds as the Brownshirt and Birkenstock crowds seek solace in conspiracy theories.
To be sure, there have also been many fine, illuminating articles. In his excellent "Graffitti on History's Walls: the New Anti-Semitism" (U.S. News & World Re port, November 3, 2003) Mortimer Zuckerman notes "this new strain of anti- Semitism" is directed primarily "against the Jewish collective, the modern State of Israel." Natan Sharansky, Mark Steyn, Victor Davis Hanson, and Daniel
[(Continued on p.11)]
Outpost - 10 - January 2004