American Jews & Israel (Continued from p.5) the Likud too had been drifting away, albeit much more slowly, from the Zionist principles that founded the State. A Peres cabinet whose numerous "post-Zionist" members seemed far more convinced of the need for a PLO state than for a Jewish one was replaced by one that did not seem embarrassed by Zionism or by Judaism, and that was pledged to reverse the direction set by the Oslo process. But optimism about the election results was short-lived. By now, disillusionment with the Netanyahu government runs very deep among these American Jews. They were appalled by Netanyahu's failure to grasp the import of the symbolic action of his handshake with Arafat, mystified by Israeli ministers who told them (as several did in Seattle) that they know the Oslo agreement is terrible, perhaps suicidal, but that they are legally obligated to proceed to carry it out. (It was left to American Jewish legal experts, Professor Malvina Halberstam and Nathan Lewin, to point out that Israel has no legal obligation whatever to comply with an agreement that has been materially breached, in every conceivable way, by the PLO.--Jerusalem Post International Edition, 9 November 1996.) ...They are horrified not only by the implications of the withdrawal from Hebron (obviously a dress rehearsal for what is to come in Jerusalem) but also by such things as the continued refusal to license the offshore radio station Arutz-7, the perpetuation of "administrative orders" for arrests, and the bizarre way in which the Prime Minister's office has handled the crucial issue of PLO violations of the Oslo Accords. Above all, they are dismayed by the persistent rumors (encouraged by Dan Meridor and--astonishingly--Ariel Sharon) that Netanyahu will bring Peres back as Foreign Minister in a national-unity government, a move that would reveal an entire bankruptcy of moral principle (or a desire to share the blame for the impending disaster with its original architect)...Another long-time supporter of Netanyahu, Commentary magazine, presented him not so much as someone who had reneged on his commitments to reverse Oslo but as a man caught in a "tragic predicament." Norman Podhoretz, the former editor of the magazine, described accurately how, from the moment of his

election, Netnayahu was attacked on all sides for both his character and policies. This storm broke over his head even though he did not repudiate the Oslo agreements but merely applied the brakes, "and rather gently at that, to the 'peace process'," slowing down ever so slightly the train set on its disastrous track by Rabin and Peres. "What then," asked Podhoretz, "is Netanyahu to do? What can he do?" He predicted that the prime minister would continue to yield step by step "to the inevitable" while making some gestures that would suggest the opposite. About all that Podhoretz could come up with in justification of Netanyahu's position was that he would place a greater emphasis upon military preparedness in expectation of the major war that has been made inevitable by the Oslo process. In this half-hearted apologetic for Netanyahu's "tragic" paralysis, Podhoretz charitably overlooked the truth that nothing is "inevitable" until it happens; it is only after events have happened that they appear to be "inevitable." These random reflections on the current relation between Israel and American Jewry do not, I confess, lead to a satisfying peroration. Indeed, I am tempted to conclude with the words of Sholem Aleichem at the conclusion of "Dreyfus in Kasrilevke": "And now let's talk about more cheerful things. Tell me, what news is there about the cholera in Odessa?" Neither in American Jewry, nor in Israel, nor in the links between them, do the prospects for Jewish survival look promising. On the other hand, we might still find some comfort in the words of the American Jewish writer Simon Rawidowicz, who liked to point out that the first ancient non-Jewish document which mentions Israel by name is a message of total annihilation. It is the monument, in the British Museum, on which Mer-neptah, thirteenth century BCE Egyptian ruler, states: "Israel is desolated; its seed is no more." Yes, observes Rawidowicz, we are indeed a nation that has been disappearing constantly for thousands of years, but "a nation dying for thousands of years means a living nation." Edward Alexander is Professor of English at University of Washington, Seattle. His most recent book is The Jewish Wars: Reflections By One of the Belligerents (Southern Illinois University Press, 1996), available from AFSI. The above essay is excerpted from his remarks at the recent AFSI Western Conference, in Oregon.

Jerusalem Divided (Continued from p.2) themselves that we are changing our policy in any way." But of course, in the best tradition of double-speak, Netanyahu was doing precisely the opposite of what he said, determined to prevent at all costs the construction of Jewish housing at Ras al-Amud, even though the courts had ruled that this was Jewish-owned property and building could proceed. Asked to comment, Dr. Moskowitz said it all: "The entire subject of whether I should build or not is ludicrous, because this is a democratic country, and in any country of the world where there is a democracy, an

owner of a piece of land is allowed to build on that land, especially when he has a permit to build." A footnote on this tawdry tale: during the election campaign, not-yet Minister of Defense Yitzhak Mordechai cited the Labor Party's failure to permit construction at Ras al-Amud as evidence of the Labor Party's intention to divide Jerusalem. On the television show "Mabat," he said: "I hereby declare that when the Likud is elected and forms the next government, we will make sure that these matters end: no more corridors, no more freeze on construction...Look at what is happening at Ras al-Amud; they won't allow the construction of 130 houses there."

Outpost               - 10 -               September 1997