Questions for Amos Oz

I'm sure you are aware that throughout history wars have been waged not only
because of conflicting interests, but also opposing ideas that carried the
masses on each side.
By Dina Porat - Op Ed Haaretz Published 02:27 13.06.10
www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/questions-for-amos-oz-1.295800

Dear Amos,

I must confess I was surprised by your op-ed "Israeli Force, Adrift on the
Sea" (published in Haaretz Hebrew Edition June 2), and I would be grateful
if you could clarify some of your central arguments.

You note that "Hamas is not just a terrorist organization. Hamas is an
idea." What kind of an idea is Hamas? The Hamas charter, which was issued in
August 1988 and has never since been altered, sums up the movement's
ideology quite bluntly. Among other things it says: "Leaving the circle of
conflict with the Zionists is a major act of treason and it will bring curse
on its perpetrators"; "Israel will remain erect until Islam eliminates it"
since the land is sacred to Islam and cannot be compromised; and the banner
of Jihad will be raised "to extricate the country and the people from the
[Zionists'] desecration, filth and evil."

From Hamas' perspective, the Jews are a cruel enemy, comparable to the
Nazis, with the Protocols of the Elders of Zion providing sufficient proof
of this. I'm sure this is not the idea you had in mind, Mr. Oz, so which
idea was it?

In your words, Hamas is "a desperate and fanatical idea that grew out of the
desolation and frustration of many Palestinians," and indeed your words have
always had their charm. But must desolation and frustration necessarily lead
to uncompromising violence, leading up to and including the eradication of
anyone perceived as the enemy?

At the end of the 1920s, the world plummeted into a horrific economic
crisis, with millions losing all of their possessions. In the United States,
this crisis prompted the rise of the New Deal. In Germany, the state of
affairs emboldened the Nazi party, which soon after rose to power.

A desperate idea, you say. With this one word - "desperate" - you throw all
responsibility for the current situation on Israel, effectively saying that
Hamas, and before them the Palestine Liberation Organization, and before the
PLO the Fedayeen, and before them the Arabs of the Land of Israel, all
proposed reasonable ideas concerning partition of the land ever since the
rise of the Zionist movement, and it was the Zionists who refused. In 1937,
the Peel Commission proposed partitioning the country, and in 1947, the plan
was endorsed by the UN General Assembly, and so on and so forth up until the
latest proposals for resolving the conflict, but the Yishuv and Israel
refused, up until the strictly non-violent Arabs despaired and had to resort
to violence. Obviously, this is not what you meant either, so what exactly
did you mean?

You say that "to defeat an idea you have to offer a better idea, a more
attractive and acceptable one." This, too, is an enchanting phrase; one can
only dream that an idea could be defeated by the proposition of another one.

I'm sure you are aware that throughout history wars have been waged not only
because of conflicting interests, but also opposing ideas that carried the
masses on each side. The idea of white supremacy, the idea of the
righteousness of Christianity and Islam, the Bolshevik and the Fascist ideas
all claimed millions of victims, even though other ideas were proposed at
the time. Western culture today offers an alternative to fanatical Islam:
democracy, rights for women and minorities, education allowing students free
thinking and choice, technological progress, independent cultural pursuits.
Here is an attractive, very reasonable idea. What do you think?

Saying "we are not alone in this land, and the Palestinians are not alone in
this land" and that both sides need to "recognize the logical consequences
of this simple fact," does not require any further clarification. It reminds
me of how in your wonderful book, "A Tale of Love and Darkness," Ephraim
Avneri, a guard of the fields of Hulda, says: "We will shoot them [if they
come to shoot us] not because they are a nation of murderers, but for the
simple reason that we are also allowed to live, and for the simple reason
that we are also allowed to have a country, not just them."
============
The author chairs the Institute for the Study of Contemporary Anti-Semitism
and Racism at Tel Aviv University.