Robert Siegel interviewed the Israeli writer Amos Oz on National Public Radio last night, ostensibly about his new collection of short stories, but Siegel wasn’t that interested in the short stories and soon moved Oz on to the Situation. Tell us about Israel, he asked reverently; and the tone of the interview was that Seigel was seeking reassurance from a great old figure of Israeli culture (such as it is).
Siegel asked Oz about the deal to free Gilad Shalit, after “being held hostage” for five years, and about the fruitless peace process that once seemed so promising; and Amos Oz said that he was sure that something good was about to happen, that there would be a deal. The settlers would move. There would be two states living side by side, maybe not as friends but at peace. At the end of the interview you felt good.
A lovely miracle. But for me there was an unpleasant undercurrent to the interview. Siegel is smart. He knows that Israel of beloved Jewish memory is in trouble; because of Netanyahu’s intransigence, the intransigence of the Israel lobby in the United States and Obama’s collapse–the old positive image of Israel that American Jews had is dying.
I bet Siegel, who noted proudly that he interviewed Amos Oz years before, has that fond old memory of Israel. Why else would he refer to Gilad Shalit as a “hostage” of the Palestinians? Gilad Shalit who was a soldier in uniform and serving the endless hateful occupation when he was captured by Hamas. Why else would he allow Amos Oz to refer to the Palestinian prisoners who were freed as terrorists and murderers, twice? How many of the thousand are murderers? How many were resisting occupation as the Iraqis have, and the Afghans, and the American revolutionaries? How many thousands of political prisoners are still behind Israeli bars?
The unspoken anxiety in the interview was this: I am Jewish. I am in my 60s now. I grew up with a valiant idea of Israel. Then the 1967 war produced this occupation and why is stupid Israel prolonging it. When are you going to stop the settlements? All these people are turning against Israel. My children’s generation is turning against the great liberal democracy. They don’t understand how much this place meant to us. They are trying to delegitimize Israel. Isn’t that awful? It is wrong. You can’t delegitimize this country, that feels anti-Semitic. I am going to ignore that. But what are you doing about it, Israel? We trusted you to do something. You are giving us a bad name, Aemrican Jews, just because we supported you, blindly. Why did you keep building those goddamn settlements. Oh I know, Amos Oz, you didn’t build them. Good for you. And maybe you are dreaming when you talk about the settlements going away and anyone finding it fair the crumbs of land they have left for the Palestinians—but I need to dream. I want to dream. I don’t want to wake up. Neither do you. “Thank you, Amos Oz.”
Update. I said Siegel was in his late 50s when I filed this last night. I’m pretty sure he’s in his 60’s.
Phil, you could be right in your insight into Robert Siegel and his motivations. But you also could be just guessing.
Amos Oz personifies some of the problems of the Israeli Left.
Here’s the chronology:
2006: Israel invades Lebanon, intending to crush Hezbollah. As the war begins, Amos Oz, David Grossmann and other members of the “Zionist Left” hold a press conference to announce their support for Israel’s invasion. The war is initially very popular with Israeli Jews. Within a few weeks, the mood changes: the initially popular war becomes unpopular. Hezbollah gives a good account of itself on the battlefield: it’s nearly one dead Israeli soldier for every dead Hezbollah fighter. Israeli casualties rise to a politically unpopular level. At that point, Grossman and Oz jump ship and oppose the war. In the final days of the month-long war, Grossman’s son, a soldier in the I “D” F, is killed.
2008-20009: Israel, smarting from its bloody draw with Hezbollah, attacks Gaza. The war is popular with Israeli Jews. Amos Oz – are you ready for this? – supports the war. Later the war becomes less popular. Amos Oz jumps ship, and opposes the war.
There’s a pattern here. I didn’t hear the Siegel interview, but I doubt that he brought up the political track record of Oz, who might call himself a pragmatist, but in my mind gives opportunism a bad name.
Anyone who thinks that Palestinians are human beings, who are entitled to human rights, is going to find Amos Oz a very weak reed to lean on. Some Israeli Jews who have fought courageously against Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians, but Amos Oz is not among them.
Phil, get a grip. Schalit was held hostage. You don’t have to love Israel to call a spade a spade!
There are two kinds of writers: those that make you think, and those that make you wonder.
– Brian Aldiss
Zionist American Jews are like spoiled children — which they are, with all that privilege — “Oh please don’t take our fairy tales away from us, please let us go on believing in the stork, the tooth fairy and the burning bush, please don’t burst our bubble, for if you do you will bring about the ruin of everything we have grown to love since childhood….”
And I don’t know how much discrimination there was against Jews in the US when I see movies from the 1960s chalk full of Jewish names listed under Producer and Casting Director.
All I hear are whines from these people.
There. That’s a good dose of realism for today. Shabat Shalom, eh?
It’s perfectly accurate to describe Shalit as a hostage. There’s no contradiction between this and his status as a POW.
It’s also perfectly accurate to describe the Palestinian prisoners in Israel as hostages. Indeed, Israel has often called them “bargaining chips.” Which makes you wonder about their commitment to “we don’t make deals with terrorists.”
This is the point that people like Siegel and Oz don’t want to make. No, the Palestinian prisoners are terrorists, each and every one of them, and nothing else.