This
letter, originally published in 1968, was effectively an "open letter"
to the world progressive community (with its often anti-Israel
stances). As Kenan has recently passed away, Ameinu has republished
this letter in their most recent newsletter. Its a good read, and an
interesting discussion piece.
A Letter to all Good People
By Amos Kenan
I am for Cuba. I love Cuba. I am opposed to the genocide perpetrated by
the Americans in Vietnam. But I am an Israeli, therefore I am forbidden
to take all these stands. Cuba does not want me to love her. Someone
has decided that I am permitted to love only the Americans. I don't
mind so much that someone, especially the good people everywhere, have
decided to outlaw me. I shall be able to get along without their help.
But I do mind that I am not permitted any longer to love and hate
according to my feelings, and according to my political and moral
inclinations, and that I am refused invitation or even admittance to
parties held by the good people. I am not permitted any longer to toast
justice with a glass of champagne. I am not permitted to eat caviar and
denounce the Americans. I am not permitted to stroll in the
sun-drenched streets of Havana, arm-in-arm with my erstwhile good
friends from St. Germain, Via Veneto and Chelsea, and celebrate the
memory of Che Guevara, casting a threatening look at imperialism. I am
also finally and absolutely forbidden to sign petitions of all sorts
for human rights.
This situation drives me slightly out of my mind. Therefore I wish to
relate a few confused, disconnected stories. Perhaps some good man will
find the connection. One day an Israeli submarine sank in the
Mediterranean with its 69 crew members. Its SOS was answered, among
others, by the British, Turkish and Greek fleets. The Russian navy,
which cruised very close to the location, did not join in the search.
Moscow radio, in its Arab broadcasts, took the trouble to denounce the
countries whose ships rushed to help the lost submarine. It is a sacred
principle of seamen of all nations to hasten to the aid of distressed
vessels. The Israeli submarine was not on a war mission, and Israel is
not in a state of war with the Soviet Union.
I am not so naive as to believe that this is anti-Semitism, Soviet
style. I have never believed that the Russians are guided, in their
calculations, by such powerful and sincere emotions as anti-Semitism,
which is common to both progressive and reactionary camps. I know that
the Russians conduct a cool and considered pragmatic policy, and are
guided by clear political considerations. This was a political move,
carried out as a part of a political game. The meaning of this move can
only be: Israel must be isolated from the civilised human community.
The rules that apply to the civilised community, rules of honour,
consideration and mutual aid, do not apply to me. I am out. There is
only one more step to the conclusion: the shedding of my blood is no
crime.
Forgive my brutal way of putting things. I cannot conceive of it
otherwise. If this was a move in a game, the game must have an object.
The object is the penetration of the Middle East, and let us assume,
for the sake of arguments, that this is for the purpose of advancing
world revolution and the overthrow of imperialism. The Middle East
contains 100m. Arabs and 2.5m. Israelis. But it is not so easy, in our
enlightened world, to wipe out 2.5m. people. A reason, and a
justification, are needed. You cannot wipe out just like that. First of
all you must outlaw. Therefore you must not invite an Israeli communist
party to a convention of communist parties. Therefore you must not
invite a leftist Israeli author to a conference of leftist authors in
Havana. There are no more class distinctions. There are only national
distinctions. Even an Israeli leftist is an imperialist. And an oil
sheikh is a socialist. Therefore it is permissible to compare me to the
Nazis. It is permissible to call me a Gauleiter. It is permissible to
mobilize all of the world's conscientious people against me—and without
them you cannot do it—and all this because there is an object looming
beyond the horizon, an object for the sake of which this tactic is
justifiable and useful.
Until quite recently, I also belonged to the Good People. Meaning that
not only did I sit in cafes and sign petitions for the release of
political prisoners in countries not my own, not only did I join
proclamations, after sipping my aperitif, for the release of the
downtrodden from the yoke of imperialism in places I shall never reach;
I also did something against what seemed to me to be oppression and
injustice in my own country. During the 20 years of the existence of
the State of Israel I helped with my pen, in my regular newspaper
column, the fight against the injustices committed against the Arab
minority. And not by the pen only, but also in demonstrations, and also
when arraigned before a military tribunal. I am used to being called a
traitor by local patriots. During the Six Day War, in June 1967, the
battalion I served in was ordered to supervise the demolition of four
Arab villages: I considered it my duty to desert from my unit, to write
a report of this action, and to send the copies to the General Staff of
the army, to members of the government and to Knesset members. This
report has been translated and circulated in the world as a proof of
Israel's crimes.
But permit me to conclude the story. The action I undertook was in
flagrant violation of any military law. I have no idea what would have
happened to a Red Army soldier were he to violate national and military
discipline in such a manner. After returning to my unit, I was ordered
to present myself—I, in rank a private—before the general commanding
all the divisions on that front. He told me that he had read my report,
and considered it his duty to inform me that what had occurred was a
regrettable error, which will not recur. Deep in my heart I disbelieved
his statement that this was only a mistake. I was convinced that
whoever ordered such an action did not expect such resistance from
within—the men of my battalion refused to carry out the order—and was
alarmed at the impression such an action might create abroad. But I was
glad that he found it necessary to announce that this was only an
error. I asked him how he intended to ensure that the 'error' will
never recur. On the spot he signed an order permitting me free movement
in all occupied territories, so that I could see with my own eyes that
such an action had not recurred.
But since then, in all the peace-papers in the world, my report about
the destruction of villages has been reprinted over and over again, as
if it happened only yesterday, as if it is happening all the time. And
this is a lie. It is like writing that witches have been burnt at the
stake in England—omitting the date. I hereby request all those who
believed me when I reported a criminal act, to believe me now too. And
those who do not believe me now, I hereby request to disbelieve my
former report too, and not to believe me selectively, according to
their convenience. I should also add that the town of Kalkiliya, which
began to be demolished during the writing of my report, is now in the
process of being rebuilt, after the expelled inhabitants have been
brought back.
This does not mean that other injustices are not perpetrated now. The
less you fight me, the more you would help me fight them. Even the most
leftist of men will not consent to be slaughtered when a sword is
pointed at his throat. Even when the sword is a progressive one, it
does not make it any the pleasanter. The trouble is that not a single
serious person in the world believes today that Israel was really in
danger of being annihilated. This is the optical illusion of 1968. The
gigantic Goliath is threatening little David. The fact that Goliath is
a giant, and that David is small, is only an optical illusion. If
Goliath triumphs and tramples David under his feet, it is a sign that
he really is a giant. But if little David beats the giant, people say:
the giant David has trampled poor little Goliath in the dust. I claim
that Israel played the role of David. And I claim that even now, after
the stunning victory, it still is little David who has indeed beaten
the stunned Goliath, but Goliath still is a menacing giant. Today, no
less than in June 1967, Israel is in danger of annihilation. Unless the
enlightened world mobilises now, immediately, perhaps it will be too
late. But I am afraid that there are not many people in the world today
who will be sorry if victorious David is destroyed. A bitter suspicion
rises in me that even the most enlightened among the most progressive
people still adhere to the Christian tradition that they imbibed with
their mothers' milk: Jew, stay on the cross. Never get off it. The day
you get off the cross and hurl it at the heads of your crucifiers, we
shall cease to love you. Today the Arabs boast of waging a
revolutionary guerrilla warfare. They claim to have copied the Viet
Cong method of warfare and to apply it in the Middle East. They march
with Che Guevara's picture. This makes me laugh. Just as Che Guevara's
picture hanging in the luxurious salons of Montparnasse made me laugh.
I have always wondered whether Che Guevara had a picture of Che Guevara
hanging in his salon. What is a Viet Cong? The Viet Cong is not white
flags on buildings. The Viet Cong means fighting to the last man. The
Viet Cong of the Middle East, whether those who demonstrate with Che
Guevara's picture like it or not, are we. We are prepared, at any
moment to wage the battle to the death. After the death camps, we are
left with only one supreme value: existence.
Our existence today, is inconvenient for those who work at the global
balance of power. It is more convenient that there should be two camps,
one white, the other black. We number, as I said before, only 2.5m.
people. On the global map, what is the value of a few hundred thousand
leftists, opposing the Eshkol government policy and striving for a
genuine peace with the Arabs, who strive to liberate themselves from
the one-way dependence on American power? Somebody has already decided
to sacrifice us. The history of revolution is full of such sacrifices
since the days of the Spanish War. At one time world revolution had
been sacrificed on the altar of the revolution in one country. Today
the calculation is somewhat subtler. Today they try to explain to us
that there is an Arab socialism. That there is an Egyptian socialism,
and an Algerian socialism. There is a socialism of slave-traders, and a
socialism of oil magnates. There are all kinds of socialism, all aiming
really at one and the same thing—the overthrow of imperialism, which
happens to be one and indivisible. Once there was only a single kind of
socialsm, which fed on principles, some of them moral. On the day that
morality died there was born the
particular, conventional socialism, changing from place to place and
from time to time, for which I have no other name but National
Socialism.
I want to live. What can I do if Russia, China, Vietnam, India,
Yugoslavia, Sartre, Russell, Castro, have all decided that I am made
all of a piece? It is inconvenient for them to admit that there is an
opposition in Israel too. Why should there be an opposition in Israel
if in the Popular Democracies in Cuba or Algeria, there is only one
party? And perhaps they do have pangs of conscience, but they have made
their calculation, and found out that I am only one, only 10, only
100,000; and on the other side there are tens of millions, all led like
a single man, in a single party, towards the light, towards the sun.
And if so, who am I? I will tell you who I am: I am the man who will
confuse and confound your progressive calculations. I have too much
love for this vain world, a world of caviar, television, sunny beaches,
sex and good wine. You go ahead and toast the revolution with
champagne. I shall toast myself, my own life, bottle in one hand, rifle
in the other. You send Soviet arms to Egypt. You isolate me. And in
order to make it easier to isolate me, you change my name. My flesh,
which you eat, you call fish. You don't want to protect me— neither
against the Arabs, nor against the Russians, nor against Dayan or
Johnson.
Moreover, when I try to call on you and tell you that I am against
Dayan, against Eshkol, against Ben-Gurion, and ask for your help, you
laugh at me and demand that I should return to the 4 June borders,
unconditionally. Hold it! I refuse to play this game. If you give me
back the pistol with which I tried to kill you, I won't kill you.
Because I am a nice fellow. But if you don't give it back to me, I
shall kill you, because you are a bad fellow. Why were the 4 June
borders not peace borders on 4 June but will become peace borders now?
Why were not the U.N. partition plan borders of 1947 peace borders then
but will become so now? Why should I return the bandit his gun as a
reward for having failed to kill me? I want peace peace peace peace
peace peace peace. I am ready to give everything back in exchange for
peace. And I shall give nothing back without peace. I am ready to solve
the refugee problem. I am ready to accept an independent Palestinian
state. I am ready to sit and talk. About everything, all at the same
time. Direct talks, indirect talks, all this is immaterial. But peace.
Until you agree to have peace, I shall give back nothing. And if you
force me to become a conqueror, I shall become a conqueror. And if you
force me to become an oppressor, I shall become an oppressor. And if
you force me into the same camp with all the forces of darkness in the
world, there I shall be.
There is no lack in Israel of rabid militarists. Their number is
steadily increasing, the more our isolation becomes apparent. Nasser
helps Dayan, Kosygin helps Eshkol. Fidel Castro helps the Jewish
chauvinists. Who of the world's giants cares how many more Jews, how
many more Arabs, bleed to death in the Sinai sands? There is no lack
here of mad hysterical militarists. All those quiet citizens who went
out to war with K.L.M. handgrips and in laundry trucks, who scribbled
on their tanks: 'We want Home' . All those who fought without anger,
without hatred, only for their lives, are becoming militaristic,
convinced that only Israeli power, and nothing else in the world, will
ever help us.
The only ones who are prepared to defend me, for reasons I don' t like
at all, are the Americans. It is convenient for them, for the time
being. You are flinging me towards America, the bastion of democracy
and the murderer of Vietnam, who tramples the downtrodden peoples and
spares my life, who oppresses the Negroes and supplies me with arms to
save myself. You leave me no other alternative. You don' t even offer
me humiliating terms, to be admitted through the rear door into the
progressive orgy. You don' t even want me to overthrow my government.
You only want me to surrender, unconditionally, and to believe the
spokesmen of the revolution that henceforth no Jewish doctors will be
murdered, and that they will limit themselves to the declaration that
Zionism is responsible for the riots in Warsaw.
Very funny. The truth is that I and Sartre, two people with the same
vision, more or less, with the same ideal, more or less, and if I may
be permitted to impertinence, with the same moral level, more or less,
are now at the two sides of the barricade. We have been pushed to both
sides by the cold calculations of the people who sent us, or abandoned
us. But the fact remains—these are not Americans shooting Russians, or
capitalists shooting socialists, or freedom-fighters shooting the
oppressors. It is I, shooting Sartre. I see him in my gun sights; he
sees me in his gun sights. I still don' t know which of us is faster,
more skilled, or more determined to kill or be killed. Neither do I
know who shall be more lucky—the one who has no other alternative, or
the one who acts out of choice. One thing is clear to me; if I survive,
I shall mourn Sartre's death more than he would mourn mine. And if that
happens, I shall never be consoled until I wipe from under the heavens
both the capitalists and the communists. Or they me. Or each the other.
Or all destroy all. And if I survive even that, without a god but
without prophets either, my life will have no sense whatsoever. I shall
have nothing else to do but walk on the banks of streams, or on the top
of the rocks, watch the wonders of nature, and console myself with
words of Ecclesiastes, the wisest of men: "For the light is sweet, and
it is good for the eyes to see the sun."