David Grossman, Israeli writer

A possible precursor?

I have repeatedly criticized the stance adopted by the Israeli government with regard to its Arab neighbors.

In my writings, I have stressed the prepotent policy of certain Israeli leaders. Most notably, Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Netanyahu, who appear to have unrestricted confidence in the effectiveness of brute force as a means of “resolving” (a mere illusion) the problem of sharing (?) space with the Palestinian population. I reflected on the fact that the Palestinians also consider themselves to be the victims of past events (the Jewish “exodus/return”), for which they were not themselves responsible. Notably, a “return” that did not take into account, even to the slightest extent, the fact that “hyper-adverse possession” had occurred of land abandoned at the time of the so-called “second diaspora”. Centuries after the expulsion of the Jews and led by the Zionist movement, they managed to convince worldwide public opinion that they had, as a people, a right to a “homeland”. For both historic and religious reasons, in their opinion, this homeland would have to be Palestine. The suffering experienced by Jews during the Holocaust gave them a right to obtain a “safe haven” where they would not be subject to successive rounds of humiliation and persecution, such as those that occurred in the past.

All this was absolutely correct, or tolerable, although it would have been better if the Zionists had accepted other areas, offered by the British - Uganda, for example, with an amenable climate for those accustomed to living in Europe. However, the offer was apparently rejected on religious grounds rather than other reasons (proximity of lions and Zulus).

What was wrong, at least from a quantitative point of view, in sizing the choice of a “definitive homeland”, was that of brushing aside, ignoring, the normal reaction of a people, the Palestinian people, that were expelled from an area that they had occupied for a number of centuries. If this problem had been confronted in a prompt and responsible manner by the international community, prior to the mass immigration of Jews, with the offer of reasonable compensation for displaced Palestinians, establishing a definitive frontier for the occupation of each people, the world would not have witnessed so many deaths and so much suffering, generating a disquiet that currently torments populations both near and far from the area in question. It is likely that the events of September 11th 2001 would not have occurred, or other violent terrorist acts, which now hang, no longer like “swords of Damocles” over our heads, but in the form of powerful explosives capable of flattening whole city blocks.

As our planet, without exaggeration, seems to be a political madhouse (in fact, it is much worse, because no patient in any psychiatric hospital has the “sovereign right” to live out his or her derangement), the outlook will continue to be gloomy as long as there is not at least an international court that is not only able to pass rulings on conflicts between countries and peoples, but also enforce compliance with its decisions, irrespective of whether or not the party that is in disagreement with the ruling is actually willing to comply. This is something that does not occur in the case of the current UN International Court of Justice, as the effectiveness of its rulings are dependent upon the “good will” (that’s a good one….) of the litigants concerned. A mere Homeric judicial perfume, discarded centuries ago by all countries when they rule on conflicts within their own frontiers. If all States (without exception) know that, on an internal level, it is useless to expect conciliation between enemies with opposing interests and that there is a need for an impartial third party to resolve the issue, why is it that in all conflicts between States, especially those of a more serious nature, with thousands of dead, problems are resolved by the imposition of political, diplomatic, economic or military might. Always force, or the threat of its use.

Given that everything in life may have some kind of use (even snake venom is currently used in the preparation of medicaments that “thin” the blood), our vague hope is that the “Israel – Lebanon – Hamas – Hezbollah” tragedy becomes transformed into the first really judicial, not solely diplomatic, “case” to be decided by a “third party”, a Court with powers of jurisdiction conferred on it by the international community. It is this court that would not only apply the standards of International Public Law, but also criteria of equal justice and the general principles of law, thus making it possible to award indemnifications and compensatory damages to those parties that lose territory as a result of a court ruling. There will be no lack of especially impartial and cultured judges, designated by the international community, capable of establishing a fair solution for the complex problem. Obviously, prudence would recommend that none of the judges be of Arab or Jewish origin, or even remotely identified with the interests of the two peoples involved.

All this, however, has already been repeated ad nauseam on this site, but it is worthwhile repeating because, paradoxically, the truth, exactly when it is all too obvious, needs to be repeated if it is to be driven into the hard human skull.

So why is mention made of David Grossman in the title of this article?

Grossman is an Israeli pacifist writer who was unknown to me until yesterday. By mere chance, while browsing the Internet, I came across the transcript of a speech he made beside the grave of a much-loved son who was killed in the recent invasion of Lebanon. The young man commanded a tank that was destroyed in an explosion. With total credibility, his father’s speech describes the good character of his son, who was about twenty years old. And, with immense moral courage, the speech warns his people of the prospect of a dark future arising from the increased level of hate of Arabs who lost hundreds of relatives and properties as a result of the kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah. The prospect is indeed worrying, as the international community itself did not look kindly on the exaggerated reaction to the kidnappings - even the “mainstay of support” weakened. And George W. Bush will not always be in power, despite his best efforts to this end, putting fear into the electorate.

What impressed me in David Grossman’s words – revealing his moral singularity – was the absence of hatred for the Hezbollah combatants who killed his son. A young man who, according to his father, was always ready to help his fellow men (commanding a tank does not invalidate the moral qualities of its crew, obliged to defend the interests of their country). In his speech, David managed to have an overview of things, not only from the right perspective but, more specifically, that of a lucid and courageous pacifist.

“Valiant” caricaturists and semi-illiterate individuals usually describe pacifists as fearful fat or thin figures, holding flowers, averse to any kind of friction, ready to forgive because they are incapable of fighting. But this is not the case as far as David Grossman is concerned. The speech he gave required courage under present conditions.

While on the subject of courage, there follows a suggestion that will only reach the eyes or ears of David Grossman with some difficulty, even if this article, originally written in Portuguese, is translated into English and read by the editorial staff of an Israeli newspaper.

This is the suggestion: Why doesn’t Grossman head a movement (in Israel, at the UN and in the USA) with the objective of strengthening the principal judicial organ of the United Nations (the International Court of Justice), in such a way that it is attributed with the powers necessary for making a ruling - and enforcing this ruling – regarding the “Palestinian issue”? A ruling that establishes the fairest possible frontier and resolves other outstanding points of disagreement (i.e., whether or not Jerusalem is to be partitioned, walls, etc). A ruling that is not only limited to international legal rules – a thankless area this one, full of omissions..., but allows for the application of equal justice with compensatory indemnifications.

Should Grossman manage to achieve this objective, mankind would not forget him. He would perhaps deserve, if not the Nobel Prize in Literature (I have not yet read a book of his authorship), at least the Peace Prize. With this, the invasion of Lebanon would ultimately have been of some kind of use, creating a milestone in the evolution of mankind.

Coming from a Jew, such an initiative would make a far greater impression than a similar proposal coming from a Palestinian, as Israel possesses immensely superior military strength. There is not presumed to be fear on the part of the strongest. In addition, it would be the initiative of an Israeli with the authority of someone who has lost a son in the war, whose mind has not been poisoned by a thirst for vengeance. The world would start to return to normal. It would be the great judicial precedent, the inaugural step, bringing about the partial reformation of the UN. Henceforth, rulings would come to be made on conflicts between states and populations by impartial judges. Not in the manner that occurs at present, with predominance of the force mustered by the parties involved or whoever is backing them. And so, finally, the voice of justice and reason prevails rather than that of cannons. Don’t thousands of past and future dead deserve such an attempt?

There are really decisive moments in History. The crisis involving Russian missiles bound for Cuba in 1962 was one such moment. The tearing down of the Berlin Wall was another. Even a book can spark a change that has been brewing for decades. Something like cutting out a tumor. The novel “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” speeded up the abolition of slavery in the United States. Qualitative leaps forward only occur when there is a psychic and moral electricity in the air that favors a more audacious step. It is the case of the invasion of Lebanon and the odor of human blood in the Palestinian air.

With his acceptance by the Jewish people, Grossman can take this initial step. His son’s spirit would smile, concluding that he did not die in vain.