Israel Is No Switzerland

From: Shmuel Rosner

To: Gregory Levey

Dear Gregory,

Having spent the last two and a half years in America (not to mention my year in Canada twelve years ago) – and being the student that I am of American politics and culture – I think I know what you mean by thanking me “for being direct.” It is really: “get lost, you and your primitive understanding of my book.”

And this scares me, and also makes me a bit uncomfortable (am I now showing signs of being somewhat Americanized?).

So let me backtrack a little and say this: Yes, I think your book does not reveal the true nature of Israel. (You should take into account the fact that I was trying to provoke you as to make our dialog come alive.) And — I do read your book as an allegory, which you understandably protest. However, I’m afraid that on this point, which I probably didn't make coherently enough in my first letter, I will have to insist. Let me explain why.

Reading your book (and being as “direct” as I was perhaps I should be emphasizing that it was really fun to read), I did not think about you and your personal story. I thought about the conversation we’re about to have. And I also thought about your readers, and how will they interpret the book.

And let me tell you this. I’m pretty sure that what these readers will have in mind — assuming that many of them will be young Jewish North Americans like you — is exactly what I had in mind. They will be thinking that your description of your Israel is a description of the actual Israel. Which I think is sometimes true, but sometimes isn’t.

Now, I don’t want to spend too much time arguing this point, as I vividly remember that the instructions I were given by the editors of Jewcy involved something about “moving the dialogue forward.” But here is one last attempt I will be making to sum-up our differences:

You think that I failed to understand the book by saying that you failed to reveal the true nature of Israel. I think that you failed to understand the minds of your readers, and ended up with a book (did I say it was fun to read?) that can be somewhat misleading in the sense that instead of helping people understand Israel you’ll be confusing them even more than they are already confused.

Having said all that, I want to go back to the real reason I’ve wanted to discuss this book in the first place: That is, the gap between educated, smart, liberal, young, Jewish Americans – and Israel, if there is such gap. As you probably know by now, this is a matter of some debate (I wrote about it here).

And your letter gave me the perfect example with which to make one of the many arguments that can be made. Here’s what you wrote:

Let me go a step further and suggest that the personal and political are actually interwoven… As they say, people get the government they deserve.

As I see it, the argument you’ve made in this paragraph is almost outrageous. You say that Canada is not asserting itself on the world stage because of the politeness of its people. You imply that Switzerland is neutral as a result of the “quintessential Swiss demeanor.”

“There are underlying cultural forces that help shape both the personal and the political. There are underlying cultural forces that help shape both the personal and the political,” you say. And this sounds misleadingly true until one thinks about it seriously.

Then you go on to say that Israel has the government it has because of what? “The way that the typical Israeli driver navigates the streets of Tel Aviv”? So let me see if I get this: The “underlying cultural forces” of Israel are those responsible for the bad behavior of Israeli drivers which in turn is responsible for improvisational governments (ones that they “deserve”) and their poorly constructed policies?

Please Gregory, tell me again that I did not understand your position.

Because this is how I see it. Canada does not have enemies, and does not have to assert itself anywhere unless it wants to. Its people can be calm and polite because the only thing they really have to worry about is winter weather. No one is threatening Canada, no one is trying to attack it, or to delegitimize it, or to eliminate it. Switzerland, may I remind you, is in Europe, surrounded by the dangerous militaristic Italy, France and Germany (yes, I know it was not always a peaceful neighborhood, nevertheless, it is now).

Israel, on the other hand, has real enemies, and very real worries. It is located in a dangerous neighborhood, and has to improvise constantly, as time is of the essence. Yes, this improvisational ethic has side effects, not all pleasant. Among them: careless drivers, inventive high-tech engineers, lawless settlers, courageous fighter-pilots. All these, and many more, are the outcome of the Israeli condition.

I hope I make this distinction clear because it is an important one. It also sheds new light on your assertion, according to which you’ve developed “reservations about specific governmental policies.” And I want to be clear here: I do not think that the policies of Israel or the Israeli government are always the right ones, or the brightest ones. However, your letter made me doubt your doubts regarding these policies. How can you possibly understand the cause for Israel’s policies, while thinking about it the way one thinks about Canada?

With this in mind — and moving the dialogue “forward”, always forward — I would like you to address the question of the “divide,” an area on which we seem to agree (unless that proves to be a mirage).

“I can enthusiastically agree with you that the fundamental divide between Israelis and Americans is a cultural one,” you write. So here is my twofold question: Can it be bridged, and should we even aspire to bridge it?

Looking forward to your response,

Rosner