Romans at the Gate

by Michael Freund
April 10, 2002
The Jerusalem Post

The past few weeks have provided Israelis with plenty of 
reasons to despair. The daily procession of death on the 
evening news, from the Passover Seder massacre to the loss 
of young Israelis serving in uniform, has left the country 
reeling emotionally, shocked at the brutality of our foes 
and increasingly despondent over the future.

Despite the mounting death toll, the world is once again 
turning against us, with the standard criticism of Israel 
being replaced by even sharper, more caustic tones. 
The French Foreign Minister has labeled the army's defensive 
measures against Palestinian terror as "pure repression", 
while the Turkish Prime Minister has accused Israel of genocide. 
Even the Americans are now demanding a hasty Israeli withdrawal.

But as disappointing as these positions may be, they pale in 
comparison with the reaction of the Israeli left. At a time when 
Israel is under siege, fighting for its life and struggling to 
explain itself to the world, nothing could be more damaging than 
the dissent emerging from within. Sadly, instead of rallying 
around the flag, many on the left are seeking to lower it. 

This past Saturday night, some 5,000 protesters gathered in 
Tel Aviv to call on the government to halt its military 
operations in Judea and Samaria. Even as young Israeli soldiers 
were risking their lives conducting house-to-house searches for 
weapons and explosives in the alleyways of Jenin and Shechem 
(Nablus), the protesters were busy calling for an end to "the 
occupation", as if the blame for the current crisis lay entirely 
with Israel.

Spokesmen for the left, such as Yossi Beilin, have hit the 
airwaves in force, appearing on CNN and other international 
outlets to lambast the Israeli government in harsh and 
unforgiving terms. Even though it is now patently clear that 
Arafat is responsible for the wave of Palestinian terror over 
the past 18 months, Beilin and his colleagues nevertheless 
reserve the bulk of their fury for Ariel Sharon and the Israeli
government. 

Take a recent article by post-Zionist historian Avi Shlaim. 
Writing last week, Shlaim offered not a word - not a single, 
solitary word - of condemnation for Palestinian atrocities. 
Instead, he called Sharon a "savage man of war" and accused him 
of unleashing a "reign of terror" against Palestinians. He even 
defended the Palestinian Authority, saying that it consists of 
moderates who have renounced terror and opted for "the political 
path to progress". Beilin himself, in a March 30 op-ed in the
New York Times, offered a similar analysis, accusing Sharon of 
conspiring "to terminate the peace process". 

People such as Beilin and Shlaim know perfectly well the effect 
their words have on public opinion abroad. Their criticism of 
Israel portrays the country as weak and divided, thereby inviting 
further pressure and playing straight into our enemies' hands. 
Astonishingly, they persist with such behavior even as the next 
Palestinian suicide bomber may already be strapping himself with 
explosives, preparing yet another gruesome attack.

But the Beilins and the Shlaims of the world are not a new 
phenomenon in Jewish history. Even at the gravest moments of 
national crisis, Jews have been unable to unite against a common 
enemy.

Over two thousand years ago, a similar scenario played itself out. 
As Roman legions commanded by Titus closed in on Jerusalem, 
the beleaguered Jews were busy fighting among themselves. Divided 
into three factions - the anti-Roman Zealots, the moderates, and 
the Friends of Rome - the Jews fought a bloody civil war, 
irreparably weakening their own forces while the enemy stood at 
the gate.

Had CNN been around back then, one can only imagine the circus 
that would have ensued. Various pro-Roman Jews would have rushed 
to defend Titus on the talk-show circuit, explaining away the 
massacres carried out by Caesar's legions. Like their modern-day 
equivalents, the ancient appeasers would have directed their rage 
at their fellow Jews, in particular those fighting to preserve 
Jewish independence. The Romans would no doubt have laughed at 
the scene, just as Arafat must surely do when he sees that his
best spokesmen are, more often than not, the Israelis themselves. 

With benefit of hindsight, we know what the end result of that 
internal bickering proved to be - the downfall of the Jewish 
state, the destruction of the Temple, and the exile of the Jews 
from their land. And yet, it seems, we still have not learned 
our lesson.

For the fact is that the Romans are again massing at the gate, 
attacking Jerusalem and threatening to obliterate Israel. 
The pressure is on, Jews are being killed, yet people such as 
Beilin and Shlaim forestall any attempts at unity, preferring 
to break ranks at this crucial hour. 

Democracy, of course, means learning to live with dissenting 
opinions. But when the very existence of the state is under 
attack, is it too much to expect that fidelity to our common 
fate should take precedence over petty political differences?

While Beilin and Shlaim certainly have a right to express their 
opinions, one wonders what could possibly motivate them to 
undermine their own people. Have they no shame?

---------------
The writer served as Deputy Director of Communications & Policy 
Planning in the Prime Minister's Office from 1996 to 1999.