The Mideast is America's New Wild West
Why the enduring "special relationship" between the U.S. and Israel? Cultural historians, who look at symbols and stories more than politics and policies, say a big part of it goes back to the late 1950s, when Leon Uris' novel Exodus reached the top of the bestseller list and was then turned into a blockbuster film, with an all-star cast headed by Paul Newman.
Scholar Rachel Weissbrod
called it a "Zionist melodrama." M.M. Silver devoted a
whole book to the phenomenon: Our
Exodus, with the subtitle, The
Americanization of Israel's Founding Story.
A preeminent
historian of American Judaism, Jonathan Sarna, came closest to the truth in his
blurb for Silver's book: Exodus "consciously
linked brawny Zionist pioneers with the heroes of traditional American westerns."
The protagonist, Ari ben Canaan ("lion, son of Canaan"), is the
Jewish Shane, the cowboy of impeccable virtue who kills only because he must to
save decent people -- especially the gentile woman he loves -- and civilize a
savage land.
Screenwriter
Dalton Trumbo (in his first outing after years of being blacklisted) did add a
penultimate scene missing from the novel: Ari swears that someday Jews and
Arabs will live together and share the land in peace. But then he heads off to
fight those very Arabs. Who could resist rooting for Paul Newman, no matter how
bad guys he was forced to wipe out?
Just a year
later the Israelis kidnapped, tried, and executed Nazi bureaucrat Adolph
Eichmann. Who could resist seeing fiction come to life, with the increasingly
common equation, Arabs = Nazis?
Thus cultural
myth combined with historical event to set the stage for widespread support of
the Johnson and Nixon administration's sharp pro-Israel tilt, when Israel went
to war with its neighbors in 1967 and 1973.
I'm writing
about this history now because it still lives, today (December 4), in our
flagship newspaper, the New York Times.
The influential
columnist Thomas Friedman tells
us that the Middle East is a "merciless, hard-bitten region"
where everyone is out to get everyone, and "it is vital to never let the
other side think they can 'outcrazy' you" -- because the craziest people
will be the most violent and thus the winners, one assumes. Apparently those
Middle Easterners don't settle their differences politely and rationally, as we
do here in "civilized" America.
Are you
beginning to see the melodrama of old-fashioned Westerns yet? Wait, there's
plenty more:
The Jews and the Kurds are among the few minorities that have managed to carve out autonomous spaces in the Arab-Muslim world because, at the end of the day, they would never let any of their foes outcrazy them; they did whatever they had to in order to survive, and sometimes it was really ugly, but they survived to tell the tale.
Today, just as
in the days of Exodus, Israelis must
be threatened, Friedman assumes, and they must be willing to be crazy killers
to survive. In fact, it's this old mythic narrative that must survive.
Now the plot has
been updated to make the Iranian part of " the Arab-Muslim world" the
peril to Israel's very existence. (Friedman must have missed the episode of Homeland where Dana Brody informs her
high-school classmates that Iranians are not Arabs, so there is no monolithic
"Arab-Muslim world.")
Friedman is sure
that all the reports of Iranian leader Ali Khamenei supporting the moderate
president Hassani (even in
the Times itself) are not to be
trusted. As evidence, he cites three acts of mass killing attributed to
"Iran and Hezbollah" two or three decades ago. For him, this is proof
enough that "the Iranians will go all the way" in irrational
slaughter and that "the dark core of this Iranian regime has not gone
away. It’s just out of sight, and it does need to believe that all options
really are on the table for negotiations to succeed."
How to show with
"the dark core" at the heart of the "Arab-Muslim world"
that we can be violently crazy too? Friedman nominates Israeli Prime Minister
Bibi Netanyahu to do the job, to continue being "crazy" with "his
Dr. Strangelove stuff and the occasional missile test." How else can we tame
the savagery in the Wild West that we call the Middle East?
Well, that's the
view from the authoritative moderate voice not only of our flagship newspaper
but of the liberal foreign policy establishment here in the U.S.
What about the
moderate view in Israel? The Times'
website is now giving us that view from Shmuel Rosner, a veteran centrist Israel
journalist who specializes in "the special relationship" between his
nation and the U.S.
In his Dec. 4
column, Rosner writes about the controversy between the Israeli government and the
"thousands of Israeli Bedouins and Arabs [who] staged demonstrations, some
of them violent, against a government plan to resettle the Bedouins of the
Negev desert." By the third paragraph of the column, you can't help
feeling you are back in America's Wild West -- this time with the decent folk facing
not crazy gunslingers but primitive "Injuns."
Rosner hastens
to tell us of the dreadful poverty of the Bedouins and shows his sympathy by asserting
that their "community needs help to advance" -- help that can come,
apparently, only from the civilized Israeli government. Bedouin communities are
"more clusters of huts than real villages." Theirs is
a historically nomadic society[,] and its relationship to land clashes with the state’s notion of ownership and its need for planned development. ... They claim the land as their own, based on a long history as its residents. They have no legal documents proving ownership, and the country has been reluctant to formalize their claims.
Why that reminds
me of the early Puritan minister who opined that the natives' "land is
spacious and void, and they are few and do but run over the grass, as do also the
foxes and wild beasts." And the Jamestown settler who described the natives
as "only an idle, improvident, scattered people, ignorant of the knowledge
of gold, or silver, or any commodities."
John Winthrop, head
of the Puritans' Massachusetts Bay Colony, explained that since the natives
"inclose noe Land, neither have any settled habitation, nor any tame
Cattle to improve the Land," the whites could take pretty much as much land
as they wanted, leaving the natives just what his government deemed
"sufficient for their use" -- which wasn't much at all, of course. No
doubt he agreed with another Jamestown settler who said, "Our intrusion
into their possession shall tend to their great good, and no way to their hurt,
unlesse as unbridled beastes, they procure it to themselves."
Yes, America's
Wild West myth started way back when all the whites lived in towns hugging the East
coast, wanting only to do "great
good" for all those native "beasts."
In today's
Israel, under the so-called Prawer Plan, "the government is ready to give
the Bedouins title to some land." Their "clusters of huts" will
be replaced with houses with running water and electricity and officially
recognized as settlements.
There's just one
catch: "Between 30,000 and 40,000 Bedouins will have to relocate to
existing or new towns in the same area." That's why Bedouins and their
supporters are protesting.
But, hey, Rosner
urges us to believe, that will be in no way to their hurt (unless as unbridled
beasts, they procure it to themselves, I suppose). And "Israel will also have to pay
a high price." Not only will it give Bedouins land. "It will also
spend considerable taxpayer money — about $2 billion for the entire effort,
including over $330
million on economic development — to improve their living conditions
... bringing much-needed help to one of the country’s most disfavored groups."
The link will
take you to the Israeli government's website, describing its "comprehensive policy aimed at improving [Bedouins']
economic, social and living conditions, as well as resolving long-standing land
issues. ... a major step forward towards
integrating the Bedouin more fully into Israel's multicultural society, while
still preserving their unique culture and heritage."
You might hear Ulysses S. Grant murmuring
approval from the grave -- Grant being the president who did more than any
other to promote the idea of putting native Americans on reservations to
"improve their conditions." Maybe "The Great White Father"
is now Jewish.
To be fair, the parallel is far from
complete. The Israelis are not talking about "reservations" in the
sense that Americans know them. And not even the most Orthodox Jews in Israel
are talking about converting the Bedouins to Judaism. They don't have anyone
like the Puritan missionary John
Eliot, who created "praying towns" to bring Christian civilization to
the indigenous people -- who were doomed, he said, if they continued to live
"so unfixed, confused, and ungoverned a life, uncivilized and unsubdued to
labor and order."
In fact many Orthodox Israelis reject the
Prawer Plan as a giveaway to the indigenous people. One of their icons, Foreign
Minister Avigdor Liberman,
called the situation simply "a battle for the land. .. .We are
fighting for the national lands of the Jewish people." You might hear Andrew
Jackson murmuring approval from the grave; after all, his USA was still "the
New Israel."
Of course Jackson got huge resistance from
whites for his Indian removal program. So does Liberman. Just as Americans long
debated, sometimes fiercely, about "the Indian problem," Israelis now
debate fiercely about "the Arab problem." Yet in the U.S. that debate
gets little media attention. The media are more likely to oversimplify the
issue, casting it through the lens of a centuries-old American mythology.
That's why I've gone
into such detail about these two Times
columns -- not because there's anything extraordinary about them, but precisely
because that they are so ordinary. It's just another typical day in American
journalism's coverage of "our friend Israel versus the Arab-Muslim
world." From the Times, the
pinnacle of our journalism, these old Wild West stereotypes trickle down to all
the rest of the media and thus to the public at large.
The particulars
of Israeli policy toward Arabs are quite different from the specific ways the
U.S. has dealt with its indigenous peoples. But the myths that shaped U.S.
whites' attitudes toward native Americans for four centuries or more (and to
some extent still do) are strikingly similar to the myths that shape American public
attitudes toward Israel and "the Arab-Muslim" world.
Especially the
conservative public. The old idea that "the Jews" are responsible for
the U.S. government's pro-Israel tilt has been put to rest by recent polling
data from CNN, the Huffington
Post, and Pew.
All show that, in the U.S., the strongest support for Israel’s right-wing
policies now comes not from Jews but from
Republicans.
That's
especially true for white evangelical Christians. In one
recent poll, 46% of those evangelicals said the U.S. is not supportive
enough of Israel, while only 31% of Jews held that view. Half of the
evangelicals said Israel could never coexist with an independent Palestinian
state while only a third of Jews doubted it.
But the
conservative pressure on any U.S. president to tilt toward Israel -- a pressure
Barack Obama feels every day -- is
not primarily a matter of religion. It's much more about a cultural
affinity Americans have long felt for the story of Israel that they learned so
long ago -- especially conservatives, who are most likely to love that story of
the innocent good guys, who just want to civilize the wilderness, constantly
threatened by "the dark core" of savage evildoers.
That's the story
at the heart of the myth of insecurity so fundamental to political culture in
both Israel
and America.
But in America the media rarely cast the native people as savages any more, at
least not explicitly.
So perhaps many Americans
are clinging to their old familiar myth vicariously by projecting it onto what
Friedman calls the "merciless, hard-bitten" Middle East, where most
everyone seems crazy -- if you accept the mass media's story as the truth. As
I'm finishing this piece, the Times'
website is featuring yet
another in the endless string of frightening headlines, which all sound so
much the same: "Jihadist Groups Gain in Turmoil Across Middle East."
Meet the new news, same as the old news.
The only good news
is that myths do change. For years the best historians have been describing a
native American culture, going back to pre-contact days, that was fully as
rational and advanced a civilization as the whites', and deserves to be
understood on its own terms.
Indeed there's a
persuasive theory that the British colonies of North America created pejorative
myths about the native peoples to negate the lure of native ways, since so many
immigrants found the natives' life more civilized -- and comfortable -- than
the European life they'd brought across the sea.
That more
accurate story of the American past is beginning to filter into history
textbooks that millions of students will read in the coming years. Some of them
will become journalists who will eventually control and revise the story line
in the mass media. So there's hope that, some day, a more accurate story of
Arabs and other Muslim peoples will also find its way into our mass media, too.
Meanwhile, let's
be aware of the old story that still prevails about " the Arab-Muslim
world" and recognize how it appeals to many Americans, letting them hold
on to a new version of an old narrative that they kind of hate to give up. And
let's be aware that the appeal of this narrative plays a huge role in the
public demand for a pro-Israel tilt from Washington. At a time when the Obama
administration is immersed in potentially world-changing negotiations, both
with Iran and at the Israel-Palestine table, the role of myth in political life
is too important to ignore.