Lev Grinberg responds to Ma'ariv
A letter to Ma'ariv editor, Amnon Dankner
April 4, 2004
Subject: Article under the headline, "An Israeli professor writes in Belgium: the assassination of Yassin is like genocide"
I was disturbed to read the article about me in Ma'ariv. Although it was published on April 1, this was no April fool's joke, and the the vast majority of the public believed that those were indeed my words, and reacted with anger -- see, for example the more than 200 responses on the Ma'ariv website. The article was an incitement against me and harmed my reputation. I demand that you publish this letter in its entirety in a place as prominent as that given to the article against me.
The article is full of "little" errors, inaccuracies, distortions, and quotations taken out of context, from my essay, which was published in the newspaper, "La libre Belgique." You interviewed all those involved except me: the Israeli embassy in Belgium, representatives of the Jewish community, people from the Foreign Ministry, the Education Minister and the University spokesperson. Why not ask me to clarify what I meant? I have attached my essay so that you can verify that you did not accurately quote a single sentence.
First, and most importantly, the title. "The Yassin Assassination -- Like Genocide." I did not speak of genocide, but of symbolic genocide. Can you not understand the difference between symbolic violence and actual violence? Between cursing or degrading someone and shooting him? This is the difference between life and death, which you have chosen to ignore. In addition, I did not discuss only the Yassin assassination, but rather the government's entire policy, including the building of the wall, land confiscations, checkpoints, killing of innocent civilians, dismantling the Palestinian Authority, and the assassinations policy. All these together constitute, according to my argument, symbolic genocide, in other words, the elimination of the national symbols of the Palestinian people, their land, and their future.
As I've said, all of the quotes contain "little" inaccuracies that make all the difference between legitimate discussion and slander or incitement. I begin with the statement that "the Jewish people, the ultimate victims of genocide, have not succeeded in recovering from the trauma of the holocaust and the sense of insecurity it caused, and are now carrying out a symbolic genocide against the Palestinian people" and I call for the European community to intervene in order to "prevent the expected round of mutual bloodletting." In other words, I distinguish between the suffering and genocide of the Jewish people, and the symbolic genocide of the Palestinians, and thus I negate the comparison between the acts of Nazi Germany and those of Israel. In addition, I explain the current situation as the continuation of the death and destruction that Europeans caused the Jewish people, and call for their involvement as those responsible for the trauma and existential insecurity of the Jews, which is now turned against the Palestinians. This involvement would be an assumption of responsibility, for the sake of all of us, Jews and Palestinians. Whoever doesn't see our destiny in this land as a shared destiny, in peace or in war, leads us only to military solutions.
And here is another selection of "little inaccuracies": I did not write that the Palestinians offered "endless ceasefires, but Sharon answers with assassinations of the democratic leaders of the Palestinian people." I never called the Palestinian leadership democratic. On the contrary, in my research I deal with the lack of democracy among the Palestinians and its consequences for the outbreak of the second intifada. What I did write was that the Palestinians twice declared a unilateral ceasefire (in December 2001 and July 2003) and Sharon "even then would not agree to advance the "peace process," and eventually the quiet was broken by a return to the policy of "targeted liquidations."
I stand behind the facts, the analysis, and the political appeal to the Europeans in my essay, even if it provokes criticism and insults. But you cannot stand behind a single "quote" in your story. These distortions are a dangerous incitement. In these days of rage, anger and feelings of revenge, the publication of this information as fact, without a careful check and without my response is an irresponsible act. I know that my essay was particularly harsh, and deliberately so, in order to provoke discussion and thought, given the tendency to see the "focused elimination" of Sheikh Yassin as just another assassination. However, in your report you have done the opposite: silencing me by distorting and delegitimating my words. I demand that you publish this letter in its entirety and without ommissions or additions. And in the Passover spirit, if this incident leads to a substantive discussion of the consequences of Israel's policies and the need for external intervention to save us from the cycle of bloodshed, dayenu*.
* Literally, "it is enough for us," the word is used in the Passover seder to indicate that even one of the many acts God performed to deliver the Jews from Egypt would have been sufficient.
(Translated by Daniel Breslau)