Special Interview Some Disquieting Experiences

Eli Wiesel, probably the world’s most widely read Jewish novelist, essayist and commentator, has had some disquieting experiences in recent months.

In an interview with this writer, Wiesel revealed that he had been in Israel when the invasion of Lebanon occurred. While he had some reservations about the implications of the war, Wiesel has been scandalized by some of the reactions to it, notably that of Jacobo Timerman, the former editor of a newspaper in Buenos Aires who was arrested by the Argentine authorities and who is now living in Israel.

“I was one of those people who went to Argentina to plead with the authorities there to release Timerman,” Wiesel said. “It was because of the intervention of Israel and its offer to accept Timerman that he was finally able to leave his jail cell.”

Wiesel feels that Timerman’s new book on Israel, “The Longest War, Israel in Lebanon” (Knopf) — intended as an expose of Israel’s”unwarranted”invasion of Lebanon, published in advance of the findings of the judicial commission of inquiry — and his recent appearances on American television — notably CBS “60 Minutes” program where his unrelenting criticism of Israel prompted Mike Wallace to ask, “But is there nothing positive about Israel?”– are quite unsavory: they display both a lack of gratefulness on Timerman’s part and a certain “shallowness” in his thinking.

EXERCISED ABOUT TIMERMAN’S ASSERTIONS

Wiesel is exercised not only by Timerman’s statements about the “wickedness” of Israel but about his assertions of longtime Zionist and Jewish commitment. “That’s not the impression I got when I was in Argentina trying to secure Timerman’s release,” Wiesel stated. “Members of the Jewish community there asked me why I was wasting my time on a person who had never displayed any Jewish loyalties.

“When Timerman occupied his position as editor of one of Buenos Aires’ best newspapers, he had no time for the Jewish people or for Israel, that’s what I was told by Argentinean Jews.” (Timerman does say in his book, “Prisoner Without a Name, Cell Without a Number,” that he wrote about Israel in his paper; he does not provide details about the extent of his coverage.)

RESPONSE TO THE BEIRUT MASSACRES

If Wiesel has had second thoughts about Timerman he has gone through a similar process with regard to his own recent response to the Beirut massacres. In the wake of the Shatila and Sabra murders, Wiesel had rushed into print with some strong articles about the moral lapses of certain Jews.

“I went so far as to suggest that this calamitous event meant that we had failed as a people, that there was something wrong with our educational system. I said that the time had come for a ‘Heshbon Ha-nefesh,’ a reckoning with our souls. I could not understand how such a monstrous thing had transpired.”

When the reaction of the world’s press began to filter through Wiesel’s consciousness he soon realized that he had been precipitous in his reaction. The orgy of condemnation which was visited upon Israel was too much for Wiesel. “The condemnation was not inspired by a sincere search for truth but by a hidden agenda, to wipe clean the Holocaust slate. The world seemed to be saying to us: ‘Now that you too have been involved in human brutality, however indirect, we can now close the chapter on the Holocaust.’ The relish that accompanied the world condemnation of Israel was transparent.”

While Wiesel was in Israel during the war he is not prepared to offer analysis of the political or military aspects of the conflict. “I am not a political person and am therefore unable to comment on whether the invasion was justifiable or not. When it comes to matters of security I do not presume to tell the people on the scene what is appropriate or not.”

SOME OBSERVATIONS ON THE WAR

Wiesel was, however, ready to make some observations on the war as he witnessed it from his perspective,

“The first inkling I had that something was wrong was when I heard a radio announcer say: ‘Katavenu me Beirut moser, (our correspondent from Beirut reports …’) The media coverage of the fighting was unprecedented. Hour after hour Israeli TV crews filled the screens not only with shots of the fighting but with programs featuring debates among soldiers about the morality of the war — all this occurring while the fighting was going on!

“My general impression is that this was a war, the first one in Israel, that was waged without a general consensus. I felt a corporate sense of sadness. The people were split and you could feel it clearly.”

THE MORAL ISSUE OF THE WAR

While Wiesel is hesitant to comment on the moral issue of the war itself he is not reticent to speak to specific aspects of its conduct.

“I was horrified when, during the bombing of Beirut, organized ‘missions’ and tours went to the city to view the spectacle. Here was a city in the process of being mutilated; people were dying and tour buses were bringing people to gawk.”

A Midrash from Exodus came to Wiesel’s mind to emphasize the point: “When the Egyptians are drowning in the Red Sea and the Israelites begin to rejoice, God is made to say: ‘The work of my hands is drowning in the Sea and you sing songs of rejoicing!'”

Wiesel’s moral position is a simple one. “I do believe in the double standard when it comes to Israel. I am not embarrassed by it. I believe that the State of Israel should be better than other states. What is Israel’s purpose if it is only to become another Levantine entity?”

That is the message Wiesel communicates to the students at Yale (where he recently received the Henry Luce Chair in Humanities) and Boston University, as well as to the thousands of peoples he lectures to annually.