Israel loses ground
Nicholas von Hoffman
Washington Whatever political and propaganda advantage the Israelis might have received from the PLO massacre north of Tel Aviv was lost here by the enormity of their military reaction. American television showed too many pictures of dead Lebanese children,. indiscriminate bombardment of open cities and those other pictures we of the twentieth century have seen so often — the refugees on the highways. It was so out of proportion that the 'erosion,' as they now refer to it here, of Israeli support continued to wash away the topsoil of friendship. The New Republic, a pathologically proIsraeli publication, blamed Syria for putting Yasir Arafat up to ordering the raid and if the retaliation seemed harsh, it seemed to say, Lebanon is now a Syrian protectorate and so got pretty much what it deserved. This prestigious publication, which is read Widely and respectfully, then denied that there is any hanky panky between certain factions of Lebanese Christians and the Israelis, explaining 'no doubt the Israelis do indirectly protect the Christians, and the Pelle is someone who would be advised to take note of it. His condemnation of Israel and his admonitions to his Christian flock make him more wolf than shepherd.' But if the country's most important liberal weekly Was telling wolf-man Paul to take his olive branch and go shove it up his mitre, American Jews were not sticking together, being clannish, or doing the other things anti seMites accuse them of. A public debate has commenced, not only over the Lebanese adventure but over United Nations resol„ntion 242, the occupied territories and oegin's unique way of carrying on peace negotiations.
Irving Howe, the novelist who wrote the
heSt selling book on Jewish immigrant life World of Our Fathers, was recently quoted a," saying, 'I think that the Israeli position on nto settlements is absolutely indefensible, except for those people who have received „Word from heaven that Judea and Samaria ?elong to the Jews — and with such people it itnPossible to argue. Supporters of Israel !'ave to recognise that if there is to be peace IT the Middle East, sooner or later, with all ,,Inds of cautions and qualifications — Israeli '1°Mination of the West Bank has to end.' Within American Jewry, consternation ;Iild uncertainty as to what to do grows. On
e one hand, they hear from people like Ch •
t, will Herzog, the Israeli ambassador to Lue UN that 'in our negotiations with Egypt, u" will succeed only if we are strong as a 2lited people, only if the Jews of America "tl.d the rest of the world stand with Israel "Ithout compromise.' But on the other
hand, there are an increasing number, like Rabbi Balfur Bricker of the Social Action Commission of the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, who says things like, 'There is a basic schizophrenia in American Jewry. We hide behind the argument that it is not for us to speak our minds because the Israelis have to pay the price, but I think that is precisely why we have to speak out when we spot trouble — to save Jewish lives.'
But is speaking out disloyal? The Jewish Post and Opinion declared here that 'If what the polls show is true, that a drastic drop in Israel's position in public opinion has occurred, then we are reaping the harvest of the role adopted by the American Jewish leadership which considers opposition to any Israeli actions as treason.' And the newspaper concluded that 'It is treason when we refuse to speak up, not treason when we differ.'
Until the period of the Sadat peace approach, the differences were muted, and fomented mostly by people stigmatised as left wingers and therefore ignorable. Now, as the respectable elements in the American Jewish community have started to realise that Begin's position is unsaleable on this side of the ocean, they are also realising they don't have much clout with the Israeli state which they've done so much to help. 'Yes, we have regular channels of communications with the Israelis,' one influential American Jewish figure was quoted as saying, tut we have little conviction that the message gets through.'
In this situation an administration which uses craft and is careful to avoid any hamhanded act that would reunite Jewish sentiment, may be able to make American policy more flexible in the Middle East than it has been since 1956 when Eisenhower forced Israel out of its participation in the Anglo-French invasion of Egypt. Again, as with South Vietnam, a few here are recognising that an open-ended, infinitely broad alliance with a small power can cripple and immobilise a large one.
But once the killing in Lebanon disappeared from the television screens, national attention on the Middle East began to wander and some of it fastened on a new book called, In His Image: The Cloning of a Man by a medical writer, David Rorvik. This book, which is being advertised as the latest scoop from the dungeons of Transylvania, announced that scientists in those deep places have succeeded in manufacturing the first human clone. This excessively Frankensteinian act took place secretly at the behest, direction and expense of an anonymous sixty-eight-year-old childless millionaire. In all his years on the planet, this Mr Rich had never met .a female with whom he cared to share his zygotes and gametes. Nothing would do but an exact replica of himself. Prior to Mr Rich's hired geneticists replicating with such biological perfection, the only known instance of successful.cloning was with the African clawed toad. Since most millionaires are a species of clawed toad, it may have been easier to clone Mr Rich than it would have been to duplicate a normal individual.
This baleful biological achievement opens up any number of dismal possibilities. The rich toad reportedly wanted to clone himself so that his name and genealogical line would endure, but other rich toads might regard cloning as a means of realising immortality. Through cloning, a man like Nelson Rockefeller could buy himself perpettial life. Your clone is your identical, biological twin. If Dr Christian Barnard could cut out the heart of a clone and transplant it it into a person who had been cloned, there would be no post-operative rejection problems. Thus, if he cared to, a man like Nelson Rockefeller could go to Transylvania, get himself two or three clones who would not be raised as human beings, but treated as a spare parts inventory. Whenever Nelson's liver, large intestine, heart or big toe went on the blink, it could be cut out and replaced with a new one from the clones.
Other rich people would certainly want to emulate the Rockefellers, particularly in something that promises greater longevity than monkey glands. It won't be long before we have clone farms where jet-setters like Jackie Onassis will visit from time to time to check out their future lungs and see next year's pancreas cavort. Some people may object that plucking your clone's heart out to use it yourself would be murder. It's a point for theologicans and lawyers, with ramifications which extend beyond boosting an occasional vital organ. What, for instance, is it if you have sex with your clone? Incest or masturbation? Would it be a crime to eat a vanilla ice cream clone? On the lighter side, farmers in Washington, to protest the low prices they're getting for their products, released eighty-two goats on the steps of the domed capital of the Republic. A number of them are still loose, clattering about the marbled halls, I suppose, going baaaah, or ninny, or whatever, at the legislators, all to no avail. There is no known way to get a congressman's goat.
Previous page
