An American and a Soviet soldier meet in Berlin in 1945 and get into an argument about which oftheir countries is more democratic.
“Why,” the American said, “I can stand in the middle of Times Square and shout ‘PresidentTruman is a scoundrel’ and nothing will happen to me!”
“Big deal,” the Russian retorted, “I can stand in the middle of Red Square and shout ‘Truman is ascoundrel’ and nothing will happen to me!”
It is perhaps this story that inspired Natan Sharansky’s theory that the ultimate test ofdemocracy is that a person can stand in the town square and denounce his government, withoutanything happening to him. True, but rather simplistic, I would say. Simplistic enough tocatch the imagination of that other great thinker, George W. Bush.
When Israelis heard for the first time about Bush citing Sharansky as his guide and mentor,they gasped in disbelief. Sharansky? Our Sharansky?
To explain this reaction, one has to go back a little bit. We first heard of Natan Sharansky(actually Anatoliy Shcharansky, but the name was simplified and Hebrewized when he camehere) as a “dissident” in the Soviet Union. After attracting international attention inMoscow, he was arrested by the KGB and sentenced for treason, in what looked like aparticularly clumsy attempt to silence him. As we heard it, he was not broken in the hell of theGulag but remained a proud fighter for his rights and ideas. A huge international campaigndemanded his release. In the end the Soviets decided to get rid of him and exchanged him for avaluable Soviet spy held in America. The picture of this small but upright figure crossing thebridge in Berlin has remained imprinted in our memories.
We waited for his arrival in Israel with bated breath. Here he was, a great, authentic hero, theman who had single-handedly defeated the Soviet colossus, a modern David defying mightyGoliath.
Seeing him in the flesh was an anti-climax. For a hero, he looked singularly unimpressive. Butappearances mislead, don’t they?
At the airport, Anatoliy, now Natan, was reunited with his wife, another famous dissident.Since she had already achieved a certain notoriety in Israel as a fanatical right-winger andreligious extremist, her connection with the human-rights activist seemed incongruous.
The real disillusionment, at least for me, started with the Husseini affair. Some good soularranged a meeting between the great dissident and Feisal Husseini, the leader of the Arabcommunity in East Jerusalem, a fighter for Palestinian human rights and a real humanist.Sharansky agreed, but at the last moment retracted, claiming that he had not known thatHusseini belonged to the PLO. (Which is rather like not knowing that Bush is an American.)
At the time I wrote an article about him under the heading “Shafansky”. “Shafan” is Hebrew forrabbit, the symbol of cowardice.
From then on, the great human rights fighter gradually became an uncompromising activistagainst the human (and any other) rights of the Palestinians in the occupied territories.
First he established a party of immigrants from the former Soviet Union, achieved arespectable election result and joined a coalition headed by the Labor Party. But after sometime his party started falling apart. He tried to save it by resigning from the government ofEhud Barak, on the grounds that it had made too many concessions to the Palestinians overJerusalem. Finally, in an admission of political bankruptcy, he joined the Likud. He is now aquite unimportant member of the government, calling himself grandly “Minister forJerusalem”, but serving actually as a Minister without Portfolio, who has been put, proforma, in charge of Jerusalem affairs.
In the meantime, he has suffered some unpleasantness. Another famous immigrant from Russiapublished an extremely critical book about him, alleging that he had never been a prominentdissident, but that his importance had been deliberately inflated by the KGB in order toexchange him for its genuinely important agent in the American prison. Also, the bookinsinuates that his role behind bars was considerably less heroic than advertised.
Sharansky sued for libel and won, but only after the indignity of hearing some other prominentformer dissidents testify against him.
Throughout the years, Sharansky – in line with many “Russian” immigrants – was drifting to theextreme right. Already as Housing Minister, he had systematically enlarged the settlementson expropriated Arab land in the West Bank, trampling on the human and national rights of thePalestinians. Now he belongs to the Likud “rebels”, the group of extreme right-wingers whoare trying to undermine Ariel Sharon’s “disengagement” plan and prevent the dismantling ofsettlements.
For years now, he has peddled the idea that peace with the Arabs is impossible until they becomedemocratic. In Israel, this was dismissed as just another propaganda gimmick serving theIsraeli government’s opposition to any peace that would mean an end to the occupation. SinceSharansky is totally ignorant of Arab affairs and has probably never had a seriousconversation with an Arab, it is hard for Israelis to take him seriously. As far as I know,nobody does, not even among Rightists.
His highly unoriginal contention that “democracies do not make war against otherdemocracies” is a perfect alibi for the United States to attack Iraq, Syria and Iran, whichare, after all, no democracies (while dictatorships like Pakistan and Turkmenistan remaingood friends).
The idea that the teachings of this particular political philosopher are the guiding star ofthe mightiest leader in the world, the commander of the biggest military machine in history,is rather frightening.