127. "Imaginative," "Tough," and "Realistic" as Compliments to a President

 

Any president of the United States who deserved those compliment-words would be pretty close to our ideal, wouldn't he? But how would he earn them? What would he look like in action? I have presumed to guess, making Jimmy Carter my star.

As my dream scenario opens he is speaking to Menachem Begin, the Israeli prime minister, just after Begin has allowed the first settlements in the Occupied Territories (see my preceding post, #126.). He has just asked the big question, "Tell me, Menachem, do you, in your heart, want all of the Occupied Territories for your people?" Let's say that Begin, by ignoring the question, or changing the subject, or indicating that it's bad form to ask such a question, says No, the answer consistent with his representation to America of Israel's goals.

Now the ideal Carter, having already showed his imagination (in his first question, picturing the future) shows his toughness: "What then is this hammering that I hear?" You may note that the American president, who knows his Bible, is counting on Begin to hear the echo of the prophet Samuel. (After Saul had denied having any captured sheep Samuel had cocked his head and said, "What then is this bleating in mine ears?") Smart Carter is asking, "What are you driving at with those houses going up in Ariel?

Begin has been put seriously on the spot. He has to admit he wants the whole thing or look like the dumbest candidate for Israeli leadership in the Bible. Let's say Begin says, "All right, I want all of old Judea and Samaria." Smart Carter, though he knows, asks him why. Begin tells him what everybody in Israel knows about him and the Gush Emunim, the first settlers: that they want the land because God, in the Bible, gave it to them.

That answer prepares imaginative Carter to ask those of his countrymen who support Prime Minister Begin why they support him. Do they do it because they believe that God gave the Israelis the land?

Now many of Begin's supporters in Carter's country will without hesitation say yes. Anybody who takes the Bible as literal truth will have to say yes — or be embarrassed in front of his fellow believers — and that will end the conversation. But those Jews who don't read the Bible literally, they are the ones tough Carter is interested in. "What? You?" he will say, "Right alongside the people you used to scorn? I remember you in college, so full of brains, so tough on evangelical Christians. How can you keep company with them? How can you not ask of Begin the kind of questions you used to ask us?"

Tough Carter's strategy is clear. Embarrass them. Get them to explain. Out in public. Some of these skeptical Jews are influential people, giving heavy support. Carter's imagination has shown him where the settlements are heading, his realism has told him his nation can't ignore that end, and his toughness now makes him press for an explanation from settlement-supporters no matter how many friends he has to embarrass.

The same will go for the ideally imaginative, tough, realistic presidents that follow Carter. Does an Israeli prime minister continue to expand the settlements (as every one of them will do)? Do his supporters count on his reputation as a liberal, secular, enlightened man to supply — despite a settlement here, a settlement there — implicit reassurance? Ask him what he's doing giving support to the faction he scorned. Does he deny giving that support? "What then is this bleating in mine ears?"

When will our ideal presidents stop? As soon as the explanations produce public discussion and debate in Congress. That's all they'll want. Their goal is not Israeli withdrawal from the Occupied Territories. Things like that are to be determined after debate, after all the other arguments — the need for defensible borders, the need for a bargaining chip, for need for defense against terrorists, and so on — are heard and tested. It would be unrealistic to push for more.

In the meantime realism requires presidents to counter attempts to discourage debate in Congress, attempts that have been so far successful. (It hasn't been just a matter of ignoring the question, or changing the subject; the question simply has not been asked.) Smart Carter's PR staff (or Clinton's or Bush's or Obama's) will, for example, have to keep control of the definition of "tough." It can't just mean "hard on your enemies"; it has to mean "hard on your friends," too." It can't mean "hard on terrorism" or, when you get down to it, anything at all we got used to in the hard-on-soft-on vocabulary of the anti-communism years, the years before Viet Nam. That's pseudo-toughness, poolroom toughness. You show it up by inviting it into the street. "Let's wait until your man mixes it up in Congress. There we'll find out how tough he is."

126. "Facts on the ground"

The expression "facts on the ground" was apparently first used by Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin in the 70s. He was describing the new settlements in the Occupied Territories. By adding "on the ground" to a word that was already sufficient he suggested something to future statesmen: this is something solidly based, stuck in the earth, and you are not going to change it easily.

He also implied a distinction from facts of another sort, I think, the facts you might call "facts in the heart," facts that are hard to see and, some say, easy to change. Disapproval of the settlements is a fact in the heart of many Americans and Israelis. It is certainly a fact in the heart of Tzaly Reshef, one of the founders of Peace Now, who last week wondered (NYT, 3-25) whether the Israeli Supreme Court would be able to get Benjamin Netanyahu to change the old "facts on the ground."

But Reshef and his fellows in Peace Now, and, more distantly, in the United Sates, are dismissed as idealists. Understandably. None of their talk has had any effect. The settlements have continued to expand during the regimes of every Israeli prime minister, liberal or conservative, hawk or dove.

"What do you expect, idealists? That facts on the ground will give way before your heart's desire? Get used to them." That's what I hear the realists, the ones Menachem Begin counted on, saying now.

The tough-ground-soft-heart distinction is not as firm as it looks, though.  Facts on the ground come from human intention — which is to say, the human heart. There is a logical connection (effect to cause) between a settler's hut and a Likud prime minister's heart. Bend your eyes to that and you can raise them to the larger connections — to future needs, to American support, to peace in the Middle East. No, you're not looking at the sky; you're trying to see future facts on the ground.

Imaginative statesmen raise their eyes. Realistic statesmen don't blink at what they see. Tough statesmen don't hesitate to ask questions about them. They're determined to know what, on the ground, their country is going to have to live with. So imaginative, tough, realistic American presidents would have asked each of the Israeli prime ministers who expanded the settlements this idealistic-sounding but very realistic question, "Tell me, Menachem (or Yitzhak or Benjamin), do you, in your heart, want all of the West Bank for your people?"

And all tough, imaginative Americans wanting a realistic foreign policy for their country, would ask all the Jewish groups supporting those prime ministers the same question.

Ah, but is that realistic? Can anybody actually picture any American President putting that question to any Israeli Prime Minister? No, it has suited everybody politically, and has suited everybody politically for 35 years, to keep that question locked up, which is to say, it suits them, linguistically, to keep "facts on the ground" separate from "facts in the heart." Let us, says the Israeli, just look at what's there, now, and leave what will be there out of the discussion. Let us, says the American Congressman, let us not upset the Christian constituency that supports the Israeli moves. You can talk about the heart, but do it in some other context.

I can't help thinking that they will have church in mind. Church is where the idealists gather, isn't it? It is certainly where Christians will hear a lot of talk about the heart. That's where, according to Jesus, you look to find sin.

Yes, church is the perfect place to put Americans who want to talk about the heart. They're accustomed to talking about the facts there before they get back to the facts on the ground during the business week.

But I wonder how much compartmentalizers really know about American churches. Do they know that some congregations pay close attention to world affairs? And some preachers use extreme language? I have known some, and I can hear them now: 'Whoso looketh at the West Bank to lust hath already committed aggression in his heart.'"

And I've heard there are some rabbis who say the same kind of thing. It's not true that all the heart talk comes out of the New Testament. There's "Thou shalt not covet" from Moses. I think we could have a rabbi in the pulpit right next to our preacher, shouting across the water, though I'm not sure about his speech. I hear, "Hey, you. You know you can't covet your neighbor's ox or ass or wife. So what's this you're coveting the West Bank?"

So you can't even count on keeping facts on the ground separate from facts in the heart in church. Some people there are very good at reading the truth in your heart from the facts you put on the ground.