"We are already dead. haven't received the news yet, but we are dead. It doesn't work anymore." This is the message to the nation and the world from the daring revolutionary, former Jewish Agency and World Zionist Organization Chairman Avraham Burg (Haaretz Magazine, June 8). There is no need to get excited about what he says. Experience proves that when Burg solemnly announces someone's death, there is no need to hurry to believe him. Professor Amnon Rubinstein, who had the privilege of hearing Burg's moving eulogy for him, can attest to this. But if, as Burg sees it, "we are already dead" and if "whoever can" should obtain a foreign passport, what point is there in suggesting the cancellation of Israel's definition as a Jewish state? Why take the trouble to correct the name of the deceased?

And why is the Law of Return, which according to Burg should be revoked, "a bill of divorce between us and Diaspora Jewry?" Is it not more likely that revoking it will be perceived in this way? But it's the latest fashion among the cliche mongers to support the modification of Israel's definition as a Jewish state and the revocation of the Law of Return, and to support, at the same time as Burg does, the raising of the banner of Diaspora Jewry, so as to take a jab at Israel. The linking of these two cliches yields the grotesque result of the Law of Return signifying alienation from Diaspora Jewry.

In his day, Burg sat on Theodor Herzl's chair at the World Zionist Organization. His personal identification with the Zionist movement was such that he refused, 10 years after his retirement, to relinquish the car and driver it gave him. Now he reveals that he was "living a lie" during the period he was integrated into the establishment and says that he lost "the precise wind of Leibowitz in my sails," which had guided him in his youth. But in Burg's mouth the spirit of Professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz is also a cliche and an empty pose. There is nothing further from Leibowitz's opinions than denial of the Jewish and Zionist state, scorn for its national sovereignty and the idealization of Europe.

	Advertisement

All of these are legitimate opinions in a certain sense (insofar as it is possible to believe that these things are being said seriously and not as mere posturing), and the obvious practical conclusion is to take out a foreign passport. But what does all this have to do with the wrathful Jerusalem professor who called for relinquishing the occupation not because it would bring peace - he did not believe in that at all - but to save the Jewish national state?

There is one thing that Burg has indeed taken from Leibowitz: the comparison between Israel and Nazi Germany. But don't worry, "There is a difference between saying 'Nazi' and saying 'National Socialist.'" What a stroke of luck! Now all of Burg's readers around the world will understand that Israel is just National Socialist, and not Nazi.

As for the danger of a "fascist debacle in Israel," in Burg's opinion, "it is already here." There has already been fascism. And what is the conclusion from this? That it is necessary to leave the country? To go underground?

Not exactly. The conclusion is that it is necessary to support Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in his intention to remain in office and to vote for Ehud Barak in the Labor Party primary. After all, as everyone knows, this has been the way for anti-fascists to support those fascist (or perhaps National Socialist) leaders for whom one has "great fondness," as Burg does for Olmert, whom he professes to like very much. Is it possible take seriously a single word that comes out of this person's mouth?