"The Last Reminiscence, January 14, 1994": An Interview with Pinhas Ginossar and Zaki Shalom

This I can tell you, though, after working with both [Ben-Gurion] and [Moshe Sharett], there were several differences between them I'll describe for you. Sharett wants to write a letter, so he calls in his secretary and dictates it. She comes back with a draft. He corrects the draft and rings f...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Israel studies (Bloomington, Ind.) Ind.), 1996-04, Vol.1 (1), p.171-195
Hauptverfasser: Harkabi, Yehoshafat, Ginossar, Pinhas, Shalom, Zaki
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:This I can tell you, though, after working with both [Ben-Gurion] and [Moshe Sharett], there were several differences between them I'll describe for you. Sharett wants to write a letter, so he calls in his secretary and dictates it. She comes back with a draft. He corrects the draft and rings for her to come in. Ben-Gurion wants to write a letter: he drafts it in his own writing, and when he's finished he doesn't ring for his secretary, he goes into the secretary's office and hands her the letter. Sharett, in contrast, would meet one of his secretaries and ask her: How are you? How's your aunt? He would make an effort to remember the names of her family members in order to ingratiate himself. Ben-Gurion couldn't have cared less, because his attitude toward people was instrumental and historical, that's how he was with regard to everything. I'd put it like this: Sharett feared people, Ben-Gurion feared history, how it would judge him. But I think what most concerned him was the historical impact of the things he did. Because what he wanted was real achievement, not some bombastic, momentary success. I worked both with Ben-Gurion and with Sharett and I never noticed any dissension between them, at least not till later on. I'm not saying there was no dissension there; just that I didn't pick up on it. There could very well have been all sorts of conflicts between them. But in our personal contact, at meetings I attended with the two of them, I didn't notice. And since I was unaware, I never felt any tension: who was I serving? I was serving them both. We're creating a Palestinian state now under the worst possible conditions with a lot of bad blood. The Likud says "there's no hurry," but the more we delay peace, the more groups spring up where there were none before, all sorts of monsters. If we had taken the same steps before 1988, we wouldn't have had Hamas. Or before 1982, the Hizb'alla. When I was child, the Arabs who were considered friendly to us were the Shi'ites, and now they are enemies. What I'm saying is -- time is running out. Time is not a neutral dimension in this conflict. What's the difference between the fifties and the present period? You could say that Ben-Gurion was (as I certainly was) against the Arabs, and they considered us the aggressors and all that. But we weren't self-righteous. According to our approach, the Arabs who opposed us were understandable. We didn't see Arab opposition as a crime. [Moshe Dayan] expressed this in his poem
ISSN:1084-9513
1527-201X
1527-201X
DOI:10.1353/is.2005.0034