The war prompts me to a confession. During the past several years I wavered on the issue of Israel sitting in the occupied territories. True, I was suspicious of the doctrinaire quality of the dove’s line, but I was even more irritated at the stridency of the hawks. I could not quite be convinced of the cogency of the annexationists’ argument that the defense of the Israeli heartland proper required extended borders. They sounded too nationalistic. Their jingoist rhetoric irked me. Appropriate to the Yom Kippur War, I and many others like me will have to say Al Chet, and confess our errors. No longer may we judge vital positions by subjective reactions to style or taste. The hawks may sound reactionary, militaristic, and strident, but (without subscribing to their entire line) I now appreciate the simple point they have been trying to make all along. Not jingoism, not historical motives, not halakhic pronouncements, but the simple doctrine of pikuach nefesh – survival – demands the margin of safety which, had we not had it on Yom Kippur 1973, Tisha B’av 1974 would have come much, much earlier.A second confession that I urge upon those whose guilt is now exposed: Al Chet — for the sin of premature Messianism. This presumptuousness is common to two disparate groups — those whose Messianism is primarily nationalistic, and those to whom it is completely internationalist. In 1967 a large number of Israelis, and some Americans, were convinced that the Six Day War proved we were in a definite pre-redemp-tive Messianic era, and some even said so in the prayers we recite for Israel — at’chalta di’geulah (“the beginning of redemption”).The secularized version of this theological hubris was a cockiness about Israel’s power. After Yom Kippur 1973, I am more skeptical than ever. A Messianic war would have been on the Six-Day style. Let us talk no more of tagging current history with labels that are symptoms of nothing more than our superficiality and superciliousness. Messiah w…

The events of the Yom Kippur War and its aftermath are so traumatic, that we do not yet have the mental equanimity to assess the situation in the psychological calm requisite for such judgments. Perhaps an halakhic analogy is apt: the avel (mourner after the deceased has been buried) is expected to grieve over a situation which he then begins to perceive and perhaps even understand. But the onen (mourner before interment) is released from all religious obligations to mourn because he is assumed to be so stunned that he has not absorbed the gravity of his predicament and its implications. Nevertheless, certain moods have already made themselves felt. Reactions of Intellectuals Among the intellectuals, in which group I include the more thoughtful American journalists, the moral issue appears to have three aspects. Some have been beguiled by Arab arguments, and build their case around earlier insults to Arab manhood and dignity, the need to acknowledge the national aspiration of the Palestinians, and the imperative to return territories won by military action. Underlying this is the question of the legitimacy of the Jewish claim to a national homeland in the Middle East. A second group is amoralistic, preferring to deal with the political issues purely on a pragmatic basis, with the major consideration being America’s national interest, however that interest may be defined. A third group dismisses the amoralist position as untenable and as inconsistent with American foreign policy over the years, and sees Israel as mostly or altogether in the right. I suspect that a good part of the uncharacteristic silence of the intellectuals derives from their acute dilemma 49 50 THE YOM KIPPUR war Israel and the Jewish People regarding the Third World. In their own way, intellectuals can be more conformist than hoi polloi. They are waiting to see how their colleagues will react to the astounding conduct of the non-aligned nations who have solidly joined forces with the Arabs. Thir…