From: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu (Rich Winkel)
Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive
Subject: Yehudi Menuhin Interview
Date: 11 Oct 92 08:15:08 GMT
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Organization: PACH
Originator: rich@pencil.cs.missouri.edu

/** gn.peacemedia: 171.0 **/
** Topic: Yehudi Menuhin Interview **
** Written 11:08 pm  Sep 29, 1992 by gn:peacemedia in cdp:gn.peacemedia **
GETTING TO KNOW THE ENEMY:
AN INTERVIEW WITH YEHUDI MENUHIN

[Peace Media Service]

In the world of music, Sir Yehudi Menuhin--the violinist,
conductor, the President of the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra of
London--remains a giant. Though in his late 70s, Menuhin still
travels the globe. Within this past year, he has been Principal
Conductor of the Philharmonica Hunganca, Principal Guest Conductor
of the Warsaw Sinfonia and of the English String Orchestra. Beyond
his musical work, Menuhin is a peace activist and supporter of
nonviolent causes.

On tour in the United States last winter, he took time out from
his concert schedule to receive the Jewish Peace Fellowship's
Abraham Joshua Heschel Peace Prize and to make a call for renewed
peace efforts in the Middle East. ``It is very difficult to expect
people who have suffered, as those who have lost their own in the
Holocaust, to think in broader more patient terms,'' he said as he
received the award. ``But for their own good we know they must
come to terms with those whom they are now dominating, and their
neighbors.''

A few days later I met with him in a sunny flower-filled suite
high above Central Park. He has a timelessness about him. It is
only when he chats about who he conducted with ``after the war''
that one realizes that he has been a part of the world's musical
and political landscape for the better part of this century.

--Claudia Dreifus

Q:I have the impression that you are a pacifist. Is that right?

A: No, I think there are times in life when you've got to fight.
To let yourself be mowed down in a helpless situation--I don't
believe that is possible. I do think pacifism and peace itself
must be dynamic, that peace is the greatest struggle in the world.
People have a false notion that peace is a situation of utter
harmony, where everybody likes everybody and there are no wars.
But to achieve peace, you have to be very courageous and fair.
Most people would really feel much safer embracing one extreme or
one side. They don't have to meet the enemy except on the
battlefield. But peace demands that you meet your enemy in your
heart, that you try to understand them, that you have the courage
to meet them even though your own regime, for one reason or
another may not approve, or may even punish you. Peace is the act
of courage where you stretch out your hand to your enemy. It is
not a passive situation.

Q: The Cold War has now been over for more than a year.
Paradoxically, the world seems more dangerous than ever. Are you
surprised?

A: Yes, but the dangerous time is one we have to go through. The
Cold War was simply a mask for the terrifying menaces that were
building up. It was one way to blame the other party. Now thanks
to the end of the Cold War, we are face to face with the real
problems. We are coming closer to human nature. Before we could
affect innocence and outrage by concentrating on ``the enemy.''
Now. we are realizing that _we_ are the enemy. It's a very
difficult transitional period and it may be very long. It may be
the very end of the human race. It may be the beginning of a new
wisdom. But it is imperative that we face it. We must go through
it.

Q: During the Gulf War many people seemed to miss the old
``balance of terror'' game. In a surprising way, it kept war
limited. Suddenly, without the fear of nuclear confrontation,
horrible as it was, everything was possible...

A: No, we're not looking for allies in the maintenance of the
balance of terror--we're looking for a resolution of the terror.

Q: You've long been an advocate of reconciliation between
Palestinians and Israelis and one of the few public figures
willing to say, ``Peace is possible'' to both sides.

A: Yes. I have a feeling that inevitably they will reach a
harmonious solution. It's unthinkable that either of them will be
permanently banned from the land they love. I know that there are
many Palestinians and many Jews who would like to have the land
exclusively to themselves. But I don't think that can happen. I
think a land that has demanded so much sacrifice from both sides
is eventually bound to have inhabitants that will settle down to
make the best of the land, develop it, build it.

The premise of Israel is, of course, to make a land for Jews, the
ambition of a deprived people to have a land where they could
determine their own fate. Unfortunately, the country, though
independent, has found limits--limits to expansion, limits to its
exclusiveness, limits to its ambitions as a purely Jewish state.
It is conditioned largely by the orthodoxy of fundamentalists who
believe that God gave this land to Jews.

But as I told the Jewish Peace Fellowship, even if you believed in
this religious, absolute justification, God didn't assign Israel
to the Jews without conditions, and the condition was that they be
humane to ``the strangers in their midst.'' What's more, ``the
strangers'' believe that the Jews are strangers in _their_ midst!
There is, therefore, this apparently irreconcilable situation
where one or the other must give way.

Q: You expressed the same sentiments when you last visited Israel.
What was the response there?

A: Many Israelis feel the same way. My words became a rallying
point and a point of discussion. Israel is a paradox. It is a
state based on the law of God, but it is not Orthodox. People go
to synagogue and it doesn't alter their determination to succeed
on the basis of exclusion of others. And that is not a religious
point of view. A really religious point of view is an expression
of the tolerance that Moses received from on high. Tolerance is
essential to survival.

Q: What brought you to your dovish feelings about the Middle East?

A: I'm not a dove. At certain moments I'm a dove, at other times
I'm an eagle. At others I am a tiger. Or an oyster, going back
into my shell. Sometimes I'm a snail. I'm for the defense of a
people who are threatened.

I believe that people who are threatened are often people who hate
themselves and hate others, and their fear may be the basis of the
difficulty. That's why it's important to get to know your enemy.

As far as the Middle East goes, I believe it is essential for
enemies to talk to each other and to understand each other and
that they give each other the benefit of the doubt. While
searching for an ultimate resolution of their difficulties, it is
necessary for each of them to guard against being destroyed. I
think that certain basic human precautions must be observed, but I
wouldn't allow those precautions to go into the persecution, the
torture and the humiliation that the Israeli Government is
imposing on the Palestinians. That's inexcusable. That the
Israelis should keep a measure of dignified order over their
territory and protect the people is right. But by the same token,
they must offer every protection to every other nationality, every
race, every culture, every creed--and also acknowledge their own
errors.

Q: You also have similar prescriptions for the conflict in
Northern Ireland.

A: I've played in Belfast and have shown my great sympathy for
both sides. I feel the solution, if there is a solution for them,
is a joint government, joint police--groups of people have to give
the example to others. In fact, I think women who've suffered the
loss of husbands and relatives, and who are still willing to talk
to the other side, should be given full power in administration
over the army and the police and everything. I would choose 40 of
the best women who are still willing to talk to one another and
who are good at politics and housing and administration and the
rest of those things, and have them be told by Westminster, ``You
have the power for five years. It's your show.''

Q: Do you think women would run things better?

A: No, but they would give the example of half our species who
can, sometimes, have a little more patience and take the journey
to the future with more of a long view. I think they can give the
example of cooperation and that example is missing. No, we're
dealing with human nature here, and unless we can break away to
something based on a new human respect for life--not each other's
life only, but for trees and for nature and being humble about it.
Without that humility, there won't be a solution.

===
This is a shortened version of a text originally published in
_Shalom_, the newsletter of the Jewish Peace Fellowship (Box 271,
Nyack, NY 10960).
** End of text from cdp:gn.peacemedia **
Xref: sparky misc.activism.progressive:7512 alt.activism:17624 talk.environment:4265