December 26, 2016 § Leave a comment
The Loss of Ari Shavit
For several decades Ari Shavit was a talented and intelligent columnist in Israel’s left-of-center newspaper Haaretz. A few years ago he published a very good book describing the origins of Israel and an incisive analysis of its culture and modern history: The Promised Land. I was charmed by it and, three years ago, expressed my admiration and reaction on this blog:The Broken Promised Land. https://wordpress.com/post/bobsremonstrance.com/2757
Now, a few months ago, as Israel faces what I believe is an international crisis, for Israel as well as the rest of us, Ari Shavit was disgraced and banished from public discourse because he made an astonishingly stupid assault on a woman, a respected journalist, who visited him for an interview. He admitted his guilt and apologized but, as a person with a list of political enemies as long as his list of supporters, he was fired by Haaretz and voluntarily discontinued public professional life.
Here is an article from The Forward, a more than century old weekly newspaper published weekly in New York with news about Jews and Israel. http://forward.com/news/israel/352891/ari-shavit-sorry-for-trump-style-sex-assault-many-israelis-arent-buying-it/
Without defending Shavit’s indefensible behavior, I can’t resist reflecting how his treatment contrasts so sharply with our political embrace of our own braggart about his history of sexual exploitation of women.
I know Ari Shavit, aside from this scandal, has been attacked from both right and left in Israel. He has vigorously defended Israel’s right to exist and has never ceased criticizing the Palestinians for failing to officially acknowledge it. Still, I wish he were around to offer some measured analysis of the present situation.
The Tragic Timing of Shavit’s Foolishness
It seems apparent to me that Israel is now the hub of an international earthquake that could threaten the safety of the United States and, given the recklessness of three men, perhaps the future of our planet.
The three men? Donald Trump, Bibi Netanyahu and Vladimir Putin.
Remember how WWI began? It began in Austria with the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand and Sophie, his wife, by a Serbian rebel. WWIII could begin in Israel, a country long characterized as the hub of conflict between violent internal and external ethnic and national groups. One difference: In 1914, there were no nuclear bombs.
In the past decade Israel, led by Netanyahu, has used its huge military force to control the Palestine population by killing its civilian population and encircling it with a network of barriers, hindering its ability to care for its citizens as a free and separate nation. This has been explained and justified with claims of encroaching rockets launched by Palestine’s small cadre of outraged rebels. The rockets rarely reached population centers and the number of their victims were far outnumbered by the all out responsive assault by the Iraeli military.
So, again, I wish for some calm reasoned ideas from someone like Ari Shavit. But his fatal foolishness has disqualified him.
One feature of this conflict has been the erection of “settlements” i.e. housing for Israeli citizens on Palestinian land. These “settlements” have flourished and expanded thanks to the deliberately passive and permissive unwillingness of the Israeli government to stop them. They are in plain violation of international law. The United Nations assembly has repeatedly tried to declare them to be unacceptable. Until last week those efforts were thwarted by vetoes by the U.S..
Last week, finally, the U.S. abstained and the UN measure was adopted with a large majority vote.
The Dangerous Reaction
Netanyahu reacted angrily, claiming that the UN resolution was a betrayal of Israeli and was “engineered by Barack Obama”, with whom Netanyahu has waged an endless political war during Obama’s terms in office. The intrusion into US politics has always been treated with enthusiastic acceptance by the GOP and, ironically, by the so-called evangelical wing of the protestant church in America. Until Putin’s hacking interference with the recent election, Israel was the only foreign power granted permission to meddle with US politics. See: http://forward.com/news/breaking-news/358334/benjamin-netanyahu-seeks-to-rally-israelis-with-no-holds-barred-attack-on-u/
This time, Netanyahu’s tantrum has exceeded his past performances. He has recalled Israel’s ambassadors from the nations who sponsored the UN resolution. and expelled the diplomatic representatives from Israel. Trump has denounced the UN resolution and Obama’s failure to oppose it. Putin, so far as I know, has not yet waded into this morass but I am confident he will perceive how the attacks on the United Nations can serve his international ambitions.
So, as a dangerously ignorant and reckless man becomes President of the U.S., a situation fraught with peril develops in the world’s most dangerous place: The Middle East, where religious conflicts cause common sense diplomacy and rationality to be regarded with suspicion and hostility. To fanatics, dying in a nuclear holocaust evoked by religious zeal would be a privilege.
A second national leader , Netanyahu, is a single minded, religiously oriented, reckless man whose policies invariably choose military might over reasonable searches for peace. His success has depended on the support of the United States and its military strength as well as its alliances and reputation with the nations surrounding his tiny nation. I believe he will eagerly accept the support of Vladimir Putin, who shares his hostility toward the nations of Western Europe.
And Putin will surely see the opportunity to weaken the alliance between the United States and the Western European nations as a means of realizing his goal of restoring the empire which disappeared with the collapse of the Soviet Union.
These three dangerous men have one thing in common along with their militant policies: Possession of nuclear weapons. That is what frightens me and should concern the political leaders who obediently regard Donald Trump as a useful means of attaining their long cherished wish for a collapse of the political and governmental power to limit the corporate greed that nourishes them. They should remember that nuclear war will not distinguish between liberals and conservatives or Christians and Muslims. The dust from their incinerated bodies will mix indiscriminately.
March 22, 2015 § Leave a comment
The Day of Bibi’s Victory
On March 18, 2015, Benjamin Netanyahu was declared the winner, by a significant margin, of the Israeli election. During the last days of the campaign, he made two dramatic appeals to Israel’s right wing political forces: He declared that there would be no Palestinian state as long as he was prime minister. He warned that “foreign money” was financing the transportation of busloads of Arab Israeli citizens to the polls to vote against him.
The first appeal amounted to a repudiation of his earlier public commitment to peace with Palestine based on a “two state” end to Israel’s military occupation of Palestine. The second appeal was generally perceived as a racist attack on twenty percent of Israel’s citizens.
The Day After Bibi’s Victory
On March 19, 2015, Netanyahu was interviewed by MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell. He denied having rejected peace based on a “two state” arrangement with Palestine. He claimed that, when he, without consulting with the White House, addressed Congress and deliberately tried to sabotage efforts to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, he did not mean to “disrespect” the President of the United States. He denied having made a racist attack on Israeli Arab citizens.
He couldn’t deny having said what he said. Instead he insisted that he had been “misunderstood”.
Two Days After Bibi’s Victory
On March 20, 2015, Netanyahu was interviewed by NPR’s Steve Inskeep. He again tried to claim that his “no two state” promise was “misunderstood”. This time, Mr. Inskeep was ready. Here is a partial transcript of his telephone conversation with Bibi: “SI: You said in this interview you were asked, “Are you saying if you are prime minister, a Palestinian state will not be created.” Your answer was, “Indeed.” Nentanyahu, responded that what he meant was that “circumstances would have to change” before a two-state solution would be acceptable.
When Mr. Inskeep asked Bibi about his pre-election day warning about Arabs coming to vote, he responded with the hackneyed response of bigots: His version of “Some of my best friends are _________”.
Here is an excerpt from the transcript:
“SI: I want to be clear, Prime Minister. I was in Israel during the election campaign. It is a democracy; it was a very free and open debate. I didn’t read your remark as suppressing the Arab vote. I read it as a warning that you were afraid that Arabs were going to flood the polls. Are you in some way suspicious of Arabs who are citizens of your country?
N: No. In fact, I had a meeting 10 days ago with Arab Likud supporters, and we got quite a few votes, by the way, from them. I have invested billions, billions, in my last two governments in trying to close the gaps, social gaps, infrastructure, education, in the Arab communities in Israel. I’m proud that I did that, I’m going to do that again, I’m committed to that. I’m the prime minister of all of Israel’s citizens, Jews and Arabs, alike.”
Here is a link to the entire interview: Inskeep
This is the guy who claims that negotiations with Iran are impossible because you can’t trust them to keep their word. His words have a “sell by” time period of about 72 hours.
Bibi’s Win – Israel’s Loss
Ari Shavit is an Israeli writer whom I regard as trustworthy. His allegiance to Israel is unquestionable, but so is his commitment to the truth. His book, My Promised Land, is a well written but evenhanded account of recent Israeli history. I have written about it. See The Broken Promised Land. So, when I wanted a reaction to last week’s election, I sought him out. He has written two interesting reactions.
The day after the election, he labeled Netanyahu’s victory a disaster. Here is a link: Disaster
Next day he wrote a second article.
Here are links: Is Israel Losing Its soul?
Here is link to page 2 of that story: Page 2
This week’s New York Times Magazine has an interesting article assessing the damage done by the alinement of Netanyahu’s Israeli politics with the Republican Party’s opposition to the Obama administration. Here is a link to that article.
A Second Comment
This last article features quotes from Elliott Abrams. You remember him. He and Ollie North helped Reagan support the Contras in Nicaragua and then lied to Congress about it. Abrams pled guilty to a misdemeanor in a deal to avoid going to the pen for having committed felonies. Then he was granted a “Christmas Time pardon” by Daddy Bush. George W. Bush appointed him as a senior adviser for “global democracy strategy”. As one writer put it, he will be “the architect for how Bush will fix the world”.
In the above-cited article concerning the future of Netanyahu and the Democratic Party, the writer quoted Ron Dermer, appointed by Netanyahu as Israeli Ambassador to the United States, expressing unconcern about younger, college age, voters opposing Israel’s right wing policies. Here is an excerpt:
“Like Abrams, Dermer wasn’t worried about liberal Jews. He argued that ‘a lot of the fissures’ in the American Jewish community would seal up the moment Israel came under attack. But when I asked him about the broader liberal antipathy toward Israel on college campuses and among Democratic voters, he said: ‘Israel is a symptom of a problem, but it’s not actually the problem that’s on campuses. It’s not an anti-Israel thing. It’s a problem of moral relativism. And we are low hanging fruit.’” (emphasis added)
I find it interesting that Dermer speaks disparagingly of “moral relativism”. I wonder if he has talked with his friend Abrams about that. Did Abrams think it was ok to lie under oath? Did he hesitate about illegally supporting and protecting military and paramilitary forces who were committing atrocities in Central America? In fact, I wonder how Dermer feels about a political candidate who makes public promises to gain votes and then, a day or two later, repudiates them.
Moral relativism is a serious subject. It opposite, moral absolutism, in my opinion, leads more often than not to oppression and abuse. Based on their credentials, I doubt either Dermer or Abrams are reliable sources of philosophical wisdom on that subject.
The GOP/Israel’s Dear Leader Sheldon Adelson
Sheldon Adelson, the Las Vegas billionaire, has bankrolled both Israeli and U.S. right wing politicians. His main requirement for handing over large checks is blind allegiance to Israel. I mention Adelson because Israel has successfully countered all efforts to negotiate peace with other nations by demanding, as a precondition for any negotiation an agreement that Israel’s right to exist as a nation is acknowledged.
This has proved to be a powerful defense for every action taken by Israel toward the Palestinians. It is in the first sentence of almost every explanation of Israel’s unwillingness to negotiate with Iran.
This has a long history. Here is a link to a discussion of several episodes in this history.
There are some obvious flaws in the logic of this argument. For example, why does it matter if Iran cherishes a wish that Israel would disappear, If, since that plainly is not going to happen, Iran is, nevertheless, willing to agree not to develop nuclear weapons? If Palestine is willing to negotiate a boundary with Israel and is willing to agree not to engage in a war with Israel, what does it matter that a majority of Israeli’s hate Palestinians and a majority of Palestinians hate Israelis? Granted that is sad and not an optimal situation, but isn’t it preferable to an endless war without boundaries?
Fareed Zakaria’s article in the Washington Post casts this whole argument in a different light. Here is his interpretation of Khomanie’s anti-Israel rhetoric. Khamenei proposes a referendum to decide Israel’s fate and use Israel’s commitment to democracy to justify his proposal. Here is a link: Zakaria
Which brings me to Mr. Adelson. Here is what one of the most revered supporters of Israel and its GOP idolizers had to say about Iran at a public meeting in 2013. Adelson
By contrast, I have found an address by the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to the Non-aligned Summit in Teheran, published September 2, 2012. Address
This is a tedious item because it is in either Persian or Farsi. I couldn’t find an English translation. It has English sub-titles, so you can tell what he’s saying. Unfortunately, because you are dependent on the sub-titles, skipping around through the speech is difficult. I listened to the whole speech. Late in the speech, he states plainly that Iran will not develop nuclear weapons because, his words: “It would be a sin” He remonstrates with the U.S. for aligning itself with Israel and refers to Israel as an “usurper” because it occupies Palestine. There is no “great Satan” and no “wipe Israel off the face of the map” language.
I cite this item, not to express admiration for Iran. Its support of terrorist groups is well known. Its suppression of minority groups is reprehensible. But, I must say that, compared to Adelson’s speech, the Ayatollah sounds more like a man with whom one could reason than Adelson, who sounds like a billionaire thug right out of The Godfather.
If any of you are intrepid enough to have read this far, I’m surprised. This post is a way for me to catalog the information I have been able to compile about an event I regard as very important. I fear we are watching some reckless people making decisions that could lead to WWIII. Our media technology and modern communication technology have enabled us to be emotionally stirred by images and rhetoric coming at a pace too fast for reasoned analysis. Fear is being used by demagogues to gain popular support without enough thought given to the possible consequences.
I trust Barack Obama and John Kerry, but I fear they may win the logical and rational solution too late to forestall the war apparently sought by their irresponsible detractors, here, in Iran and in Israel.
August 23, 2014 § 3 Comments
My Judgment of Protective Edge
I have recently been critical of Israel’s conduct of a war on the Palestinians living in Gaza. I agree. of course, that Israel had the right, indeed was obligated, to respond to Hamas rockets fired toward Israeli civilians. When, after the war started, Israel discovered Hamas tunnels enabling Hamas forces to launch surprise attacks in Israeli territory, Israel had the right to destroy them.
By criticizing Israel’s Protective Edge war in Gaza I do not intend to equate Israel with Hamas. The declared aims of the two are completely different and the standards of morality professed by Israel are different from that of Hamas, especially with respect to their willingness to injure and kill innocent civilians.
These differences do not, however, excuse Israel from culpability for the results of the tactics and weaponry they have used to wage war. I reject the idea that one combatant in a war is entitled to wage war according to the moral standards of its opponent. That idea leads to a downward spiral of barbarity. It is the equivalent of what in our own country’s recent history was known as lynch law: Where the cruelty of the crime claimed to have been committed by the suspect is offered as an excuse to lynch him.
Israel does not disagree with this analysis. They do not claim the right to respond to barbarity with barbarity. They do, however, respond to criticism of their tactics in Protective Edge by pointing to the nature and history of Hamas. They point to the thousands of rockets launched by Hamas toward Israel. Israel claims that they take reasonable measures to avoid civilian casualties, while Hamas deliberately seeks civilian casualties.
As the days and weeks of the conflict elapse, Israel’s defensive rhetoric becomes less and less persuasive. The numbers and the pictures do not match the words.
Hamas has killed 64 Israeli soldiers and 2 Israeli civilians. No significant damage has been done to Israeli infrastructure.
Israel has killed over 2,000 people living in Gaza, approximately 2/3 of whom were innocent civilians. Over 10,000 homes of Gaza citizens have been destroyed and an estimated 30,000 more have been damaged. The infrastructure of Gaza, its water, electricity, schools and health facilities have been either destroyed or significantly damaged. The surviving population in Gaza are living in primitive conditions.
Some Historical and Current Resources
I have been reading some sources of information about the history of the present conflict. It seems that every conflict in the Middle East is an episode in a long history that sometimes encompasses many centuries. I have made no effort to become an expert on this trove of information, but I have found a few summaries that were interesting. By citing them, I do not assert that they are unbiased. I have found very little that would pass that test.
Here is an editorial from Haaretz dated July 28, 2014.
Here, for some comic relief, is an interview on Fox News of Rick Santorum concerning Obama’s “failure to support Israel”. Toward the end of the interview, you can almost see the impatience of the Fox guy when Santorum fails to use the leading questions to attack Obama sufficiently to satisfy Fox.
Ari Shavit is a favorite of mine. I have previously written about the valuable information I gained by reading his recent book, “My Promised Land”. He impresses me as a clear-eyed Israeli who, despite and, in some ways, because of his love and admiration for his native land, writes with skill and truth about its conflicts and challenges. Here is his op/ed piece in Haaretz. He challenges liberals like me to recognize the evil of the various Muslim groups that have emerged in the Middle East. He warns against treating them as innocent victims while criticizing the excesses of Israel’s response to them. In his final paragraph he acknowledges the “. . .justified criticism against Israel (for the occupation, settlements, racist fringes). . . .”
Finally, here is a powerful article written by Ari Shavit for Haaretz a couple of days ago. It expresses better than I can, the way I feel about Israel and the proper reaction to its policies.
Ari Shavit places me squarely where I often find myself: Opposed to the acts or omissions of one side of a conflict while equally or, as here, even more opposed to the opponents of that side. I remember well years ago when I wrote a brief and a law review article about the right of “Remonstrance” and received very complementary responses from people eager to use my effort as justification for their hatred of government – the so-called “militia” crazy fringe groups.
Finally, here is an article by a Haaretz blogger, an Israeli liberal, who expresses the kind of troubling issues that have affected me for the past six weeks.
The View From Palestine
In addition to Haaretz, I have been reading articles posted by Nadia Harhash, a Palestinian woman who has managed to retain her gentle intelligence while living in the chaos of Protective Edge, an achievement I regard with admiration.
Here is a long essay posted by Ms. Harhash. It reads like a “stream of consciousness” rendition of how she reacts to living in Gaza. I posted a comment, dissenting from a sentence in her essay and she replied. English is not her native language but she manages to convey some of her feelings and thoughts.
The Dahiya Doctrine and Other Legal Issues
Here is a long essay by an American anthropologist, Jeff Halper, who has lived in Israel since 1973. He is a well educated critic of Israel who has written several books about the Israel-Palestinian conflict. It is worth noting that his presence in Israel, free to express his opposition to the policies of its government, is strong evidence that Israel practices admirable tolerance of dissent.
The Dahiya Doctrine was approved in 2006 during an Israeli conflict with Lebanon. Here is the way Dr. Halper describes it, quoting an Israeli military commander:
“In the second Lebanon War in 2006, after destroying the Dahiya neighborhood in Beirut, the Hizbollah ‘stronghold,’ Israel announced its ‘Dahiya Doctrine.’ Declared Gadi Eisenkott, head of the IDF’s Northern Command,
‘What happened in the Dahiya quarter of Beirut in 2006, ‘will happen in every village from which Israel is fired on…. We will apply disproportionate force on it and cause great damage and destruction there. From our standpoint, these are not civilian villages, they are military bases.… This is not a recommendation.This is a plan. And it has been approved.'”
Four years later, during another conflict, the Jerusalem Post article stated that the Dahiya Doctrine was still being debated within the Israeli military leadership. I don’t know whether that doctrine governs today’s IDF strategy in Gaza, but some of the reports of attacks on civilian locations look suspiciously like it.
For example, here is story from yesterday’s Haaretz reporting that Israel’s bombs killed three military leaders of Hamas. Buried in the account of this success is the following description of last Tuesday’s effort to kill Mohammed Deif, the commander of the Hamas military wing:
“Even more significant would be the death of Mohammed Deif, the shadowy figure who has survived several previous Israeli assassination attempts with severe injuries and was the target of Tuesday night’s attack. Mr. Deif’s fate remained unknown Thursday, though the body of his 3-year-old daughter, Sara, was recovered from the rubble of the Gaza City home where five one-ton bombs also killed Mr. Deif’s wife, baby son and at least three others.“
This raises a question: Was ten thousand pounds of explosives an appropriate way to react to a report that the subject of a long hunt was in a home? Was there no way for troops on the ground to go to that location and either kill or capture Deif without killing his wife, son and three others?
This has absolutely nothing to do with anything serious. I will add it because, when I read it, I escaped, for a few moments, from death and war and fear. Here is today’s post from skywalker>
March 9, 2014 § Leave a comment
This is my reaction to Ari Shavit’s book, “My Promised Land: The Triumph and Tragedy of Israel”. The book describes the creation of Israel in sixteen chronological chapters beginning in 1897, when the first Zionist pioneers arrived and established a small colony and ending with a shrewd discussion of the present internal and external conflicts which dominate the headlines about Israel. I will try to express my own opinions with humility appropriate for a gentile non-believer whose previous knowledge of Israel’s history was based on the Exodus movie starring Paul Newman and Sal Mineo and the novel on which it was based. Although I have a Jewish son-in-law and three treasured Jewish grand-children, I have no claim to “insider” status. Shavit, a talented journalist, states plainly his own opinions but also includes those of others with whom he disagrees. I think his book contains important information that will aid those trying to understand the present issues that threaten peace in the Middle East.
Ari Shavit is well known in Israel as a columnist for Harretz, a major newspaper as well as a TV commentator on Israeli politics and government policy. This book also was, to me, convincing evidence that he is a gifted writer. Every page is strewn with apt metaphors and graceful word-pictures that seem to flow effortlessly from his mind. Here are some examples:
His great-grandfather was Herbert Bentwich, a wealthy successful British copyright lawyer. He was one of the earliest Zionist leaders who began the process of establishing what became Israel. Here are a couple of sentences from Shavit’s description of Bentwich’s first trip to Palestine. “. . . as the flat-bottomed steamer Oxus carves the black water of the Mediterranean, Bentwich is still an innocent. My great-grandfather does not wish to take a country and to establish a state; he wishes to face God.” And later: “He arrives on April 16 at the mouth of the ancient port of Jaffa. I watch him as he awakens at 5:00 a.m. in his first-class compartment. I watch him as he walks up the stairs to the oxus’s wooden deck in a light suit and a cork hat. I watch him as he looks from the deck. The sun is about to rise over the archways and turrets of Jaffa. And the land my great-grandfather sees is just as he hoped it would appear: illuminated by the gentle dawn and shrouded by the frail light of promise.”
Throughout the book, Shavit shifts back and forth from third-person narrative to first person participant. At least half of the book consists of transcripts of his interviews. He gained access to the principal actors in each of the historical segments that comprise the chapters in his book. The other half is Shavit’s informed commentary on the background and context surrounding the men he interviewed.
Here is a taste of his chapter entitled, “Sex, Drugs, and the Israeli Condition, 2000”. “They call themselves the Nation. The Dance Nation. At 3:00 a.m. on most Thursday nights, Allenby 58 [a Tel Aviv club occupying a former movie theater] is at its peak. . . . And when the lights cut the dark hall with pulsating rays of pink and white, and the floor is full, and the stairways are crowded, and the top balconies are heaving, it seems that there is something here that is more than nightlife, something more than one more hot night in one more hot city at the dawn of the new millennium.”
I know that those with more sophisticated taste may find Shavit too richly flavored but I was captivated.
The Zionist Beginning
In the first few chapters of the book Shavit traces the establishment of the first Jewish colonial outposts, settlements and industries in Palestine. The Zionist organization began in the late 1800’s as an effort to re-establish a Jewish nation in a part of North Africa then controlled by the Ottoman Empire. Shavit portrays early Zionism as a secular socialist movement financed and led by Ashkenazim from Europe and Britain. He follows the travels of a small group of Zionist-sponsored Brits, led by his great-grandfather. As they explore Palestine, he portrays their perceptions so encapsulated by their cultural expectations that they fail to consider, or even to see, the dozens of primitive Arab villages that dot the land. To the Zionists, this is the land of the Jews, to which they will return after centuries of Diaspora.
Much of the land is purchased from wealthy Arab landowners but, again, no serious thought is given to thousands of Arab farmers and villagers, descendents of families who occupied the land for centuries.
At first, this is not a problem. The first Jewish immigrants live peacefully with their Arab neighbors. They use technology and engineering to drain swamps, re-surface the land, irrigate it and convert deserts into flourishing groves of fruit trees. Primitive villages become comfortable bustling towns The indigenous Arabs are hired to work the new farms and they benefit from a healthier and more prosperous environment.
There’s No Place Like Home
Robert Frost wrote, ““Home is the place where, when you have to go there, they have to take you in.” The Zionists established Frost’s aphorism as the unique immigration policy for their colony in Palestine. The Jews faced two conflicting imperatives: On the one hand, their culture was endangered by assimilation in Europe and the United States. Intermarriage and the advantages of simply abandoning Jewish identity threatened extinction of Judaism. In Eastern Europe Jewish shtetls were targeted by pogroms and other forms of anti-Semitic oppression. On the other hand, the managers of the small North African colony, operating with limited resources and no formal support from any nation, would be sorely taxed to accommodate limitless waves of immigrants. Also, sudden expansion of Jewish immigration would disturb the peaceful acceptance by the Arab population and the Arab countries surrounding the slim sliver of land between Jordan and the Mediterranean.
Shavit describes with obvious pride the way the Jews responded to these challenges. They developed a young, committed and well trained military force. He describes how it was inspired by the historical story of Masada, a mountain fortress where a small group of Jewish defenders chose suicide rather than surrender to a Roman army. He devotes a chapter to the hurried construction of a huge complex of apartments to house arriving boatloads of immigrants.
These were the glory days of democratic socialism and secular political power. The leaders were Ashkenazim from Europe. Farms were created and run by kibbutz organizations. Shavit acknowledges that this sudden expansion of immigration overwhelmed and, in some instances, destroyed Arab village life and forced Arab families to flee to neighboring countries. He offers no defense for this except to deny the efforts of some to equate it with the brutality of Nazi expansion into Austria and Poland. He writes, and I agree, that the Jews’ motives and methods were not analogous to the Nazis. The Jews never embraced the kind of vicious philosophy that was at the Nazi core. The clash between Zionist immigration and the indigenous Arab population was probably inevitable. The Jews did not hate Arabs but they could not let anything thwart what they perceived as their historical claim to their “promised land” and the preservation of Judaism.
The Wars – The Glory and the Shame
In the 1930’s and 40’s, Jews and Arabs fought guerrilla wars with each other and with the British, who had succeeded the Ottomans as Palestine’s empirical overseer. Jewish terrorist organizations carried out violent bombing attacks on civilians, Arab and British. The British and Arabs retaliated with similar brutality. As stated earlier, the Masada-inspired military organization was created and became the IDF, the Israeli Defense Force, after the British withdrew from Palestine and the Nation of Israel was established in May, 1948.
The Arab countries surrounding Israel declared war when the Israel nation was formed. The war was brilliantly led by Israeli generals, including Moshe Dayan. The Israelis swiftly defeated the combined armies of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Lebanon, a humiliation that insured a neighborhood surrounding the new nation suffused with hatred and a festering desire for revenge.
This victory, however, was stained by incidents of harsh brutality, incidents recorded with unflinchingly vivid descriptions by Shavit, who writes about them with obvious regret and sorrow. He describes the savage interrogations of Arab prisoners by an Israeli military man whom he does not name except to refer to him as “Bulldozer”. He describes the deliberate killing of Arab civilians. He devotes an entire chapter to the atrocity in Lydda, a medium sized Arab city located on the West Bank about 40 miles southeast of the Mediterranean port of Jaffa.
After Lydda surrenders to Israeli forces, negotiations commence between Israeli leaders and Arab civilian representatives. A large number of Arabs take refuge in a mosque. An Israeli armored vehicle enters the city and is fired upon. It then fires a missile into the m0sque, killing the occupants. The Israeli military then rounds up the remaining Arab population and forcibly evacuates them from Lydda in a long march of refugee men, women and children out of Israel into Jordan. There is little water or food. Stragglers are urged onward by Israeli soldiers firing over their heads. Shavit ends this painful chapter, “I see the column marching east. So many years have past, and yet the column is still marching east. For columns like the column of Lydda never stop marching.”
The 1967 “Six Day War” was another decisive victory for the Israeli military. A series of skirmishes between Israel, Syria and Egypt culminated in an Egyptian invasion of the Sinai desert and blocking the Straits of Tiran, a narrow passage that enabled Israel shipping access to the Red Sea. Israel responded by destroying the air forces of four Arab states, driving the Egyptian army out of the Sinai. The war ended with Israel expanding its territory into the Sinai, the Golan Heights and the West Bank.
The 1973 Yom Kippur War was another victory for Israel. But this time, the Israelis were caught by surprise. They came closer to disaster than in any previous conflict. Their self confidence was shaken. They strengthened their resolve to guard against future threats.
The Settlements – Barrier to Peace
Ari Shavit describes the origin of the settlements that now house 400,000 Israelis living illegally on the West Bank between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. A military outpost stationed in the West Bank to guard against a surprise attack on Israel was surreptitiously converted into a housing complex inhabited by a group of Orthodox Jews who regarded the West Bank as part of the land promised to Israel by God. The settlement grew out of a mass movement within Israel to confront the weak Labor government with demands that Israel expand into the biblical lands set aside for the Jews. When the government did not sanction, but did not take any action to force the withdrawal of the first settlement, the political forces supporting the settlements grew stronger. In a short time, the West Bank became a permanent part of Israel.
Shavit does not conceal his belief that this development was and is a serious error. His pessimism about the future of Israel is based, in large part, on this development. He sees no likelihood that a “Two State Solution” will come to pass because he does not believe it is possible without dismantling the settlements. And he sees no possibility that the Israeli government will find the courage or the ability to accomplish that.
One of the most interesting segments of Shavit’s book regards the remarkable achievement represented by Israel’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. He has done some skillful research about how this was done. He describes the results with care not to reveal classified material obtained from Israeli sources. He interviewed one of those who helped establish the complex at Dimona, where the nuclear capability was created by adding Jewish brain power to material and knowledge acquired from external sources, primarily from the French. The transcription of the interview is like a striptease dance. Each dancer reveals almost everything necessary to guess the rest. Israel has never formally declared their possession of a nuclear weapon but it is one of the worst kept secrets. One jolting disclosure comes when the scientist being interviewed states that he is sure that Iran already has a nuclear weapon, regardless of Obma’s insistence that he will never allow it. He, the scientist, does not state the basis for his belief, but he doesn’t sound like a man given to careless statements.
The Difference Between Perception and the Truth
As I read this book, packed with information and history new to me, I realized how carefully fashioned my perception of Israel was. Without being unduly boastful, I claim to take an interest in public affairs, politics and history. When I finished Shavit’s book, I realized that, while I had not been lied to about Israel for the past fifty or sixty years, there was a lot of information that I believe was willfully omitted from the news sources I relied on.
I used the Internet to look at the New York Times in July of 1948, when the events in Lydda were occurring. The July 12, 1948 edition of the Times had a lengthy report on the Israeli war. The headline was, “Arabs Encircled at Vital Highway, Surrender Lydda”. It included the following paragraph: “Mopping up operations were still going on tonight, with armored car (sic) of both sides darting back and forth, with mortor fire crashing about. . . The Arabs were left little choice of direction in their withdrawal. They had to flee eastward and over camel trails. . . .” I looked both before and after this story, but found no hint at the wholesale slaughter of civilians or the brutality of the “Lydda column” portrayed by Shavit. The implication of the Times story that the “Arabs” were military forces was plainly misleading. The ones on those “camel trails” were civilian refugees expelled from their homes.
Protesters in Arab countries celebrate every summer what they call “Akba Day”. “Akba” is the Arab word for the expulsion of Arabs by the Israelis following the May, 1948 wars. The October 16, 2012 New York Times contains a remarkable story containing video and interview transcripts of both Arabs and Israelis who were in Lydda in July, 1948. Both describe the horror and express profound sadness still present in their memories after more than sixty years.
I had several reactions to Shavit’s book, some of them required a few days of reflection before they surfaced. At first, when I read of the atrocities and the terrorist attacks on civilians, the torturing of prisoners, I was appalled. Later, I finally realized what really bothered me: The more apt analogy is the American expansion into the West. The progression from peaceful co-existence with the indigenous Indians, to fitful and unsuccessful efforts at negotiated peace arrangements, to brutal genocide that destroyed all but a few remnants of Indian culture and population – there are striking parallels, but with significant differences. The forced removal of five Indian tribes from their homelands in the eastern part of the United States to reservations in Oklahoma in the 1830’s, now known as the “Trail of Tears”, is only one episode in the destructive record of our country’s history with Indian tribes.
The difference is that, while Israel removed the Arabs who obstructed the occupation of their “promised land”, they did not destroy them as we destroyed the Indian nations. They were not guilty of genocide. Their collective conscience and their culture precluded it. They created enemies with long memories who now surround them. And we now have an unqualified commitment to defend Israel from the consequences of that sequence of choices. And we face that obligation as the Middle East appears to be on the threshold of an arms race involving nuclear weapons. Shavit’s book is well written and packed with useful and interesting information, but it describes a future fraught with peril.