Like this:

The inaugural issue of the Jewish Review of Books (JRB) promises to be a significant contribution in a vibrating and diverse arena. I personally felt my own field remained a trifle wanting, but perhaps this is a common tendency, and if other students or scholars in sub-disciplines of Judaic studies shared this sentiment, it would be all the more proof of a well-balanced publication. Ancient Judaism is represented, to be sure, in the (unfavorable) review of two volumes of the Commentator’s Bible (reviewed by Azzan Yadin), and a review by Menachem Kellner which focused on Maimonides’ approach to idolatry, represents medieval Judaism in this issue. Other studies range from the religious and theological, to the sociological and historical, and of course, Israel Studies. Also reviewed are the Israeli television series Srugim, depicting lives of orthodox bachelors in their late twenties / early thirties, a book on Bob Dylan, and a comics page by Harvey Pekar, reviewing Robert Crumb’s Genesis. To be frank, I doubt that Crumb’s illustrated version of Genesis is Jewish in any way, and Pekar’s did not aptly use the comics medium for the review. It was a waste of a page, but at least it pointed to the JRB’s willingness and openness to sundry media and the broadest definition of the field.

Avineri: A mixture of commendation and dissent

Shlomo Avineri, a stalwart in the field of political science in Israel (and a member of the editorial board of JRB), reviewed Dennis Ross’s latest book on "finding a new direction for America in the Middle East."

There were some points Avineri makes that I was happy to read, and especially happy to see raised, as they are not often heard in popular media coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Specifically, he briefly overviews the history of US involvement in Israeli peace and war policy makings, including the 1982 war, the first Gulf War, the Egypt peace process, and the Oslo Accord and consequent peace with Jordan. His conclusion is that the US can be of assistance when two sides are interested in reaching an agreement, but not much further than that. He also goes on to state that "President’s Obama’s attempt to dispatch his special representative Senator George Mitchell already appears to be an exercise in futility."

Here I reach the first point of why reading this review was interesting: it is (too) easy to read someone you totally disagree with. Their misgivings and bias are so apparent from the start, that the disagreement comes as no surprise. Equally, though much rarely, the process of subscribing to each and every word of an essay or review is also understandable. What is more puzzling and challenging is a review such as Avinery’s, where some of my views are substantiated most eloquently, and then break off to statements I totally disagree with. I agree with Avineri that Obama cannot – and should not try to – impose a solution that is undesirable to either Israelis or Palestinians. The futility, however, is the share of those who expected him to do so, not of his involvement. Mitchell’s role, for all the indications we have, is one exploring the possibilities to promote change in the region, and especially to change course from America’s involvement in the past eight years. However, there is little to none indication that there was any intent to have Mitchell impose anything. Avineri might have responded to my criticism, that even such initiatives are far more than Carter did with Begin and Sadat, or Clinton with Rabin and Arafat, or Rabin and King Hussein.

Another example I think he ignores is Condoleezza Rice’s attempt to stop the Second Lebanon War, an example that disproves Avineri’s claim that saying "No" to the US is ruled out. Anyone who remembers Bolton’s lingering dissatisfaction of the events will realize this.

More important is the fact that for no warranted reason, Avineri stresses that the occupation of Gaza ended in 2006 (that is, the sentence would read quite well without reiterating this fallacy. The error of date is in the review, not mine). Could someone please send him a copy of Gisha’s report on the legal status of Gaza, available since January 2007? It is embarrassing that this fact calls for any further debate, especially by someone so established and knowledgeable not only in the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but also in the wider processes of politics and law.

Rosner on Settlers

Shmuel Rosner, former correspondent of Haaretz to Washington, and today a columnist in the Jerusalem Post, reviews a bunch of books on the settlers and settlements in the West Bank (and Gaza, when there were there). The review includes a wide range of books, including one work of fiction (by Emily Amrousi) and one that is not solely devoted to the issue of settlers (by Dan Margalit).

Rosner opens his review by relating an anecdote of a time him and his wife tried to move to Elon Moreh, for the purpose of writing a book on settlers (by his wife). "It was a long process," Rosner writes, "and at the end, after much deliberation, the reception committee decided to let us live in the settlement."

"Reception" would be a wrong translation for "Qabbalah" in this case, for this is not a committee responsible on greeting newcomers, but rather a selection committee, as is evident from Rosner’s anecdote itself. I wonder how many readers accepted the anecdote at face-value, and how many stopped to think that something was wrong here. Eventually, the residents of Elon Moreh overturn the committee’s decision, and Rosner and his wife are denied housing.

Perhaps also because their religious practices are different, but mainly because Rosner and his wife were being put "on trial for all the sins, real or imagined, of ‘the press,’ ‘hedonistic Tel Avivians,’ ‘Peaceniks,’ and the ‘hostile elites.’ They would not trust us, ‘media people,’ nor would they allow a ‘fifth column’ into their safe, isolated hermitage."

What? In Israel, "the only democracy in the Middle East," people are not allowed to move some place because of their political views, or because of the milieu they belong to? This is a situation beyond the apartheid allegation, this is even beyond McCarthyism.

Now, to be fair, we should note two facts: first, that there are settlements with no Selection Committees. One can choose to live in Ma’aleh Adumim or Ariel which as far as international law goes (and Israeli law, for that matter), have the same status as Elon Moreh does. Second, that selection committees are widespread also on the "right side" of the Green Line. Dozens of kibbutzim, moshavim, yishuvim (mainly in the peripheral "North" and "South" of Israel) have such Selection Committees, although criteria tend to be personal likings and socio-economic stature more than political views (these committees have gained media attention recently as they also serve to keep out Palestinians with Israeli citizenship who wish to buy a house in one of those settlements).

So, please do keep in mind that these committees are not unique to the settlements, and do not even define all settlements. And still, imagine the minimum requirements to live in a suburb in the US, and contrast that with Rosner’s description. He provides the anecdote as an introduction to the entangled relationship of the settlers with media coverage and attention, but I think he actually hit on something that is far more reaching than his original point. I hope it does receive response. It should.

As one who is an expert on world news and foreign attitudes to Israel (especially US voices), Rosner makes a very interesting comment towards the end of his review: he notes that all the books reviewed refer to the debate over the settlements as an inner-Jewish (Israeli) debate. Not raising the voice of the Palestinians, who live in that region and affected by the settlements, and not that of the international community, that is considered in these books (according to Rosner) as "no more than a tool in the hands of debating, warring Jews." He goes on:

This might be the world in which some people would prefer to live, but it can hardly be regarded as a realistic portrayal of the current circumstance. Whether the settlers are right or wrong, whether Israelis will be convinced by their idealistic brethren or outraged and betrayed by their arrogant condescension has less significance than one might wish. As can be easily demonstrated by past events, it is the outside world who will ultimately determine the fate of the settlements.

 

I wish to disagree (and hopefully understand correctly that Avineri would say the same). Not that the world need not be taken into account, but I doubt that it "will ultimately define the fate of the settlements".

One final point of interest in his review is a passage he quotes from Dan Margalit’s book (I haven’t read the book itself, and relying on Rosner’s quote), relating the days of the Disengagement plan, in August 2005:

I was sitting at home, watching the scenes of clashes in another settlement and tears were pouring down my cheeks. My wife asked me what’s happening – after all, I’ve witnessed worse scenes in the past, for example in the Yom Kippur War, or in the evacuation of Pitchat Rafiach. Nevertheless, this time was different. I promised myself that I will never again support the eviction of a Jew by a fellow Jew from his legal home.

Most left-wingers in Israel wouldn’t consider Margalit to be left-wing. I can only guess that those who objected Rosner moving to Elon Moreh, would think otherwise, and deem Margalit, too, to be one of the "hostile elites" and "peaceniks." I am concerned with the moral stance that is implicit in these lines (if you’ve seen worse things in life then you need not feel compassion for others’ suffering – a stance which probably informs Margalit’s view of the Palestinians more than the settlers), but I’m not going to make too much of it.

But if anyone was still troubled why hardliner Sharon could do such a thing as an evacuation of settlements, this passage by Margalit gives a great answer.

Advertisement