6 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Recommended, with reservations, December 11, 2002
By A Customer
This review is from: The Birth of Israel, 1945-1949: Ben-Gurion and His Critics (Hardcover)
Say what you will about David Ben-Gurion - no one can deny his contribution to the establishment of the state of Israel. He managed, by virtue of his pragmatic politics, his keen eye for important developments (such as the importance of America, the early realization that the Arab States would invade a Jewish state etc), and his forcefull leadership, to do what many though impossible - establish a Jewish state, and defend it by force of arms.
Joseph Heller has writen a thorough book of the diplomatic history of the Yishuv, with Ben-Gurion at its head, from the end of WWII until the end of the War of Independence. Both its foreign relationships (with the US and USSR, for example), and the internal struggles within the Zionist camp are given extensive treatment.
I was impressed by Ben-Gurion's pragmatism and his ability to bind many disparate groups together, as well as his keen eye. Ben-Gurion comes off in this book not as the conspiratorial knave of the New Historians, but a pragmatic national leader, no worse than others, trying under difficult circumstances to look out for the Yishuv's interests.
Indeed, this book manages to properly explain the alleged "collusion" claim between the Yishuv and Abdallah I. Efraim Karsh has already managed to destroy Shlaim's claim that the Abdallah-Meir meeting reached an agreement to divide the country, and this is an extra nail in that coffin.
In order to demonstrate that Ben-Gurion had the right idea and that his critics were wrong, Heller gives each of them a whole chapter on their appoach to the conflict during that period.
First to go is Ihud, that group of intellectuals who objected to the partition plan and supported a bi-national scheme instead. This group, although they had good intentions, were hopelessly out of touch with reality. The Yishuv saw them as traitors, and the only Arab leader willing to agree to a binational regime, albeit probably not with equal numbers, had little power and was quickly assasinated.
Heller deals also with those to the right and left (such as HaShomer Hatzair) of Ben-Gurion. While his treatment is generally fair, I felt that he held some deep animosity towards the right wing (the revisionists, the Etzel).
His treatment of Deir Yassin is way off base - the number of 240 Arabs killed has long been debunked by Palestinian researchers. Furthermore, Begin never admitted that a massacre took place there, let alone brag about its effectiveness (See Deir Yassin: History of A Lie published by ZOA). His portrayal of Lord Moyne is also inaccurate (i.e. he mentions his late support of partition but not his anti-Zionist statements).
Heller's treatment of the left-wing is more fair-minded. In sum, one should read this critique of the right wing against something more symathetic.
That's the good news. The bad news is that Heller's book is very weak and even self-contradictory when it comes to the war itself, and the Palestinian Refugee problem in particular. He seems to be saying - "Benny Morris is right, but one must put things into context". There is no mention of Shabtai Teveth's or Efraim Karsh's rebuttal's to aspects of Morris's work.
Worse, while Heller at one point says that Morris was right not to give undue importance to Plan D as a factor in the war, at another point he claims that Plan D can be seen within the context of "ethnic cleansing". Which is the right answer?
The absurdity of this comes to the point where Heller treats with scepticism the claim by various Zionists that the Arabs were running away due to fright (which was at least partially true), and gives undue importance to the few expulsions that took place on the eve of the invasion-as if it were the main cause (see "Why did the Palestinians Run Away in 1948" by Yoav Gelber, at mideasttruth.com, for a good overview of what happened).
There are other problems with the book - the treatment of the strength of opposing forces (Arab & Israeli) is scattered, the treatment of the Holocaust both in general and as a background to the "Revolt" of Menahem Begin and other events is played down, and Heller fails to sufficiently stress the total and uncompromising refusal of the Palestinians to agree to a Jewish state of any shape or size. It also would have been nice if Heller had given a more thorough treatment to his argument with the "New Historians", instead of just a short appendix.
All this aside, Heller's book is an important and informative work of history, and it demonstrates the greatness and foresight of one of the Jewish people's great leaders - David Ben-Gurion.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
3 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A Wonderful investigation, January 8, 2004
This review is from: The Birth of Israel, 1945-1949: Ben-Gurion and His Critics (Hardcover)
This interesting investigation of the Birth of Israel is a very comprehensive analysis of the Politics that led to the creation of the State. The author begins with a general introduction to what he intends to accomplish his work. The bulk of the work focus's on Ben Gurion and the politics of the Yishuv from 1945-1949. Here the book does a wonderful job in navigating the many challenges Gurion faced as he first confronted the English then courted the Americans, the Russians and finally faced up the fact of an Arab invasion.
This wonderful book does something that few, if any, have done before; It analyzes the other political parties in Israel and their various methods and ideas for the creation of the State. From the radical left to the radical right each political faction is given separate attention and its goals, methods and ideas are investigated. The final portion of the book deals with the `New Historians' and the debunking of certain ideas for instance the Refugee Issue and the `David vs. Goliath' issue that many modern Historians have used to critique and castigate Israel. The simple thesis is that the 1948 war must be analyzed from a standpoint of the conditions of 1948 rather then looking at it from the standpoint of today and critiquing the Yishuv for the mistakes of modern Israeli PMs.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
1 of 17 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
The History of the State of Israel, August 10, 2000
This review is from: The Birth of Israel, 1945-1949: Ben-Gurion and His Critics (Hardcover)
The birth of the State of Israel, 1945-1949 by Ben Gurion and his critics, presents a look into the first four year history of Isreal. For those who are fimilar with the Torah, better known as the "Old Testement" can see the importance of the Jewish state. The Torah states that G-d had set aside the land for the Israelites.
Many Traditional Jews believe that the established Jewish state was mandated by G-d afther the Holocaust. During the Holocaust, Adolf Hitler, Chancaller of Germany order in his "Final Soluation". Hitler believed that the Jews were evil incarned, and driven by there own greed. He called for the death of ever Jew, including all Jewish children. For the next six years Jewish men, women, and children marched to there death by fire, the Holocaust. An estimated six million Jews were murdered in Hitler's regime.
The aftherwrath of the Holocaust changed the Jewish thought forever. The murder of nearly half of the Jewish population has made many Jews question G-d. Where was G-d? Some Jews lost there faith in G-d by arriving the the conclusion that "A G-d could have not this happen. How can G-d let such a thing happen"? Although some have lost there faith, most Jews haven't. As a noted Jewish thinker once said " The question is not were was G-d, but where was man"?
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
