Customer Reviews

Israel and Palestine: Reappraisals, Revisions, Refutations

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

The major theme of Avi Shlaim's previous book, 'The Iron Wall', was that Israel has throughout its history readily resorted to military force rather than engaging in meaningful diplomacy. In Avi's 'Israel and Palestine' he analyzes four portions of history, including (as he calls them) 1948 and beyond, to Oslo and beyond, the breakdown of the peace process, and perspectives. What I found most appealing about this particular text was Avi's discussion and analysis of literature written by scholars, historical figures, as well as popular figures. This includes, but it not limited to, Nur Masalha, Ilan Pappe, Itamar Rabinovich, Benny Morris, Asher Susser, Ian Black, George and Douglas Ball, Fouad Ajami, Hanan Ashrawi, Meron Benvenisti, Colin Shindler, Moshe Arens, Yitzhak Rabin, Benjamin Netanyahu, Bernard Wasserstein, Dennis Ross, Yossi Beilin, Norman Finkelstein, Bauch Kimmerling, and Edward Said. If some of these names are not familiar to you, I encourage you to look them up. You will uncover that Shlaim is striving to provide detailed scholarly accounts of each individual and their contributions to the interpretation of history with regard to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. And, as always, Shlaim's use of primary sources is extremely well done.

Please, anyone who wishes to understand the conflict, read and learn. Most people (including myself) are not capable of reading the primary literature. But at least analyze the work of those that dedicate their entire lives to history and scholarship.

It goes without saying that the situation of Israel and Palestine is one of the most contentious political, ethnic, social problems that brings out the extremes of emotions for even those with several degrees of separation from the problem. One can notice that from the reviews one encounters on literature for one group or another is praised emphatically by sympathizers and bashed by the opposition, usually irrespective of the content. That being said, moving onto this book, it is an important and illuminating read.

It is important to note that this book intends to be a fairly complete overview of the conflict, its origins and evolution. It focuses on some aspects more than others and is not a complete analysis of any particular point in time (in the sense of discussing opposition and rebuttals and re-rebuttals etc) but the book essentially assumes no prior knowledge. The author starts with the foundations of the formation of Israel, the motivations both from global political perspectives as well as zionist perspective and the local arab perspective. Avi starts out by describing the situation as one in which there were shaky foundations, with English politics being contradictory and eventually leading to a Jewish priority. This shakiness is attributed to foreign powers and their inconsistent approach rather than Israeli subversiveness. It is an important distinction that helps formulate the authors underlying belief which is that the state was founded for a people with from some veil of ignorance the strongest requirement for a sovereign state at the expense of an existing population. In essence, foreign powers had an obligation to the jewish movement, but acted with disregard for the rights of the local population which were subordinated in a choice that the choosers had no right to make. That was the injustice and its foundations are not necessarily the fault of the parties now involved.

The book then follows in chronology discussing the history and in particular the territorial exchanges that accompanied various wars and the politicians and their perspectives and perceived biases. This seems to offend many readers as I'm sure many believe these characters to be quite different from the way described, but the author does not make claims without well documented evidence. The author is very thorough in describing a strategy and subsequently using many examples of its manifestation. It could be argued that it is one sided, but everyone's perspective has a conclusion to draw, and irrespective if that is agreed, the most important thing is the evidence used and this author is thorough in backing up his claims. The momentum of foreign sympathy is focused on and the changing of the global community attitude after the speech delivered in Madrid written by Dr Hanan Ashrawi. The position of the US and its often failure to act as an independent arbitrator depending on the presidency is discussed. The author describes the US position as one that has the tendency to turn to short term politics and US sovereign interests rather than a well balanced intermediary position. This has the repercussions of not providing the needed push at times to pressure the Israeli side. I think this is an important issue that the author addresses, by the nature of the situation Israel is in the position of power, it might be in isolation in the region etc, but at its local bargaining table with the Palestinians, it clearly has more ability to encroach on land, inflict damage etc... The importance of foreign intermediaries to try to balance the existing balance of power is important as a solution that is one crafted out of relative military strength rather than based on more utilitarian or human rights based justice will likely spark future problems. If there is a solution to be had, it is important that it be as close to even handed as possible or it can end up being ineffective if perceived injustice remains status quo. For this reason, he believes the US needs to be firmer when more even handed solutions are being worked on.

The author describes Israeli local politics as often being at play as the ebb and flow of desire for peace. The domination of the right wing he sees as a dangerous evolution as their intention he does not believe to be peace, but essentially divide and conquer. One of the major themes is the discussions of peace are then followed with further settlement in areas that are supposed to be part of Palestinian settlement. For the author, these actions speak louder than words. He sees tit for tat between the sides as grossly overbearing on the Israeli side with its clear advantage, the author evidences this by the casualty rates of many multiples for the Palestinian side vs the Israeli side. The author believes the populations of both people are looking for peace and that there needs to be a formal division of the country to the Green line of 1967. The incrementalist settlement which is occurring undermines the situation and further entrenches both sides.

The authors positions stems from what he perceives as an original injustice that was decided by outside powers. What is done is done from that and what is important now is the well balanced application of human rights and and recognition of the human costs on the sides of the parties rather than the us versus them approach. The author sympathizes much more with the Palestinian side due to their much weaker position and their actions are to be expected given the evolution of the situation. He believes Israel needs to take a step back, recognize the human rights of the Palestinians, and act from that perspective for which he thinks a defining of 1967 borders and division of the country is the appropriate solution. The longer settlers keep moving "borders" the more entrenched people become and given the unevenness of power it is becoming a human rights crisis for Palestine. I would rate this 4.5 stars if I could, the reason for not rating 5 is that there are occasions when the author describes the same person a bit differently, for example, he is very favorable to Edward Said in the chapter on him and his approach, but argues against the same position he flatters later in the book. A few times examples like this emerge. Nonetheless the content of the book is well written, analysis is backed up with many examples and evidence. Whether the solution is the right one who know, but the approach and the perspective is very important to read. If more people had the sympathy of the author the solution would be much less intractable.

Avi Shlaim, professor of international relations at Oxford University, is the author of The iron wall, the best book on Israel's relations with its neighbours. This erudite work is a collection of articles that were originally published in the Journal of Palestine Studies and the London Review of Books.

Part 1 comprises ten articles on the 1948 war and after, Part 2 ten articles on the Oslo Accord of September 1993 and beyond, Part 3 five articles on the breakdown of the peace process, and Part 4 five articles looking at the current situation from various perspectives. He identifies three main watersheds, each the subject of heated debate: the founding of Israel, the 6-Day war of June 1967 and the Oslo Accord.

Israeli governments usually oppose a Palestinian state and a return to its 1967 borders, even though, as Shlaim argues, ending the occupation of the West Bank would enhance Israel's security. The Oslo Accord, negotiated by Israelis and Palestinians, with virtually no US or EU involvement, was a great step forward towards creating a Palestinian state. But tragically Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his successor Ehud Olmert wrecked the Accord, as Shlaim shows.

Shlaim recognises that the Iraq war had `no solid basis in international law' and that the invasion did not help to resolve the Israel/Palestine conflict or promote democracy in the Middle East. You don't end one illegal occupation by starting another.

Shlaim argues that Israel's brutal military occupation of Gaza was `deliberate de-development'. The USA and the EU helped the Israeli state by imposing sanctions on Gaza, not on the occupier but on the occupied. As Shlaim writes, "The development of local industry was actively impeded so as to make it impossible for the Palestinians to end their subordination to Israel and to establish the economic underpinnings essential for real political independence."

In 2005-8, 11 Israelis were killed by rocket fire from Gaza; in 2005-7, the Israeli Defense Force killed 1,290 Palestinians in Gaza, including 222 children. In November 2008, Israel broke the ceasefire which had held for four months. In its 22-day attack on Gaza, 1,300 Palestinians and 13 Israelis were killed. Bush and Blair backed the attack and opposed UN calls for a ceasefire.

Shlaim concludes, "A rogue state habitually violates international law, possesses weapons of mass destruction and practises terrorism - the use of violence against civilians for political purposes. Israel fulfils all of these three criteria."

This book was not written of a piece - as noted in the product description it is a collection of writings over a 30 year period. For example in the chapter about Did they Leave or Were They Pushed the book The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine published in September 2007 which gives the most comprehensive account of this crime yet is not mentioned, but Pappe's earlier less researched books are. So beware.

One of a few books that talks about how Israeli came to own the land of Palestinian with facts unlike Zionist propagandists' books. In talking about Balfour Declaration how "Britain promised Hussein, the Sharif of Mecca, that it would support an independent Arab kingdom under his rule in return for his mounting an Arab revolt against the Ottoman Empire", "The Sharif Mecca assumed that the promise included Palestine", "In 1916, Britain reached a secret agreement with France to divide the Middle East into spheres of influence in the event of an allied victory", "Under the terms of the Sykes-picot agreement, Palestine, Palestine was to beplaced under International control", "In 1917 Britain issued Balfour Declaration, promising to support the establishment of a national home for the Jepeople in Palestine", I like phrases like "Thus, by a stroke of imperial pen, the Promised Land became twice promised. Even by the standards of Perfidious Albion, this was an extraordinary tale of double-dealing and betrayal, a tale that continued to haunt Britain throughout the 30 years of its rule in Palestine."

It was very informing to learn how Britain betrayed the Arabs: When Hussein asked Britain to explain what it all meant (on Balfour declaration,), this book explains Hussein's attitude to the Balfour Declaration. It says that "Hussein thought that he had Britain's assurance that the settlement of the Jews in Palestine would not conflict with Arab independence in that country. This explains his initial silence in public and his private efforts to allay the anxieties of his sons". "Hussein was not opposed to the settlement of Jews in Palestine and even welcomed it on religious and on humanitarian grounds. He was, however, emphatically opposed to a Zionist takeover of the country. Hogarth gave him a solemn pledge that Britain would respect not only the economic but also the political freedom of Arab population. When Britain subsequently refused to recognize Arab independence in Palestine, Hussein felt betrayed and accused Britain of breach of faith.

This book clearly points out that Balfour Declaration was the turning point for the Zionists to pursue their evil agenda of land grabbing with total disregard of native population in Palestine.

Shlaim believes that "job of the historian is to judge". This seems, alas, to entail some noticeable shoe-horning of reality to fit the requirements of ideological fashion and convenience.

There are some interesting passages here, but Shlaim's slightly facile and romantic positions are all too easy to take from the safe distance of Oxford, where Fatah's constitution can be read with agreeable detachment "Article (12): Complete liberation of Palestine, and eradication of Zionist economic, political, military and cultural existence.
Article (19) ... this struggle will not cease unless the Zionist state is demolished and Palestine is completely liberated."

(There can be little responsible doubt about what "complete liberation of Palestine" or "eradication of 'Zionist' ... cultural existence" would concretely entail under an Islamic state, or even under a secular majoritarian hegemony, if such a thing could actually be achieved).

Generally, there is a too strong a sense of distortion of the historiographic project by an anxiety to conform to the uncomplicated ideological preferences of his northern european hosts. These are not perspectives that would ever be seen as more than fashionable posturing by an electorate in Israel, particularly by the 40% or more whose families have concrete experience of living in Arab countries before the Jewish nakba began in 1948, generating, by the 1970s, even more Jewish Arab refugees than Palestinian refugees.

The purely ideological section devoted to Benny Morris is diagnostic of Shlaim's predicament. It fails to engage with a single issue of technical historiography, and devotes itself instead to ad hominem fulminations against Morris's failure to be limited by the bounds of Shlaim's preferred, and structuring, ideology - namely that "the Palestinians, by any reckoning, can only be seen as the victims" while only the Israelis are to be seen as aggressive. Regardless of the evidence, apparently.

Fatah's Constitution, and Hamas's Charter, documents which are eloquently expressive of the history and balance of forces in these organisations, but uncongenial to Shlaim's romantic ideology, are not brought to the reader's attention.

Meanwhile, the review of this book by Benny Morris in The New Republic is worth reading, I think.

[...]

The jig is up. All other things being equal, if they were equal, Mr. Avi's recounting of what he thinks the real history and situation of Israel is, would be a refreshing hopefulness that all people at all times will love one another. But there is no love without truth. In truth the creation of the state of Israel did result in the expulsion of Arabs living in their own homes and on their own property. The number is under 50,000 and for those souls we must acknowledge their suffering. Their plight has been personalized by a group of people who call themselves Palestinians who have no claims of any kind whatsoever. Remember war is hell, and it wasn't Israel that launched that war. This man is trying to change the definition of traitor - he cannot and he should be dealt with as a traitor (i.e. hung or shot).

As for his precious Palestinians. First, there is no such thing. Like the Kyoto agreement that was wanted by no one, including the people who wrote it, the Palestinians have been expelled, brutally, from every country they have resided in. Israel has been terse with them, that is true. But they haven't set as a goal their extermination. This can't be said said, thank God, of Jordan and the King of Jordan who booted them out of his country without much in the way of restraining his force when they attacked him and his country - nor should he have.

If Mr Avi cannot see the interest of a nation called Israel he should leave it. If he won't do the honorable thing and become a dissident in exile, he should be dealt with like the King of Jordan dealt with his Avi's Palestinian brothers - The King smashed them and scattered them to the winds.

This man is a disgusting excuse for an Israeli. I'm sure your left base will love him and his fraudulent pears pf wisdom, otherwise known as bromides. I will not write one word of disproof. Avi knows his lies. Perhaps you don't.

Israel and Palestine


The author claims to be a historian. His new volume starts with the erroneous maps. Along with his editors he publishes the map of the Mandatory Palestine omitting the East Bank.
The demilitarized zone of Al Auja occupied by Egypt in 1948 is not shown, Gaza lacks the Egyptian occupation time line, Syrian occupation of the Upper Jordan River Basin and Hammat Gader on the Yarmouk River in Palestine is not shown. These parcels of land were legally given to the Jewish state in Palestine by the United Nations. This is missing on Avi Shlaim's maps and the innocent reader may think that his cartography is a true representation of history.
The same reader is misled by the phrase "Arabs had recognized Israel in Rhodes." The Rhodes negotiations established the ceasefire and dealt with the armistice lines only. They created the incongruous enclaves in Jerusalem.
On page 358 the author recalls the exciting meeting of public intellectuals at Seville, Spain where the "classical European music" was piped in and where he rubbed shoulders with David Barenboim (the same David Barenboim, the conductor who during his lecture tour of Harvard saw fit not to mention at all his life as an Israeli citizen. His Harvard brochure did not contain such taboo words as "Israel", "Jew" or "Tel Aviv"). Mr Shlaim sings dythirambs to the late Edward Said, a member of the Arab Christian elite in Levant. However the Christan background and the thorough westernization of Mr Said are not disclosed upfront to the naïve reader.
Avi Shlaim boldly writes about "two warring tribes in Palestine". Mr Shlaim should be advised that we deal with many Jewish tribes in modern Palestine as well as with many Arabic speaking tribes. We may count North African Jews, Romanian Jews, Jews from Iran and Bukhara as well as Bedouin, Arabs of Acre and the Arab Christians of Bethlehem to name a few. All these tribes are distinct groups of people.
The author writes in tragic terms about violence, destruction on both sides of the conflict. It is far from truth. The whole Palestine including Israel has experienced a huge construction boom for the last 100 years. The construction during the last century simply dwarfs some wrecking damage to the Palestinian (Israeli) infrastructure.The development and overdevelopment are remarkable. Not a single stone is left unturned in Palestine including proper and improper Israel.
The author bestows on Israel a title of "military superpower", and calls Palestinians ( meaning Arabs of Palestine) a weak and vulnerable community " still at the stage of struggling for statehood". Mr Shlaim should be reminded that Arabs of Palestine (with the help of the British imperialists) created a viable Kingdom of Jordan which they support and many Arabs worked hard to build the State of Israel.
In one breath he writes that "real peace is between equals". Let's stop here and ponder Avi Shlaim's logic. According to it peace between the Palestinian Kingdom of Jordan and the Palestinian State of Israel is impossible. However both sides while unequal in economy and military might are largely peaceful and even concluded a peace treaty!
Mr Shlaim attacks the Israeli historian Benny Morris. He writes "...nationalist versions of history are simplistic, seductive and self serving..." I find it laughable since the author pays attention mostly to rulers (see his book "Lion of Jordan"), disregards the class struggle and raises high the banner of the Arab nationalism. He laments that Palestinians do not have tanks while Israel sends its Merkava war machines into the Arab settlements. He blames Israel for violation of "a long series of agreements" and notes that "Palestinians can only be seen as victims". "Israel is aggressive", says he and trumpets, "Palestinian David is facing Israeli Goliath."
The asymmetry of warfare is troublesome for this historian. The war theatre is not set right.
In the chapter 30 the author grows indignant defending Norman Finkelstein who makes fun of the Holocaust ("There are so many Holocaust survivors that I do not know who died.") Mr Finkelstein probably got on his mind only rich and important German, Austrian or Italian Jews who were not killed on the same scale as the impoverished Jews in the Pale of the Eastern Europe. The majority of the Jewish citizens of the facsist countries of Germany (including Austria) and Italy did survive and managed to reach the safety of America or quiet corners of Europe.
On page 282 the author designates "Arab demands on Palestine" as moderate. But it depends. The prevailing stance of the Levantine Arabs is annihilation of Israel. Some Arabs stop short of killing/expelling all Jews but they do not want Jews to have their self-government, they prefer Arabs to be the masters of their Jewish subjects as in the good old time.
Avi Shlaim, the self-styled Arab apologist, writes "Palestinian people ...aspire, above all, is a piece of land to call their own on which to live in freedom and dignity."
It should be noted that 10 million Arabs occupy and inhabit 85% of the historic Palestine leaving to the mostly urban 5 million Jews just 15% of the land. Arabs do have a large piece and can wage peace at their will and the will of their handlers and preachers.
It is amazing that Avi Shlaim is deaf to the Jewish Palestinian peasants (see ethnic cleansing of Gaza) and it is imperative to ask what is his motivation to be so unfairly pro-Arab and forgetful towards his Jewish brethren who barely survive in the hostile Holy Land.
It seems to me that the key to his thinking may be found in his accolades to Albion ("a great gift we still enjoy on this island").
Mr Shlaim is a citizen of Great Britain, a country which owned and cut Palestine according to the British Empire's designs of the 20th century.
Mr Shlaim is a professor at Oxford University where it is awfully hard to support the sovereign Jews and not to judge them harshly. He wants to be a good servant for people who pay his handsome salary and may admire his "balanced act". Then and there he may be welcome at high circles of privilege. And what about his tribesmen in a backwater province of Judea? They are primitive and weak. Some of them would be elated to be at his seat which is like a throne to them.
Mr Shlaim loves to write about monarchs and other VIPs, not about the decimated people, ordinary folks who came to their Palestinian homeland and claimed just one tenth of it.
It seems to me that Avi Shalaim is fashioning himself after the ancient historian Josephus Flavius who decided to drop his rebellious Judean compatriots and serve the Roman Empire. His life story is remarkable.
We might also remind ourselves that this story (history) repeats itself as a farce.

The Israeli State Archives opened in 1982 for the benefit of professional historians, journalists, as well as the wide public soon became a virtual treasure trove for leftist activists in Israeli academia. The activists, dubbed 'New Historians,' cherry picked the documents for their anti-Zionist value and interpreted them in the spirit of their ideological preferences. The interpretations were presented as iron-clad facts out of which the anti-Zionist `New History' was made up.
One of `New Historians', an Israeli ex-pat Avi Shlaim, who is professionally bashing Israel for many years now, published a new book Israel and Palestine: Reflections, Revisions, Refutations. The book is a collection of sophisticated pasquilles written in the course of years. It does not contain new refutations or revisions, but old shibboleths like `Israel missed every opportunity to make peace with Arabs', or, that `Zionism is a colonialist movement', or `give a country without people to people without country', etc.
Readers, who are in the business of anti-Israeli propaganda and in need for anti-Israeli arguments, will find them in the book. Those, on the other hand, who are tired of regurgitating the same old `stuff' can skip that book and save their money. They will not lose much since other books of similar content will, no doubt, be published next year and, then, the year after. Israel bashers have to make a living too.