Most Helpful Customer Reviews
9 of 13 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
cogent polemics on intractable situations, December 28, 2009
This review is from: Israel vs. Utopia (Paperback)
The argument over Israel's place in the world has calcified into a more or less dessicated, inflexible discourse, and in large part non-Israeli perspectives on Israel have become projections of people's preëxisting geopolitical predilections (seen most clearly in the bizarre alliance between millenarian Evangelical Christians and hard-nosed Israeli practitioners of realpolitik that Schalit analyzed so cogently in his first book, Jerusalem Calling). The first, and one of the most salutary, virtues of this short, bracing book is that Schalit breaks this discourse down and moves beyond ideology in discussions of Israel, American policy in the Middle East, and the disposition of the West Bank and Gaza. While Schalit's perspective is undeniably (and unapologetically) leftist, his central argument is that deciding how to approach the problems Israel faces right now can only be done if people set aside ideology and grievance (and endless, futile arguments about whether grievances are merited, and how much) and look at what's actually happened and is going on. The book is a curious amalgam of polemic, ideological analysis, and political explanation of recent events in Israel, Europe and the United States, and the only faults I find with it are that one already needs to be conversant with Diaspora politics to make sense of much of the argument, and despite Schalit's clear knowledge of the region and his authoritative tone, the absence of references or a bibliography makes it hard to accept at face value some of his more provocative assertions. That said, the target audience is clearly the Diaspora, who it is safe to assume will already have formed their own judgments on much of the material covered. It takes as its focus several events: George Bush's speech before the Knesset / Barack Obama's speech before the Egyptian parliament and their parallels to Sadat's speech before the Knesset 30 years ago, the Israeli-Lebanese war (and how members of the previously reformist and dovish Israeli left found themselves vehemently prosecuting it), Schalit's participation in a San Francisco food co-op's internal debate about whether to boycott Israeli goods, the ongoing crisis of the Hamas captivity of Gilad Shalit (no relation), and Schalit's own encounters with the Israeli, Palestinian and Lebanese diasporas in San Francisco and Europe. As an Israeli who grew up in the UK and America, Schalit is hardly a disinterested observer, but this works tremendously in his favor, as he uses discussions with his (elite Israeli) family and putatively hostile Palestinians and Lebanese outside the Middle East to move the discourse beyond the increasingly stale anti-imperialist / neocon frame and into something that recognizes the real, if faint, hopes for conciliation that are mostly buried under the tide of pessimism and nihilism that seems to characterize so much coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian impasse. Joel is particularly good at illuminating the way in which left and right ideologues outside Israel use the crisis there as a proxy for their stymied political hopes and dreams, and in explicating the ways in which calling the treatment of Palestinians a "genocide" or "apartheid" is to do nobody - especially the Palestinians - any favors. He also never loses sight of the human cost of the occupation, and continuously highlights the irony that the Levantine culture shared by Palestinians and Israelis alike - particularly food - allows him to interact with Palestinians in the West with a directness and intimacy that would be nearly impossible to match within Israel itself. There is also a good discussion of the way that viewing the relationship between American neocons and Israeli's government as the definitive axis of Israeli-Western relations can blind one to the fact that Israel has many other allies, and that Israel is less dependent upon the American aegis (and more congenial towards "Eurabic" Europe) than might be popularly supposed - a particularly salient point to keep in mind when thinking about what might happen as Iran pursues its own nuclear shield. The book is partisan but, ultimately, refreshingly nonjudgmental. It takes as a given that Israel's current government is tremendously dysfunctional (not to mention America's gift for transforming large swathes of the Middle East into twisted wreckage), that Palestine is an occupied failed state (at best), and that "compromise" is a fatally loaded word when it comes to mediating between the Israeli state and the various Palestinian factions. I would not describe it as hopeful, but there is a clear sense of optimism that pervades the text that left me feeling all hope is not yet lost. It also makes abundantly clear that the Israeli project is far from complete, and it is perhaps this sense of becoming and remaking that has characterized the original Zionists' debates over a secular-Jewish state since long before its inception that offers the most possibility for the future. DISCLAIMER: Joel is a friend, and I had many discussions with him about his progress (and difficulties) in writing this book, and he and I share similar views on many things. That said, the thing that impressed me most about this book was the way in which it distilled a lot of diffuse and open-ended discussions Joel's had with me over the years into something concise and cogent.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
4 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Reasonably Interesting Theorizing About Israel, February 3, 2010
This review is from: Israel vs. Utopia (Paperback)
At one point in this easy read about Israel today, there is mention of Marx's critique of other German philosophers --- that they are so busy thinking that they do nothing about what they are thinking about, Marx's point being that the goal is to change things, not simply to think about them. This book is ultimately part of that long history of people who think, talk to each other endlessly about the problems of the world, but do little else except talk to each other. It is a perfect example of the powerlessness and utter frustration of being part of what is sometimes called the "progressive" wing of the Jewish Diaspora, people who mean well, want to do good, but can only talk to each other and have no impact whatsoever on the ever darkening reality of Israel as it actually exists. It's a good depiction of that darkening reality; I learned much from it and have no complaints about the real factual content. But ultimately, its only prescription seems to be that if we just think hard enough, and talk to each other long enough about Israel's problems, this will somehow further a progressive agenda. Instead, what we have is the reality of an Israeli author who also holds US citizenship, has lived in London, and now lives in Milan, but does not choose to live and fight for his beliefs in Israel, where it might matter. As someone who has lived his whole life in the US, but takes a deep interest in the degeneration of the Israeli Utopian Dream, I appreciate his thoughts and ideas, but I was left once again with that feeling that intellectuals who analyze and re-analyze as they flit about talking to one another ultimately do little except keep one another entertained...present company included.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
5 of 11 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Not the even handed review it claims to be, April 7, 2010
This review is from: Israel vs. Utopia (Paperback)
The fly leaf, intro and publisher comments all claim this is a book with a fresh and even handed look at the issues facing Israel. Propaganda. In the book's intro, on page 17, Shalit talks about "what has been provacatively dubbed by some as 'Eurabia'..." He shows he hasn't paid attention to that, as Bat Ye'or points out ( Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis) that it was a joint EU/Arab working group that coined the phrase and used it to publicize their own interests. It's not an anti-Muslim invention, it's a Muslim invention. On only page 30, the author says: "every Israeli knows that his or her country could never have come into being without making room for its citizens at the expense of the area's longtime residents. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying." That is a great Orwellian untruth. Lets ignore that Jews were in the land continually from long before jihad captured it until the present day. Let's discuss The British Mandate for Palestine and UN Resolution 181. Both recognized the shared history in the area of Jews and Arabs. Both said that the area should be shared and that equal rights should exist for people of all faiths. The Jews accepted that, the Arabs didn't. It's very clear and well documented. Those key bits of reality explain why Israel had an ~18% Arab minority in 1949, with a population of less than a million, and still has an 18% Arab minority with a population of over 7 million. Meanwhile, the Jews of the Arab world have almost disappeared and the Palestinians call for yet another ethnic cleansing before they can have "their state" while continuing to deny that Jews have a right to an open and democratic "Jewish State". There was room for both peoples, the Jews accepted that long ago and the Arabs still don't. Shalit's neo-liberal attempts to twist reality continue. Along with many factual errors, he also have the one of hubris. He might have spent some of his youth in Israel but, as he points out, it's his parents who moved back to Israel in 1994. He visits, he doesn't live there. I spent six years in Israel, from late 2002 until early last year. I can say that my direct experience shows that Israelis both have some serious problems he mentions, but also eyes more open than he thinks. The big hole in their mindsets is one caused by being in a defensive war for more than sixty years. It's caused a "get mine now!" ethic that's too short sited and often corrupt because people just don't know what's going to happen to them from day to day. However, even with that, there's clearly open media with advocates on all sides discussing the good and bad in Israel. Shalit's problem is that he tries to present a balanced perspective while holding onto the assumptions of the new Left. That never works. He consistently uses the terminology and viewpoint of the left as a starting point, so even when he criticizes some words and actions of that side, the assumptions remain. Given that's not how the book is marketed, the book is not good.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
