Customer Reviews

Israel's Place in the Middle East: A Pluralist Perspective

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

The "pluralist perspective" of the subtitle refers to the author's belief that "Israel can-and to a certain extent already has-become an integral part of the [Middle East] region." Rejwan, an Israeli born in Baghdad and long resident in Jerusalem, argues for the existence of an historic Jewish-Muslim amity: "whenever the Crescent had hegemony, the lot of the Jews began to improve." Antisemitism he deems "an exclusively Christian phenomenon" that even today does not exist among Muslims. What differences do exist between Jews and Muslims are "strictly political, having nothing whatever to do with Judaism." He argues that Israel should be seen as a Middle Eastern country, not a misplaced part of Europe. And he looks forward to "a postnationalist Middle East" in which the petty passions of today give way to "the day when Jews prefer to live in an Arab society rather than in an Israeli society."

"What planet does the author live on?" readers might ask on reading this rosy-tinted portrayal of Jewish-Muslim relations and Israel's potential friendship with its neighbors. The author keeps alive the slightly anti-Zionist disdain of Iraqi Jews who continue to think, despite all, that they would have been better off without Jewish nationalism, which they view as a European movement imposed on them. Rejwan hopes to return to something like the Baghdad of his youth, wherein Jew and Arab prospered side by side. While acknowledging this to be a "pipe dream" at the present time, he still cherishes his memories. Credit the author's literate and sophisticated argument with making this anachronistic argument as credibly as can be done.

Middle East Quarterly, March 1999

It's nice to admit that Israel is a part of the Middle East. Actually, anyone could figure that out just by looking at a map. And when one visits Israel, well, it sure looks like the Middle East. The people look Middle Eastern. The language is Middle Eastern. And you can bet the food is Middle Eastern.

Rejwan discusses the linguistic evidence that Israelis and Arabs have plenty of common culture. That certainly makes sense.

But this book goes beyond that to envision a pluralist society. Well, does that mean pluralism in Israel's Arab neighbors? So that Jews can be part of the societies in those nations?

If pluralism means that Israel gives everyone human rights, that's fine. But Israel also has a purpose: to serve as the Jewish homeland, the Jewish capital, a refuge for Jews if they need one, and a place where Jewish rights will not be infringed upon. That's no more than the rights other nations afford their nationals. Let's see if that counts as pluralism. I think it does. But Rejwan never agreed.

We then see a discussion of Arab antisemitism. And the author thinks it's overrated. The idea of an Arab slaughter of Jews is preposterous to him. It is as if the Arabs are merely, um, here. And not special or anything. And as if they don't really do much, so they won't really kill Jews.

But I don't buy that argument. This book was written six years ago. And Arabs have indeed been killing Jews. And I can't agree with the author about Arab antisemitism being a mere political tool. One could have said the same thing about German antisemitism in 1900, but look what it became in just forty years.

Yes, Arabs and Jews did live together for centuries. But most of the time, Jews were dhimmis. Are most Arabs really willing to live with Jews as equals? Rejwan hasn't convinced me of that.

On the other hand, Rejwan does a splendid job of analyzing the complaints about Israel being an alien European entity. The Israelis are indeed Middle Eastern, and we ought to encourage people such as Rejwan who point this out.

Rejwan would have done well to extend such arguments to the Law of Return (which is no more than similar laws other nations have with respect to what they see as their nationals). And he might have exchanged the concept of the myth of redemption for the very real act of immigration.

Rejwan cites some statistics from a 1988 poll. 72 percent of Israeli Arabs objected to the Law of Return. Um, without the Law of Return, Israel would lose much of its national purpose. 70 percent of Israeli Arabs regarded Zionism as racist. Um, really? All Zionism amounts to is human rights. Is that racist? Obviously not. 1 percent of Israeli Arabs regarded themselves as Zionists, 47 percent of them were antizionists. This makes no sense to me. For me, the question "Are you a Zionist" is no different than "Do you support human rights?" I can't see a reason to say no. Rejwan should have taken the time to say this. But he didn't.

Rejwan thinks Israel is on the right track. I think the proper question is whether the Arabs are on the right track. And I think that the refusal to support human rights for Jews by casually rejecting Zionism is a sign that they have some work to do.