Ari Shavit's book "My Promised Land: The Triumph and
Tragedy of Israel" was a difficult read for me because I
don't enjoy Zionist polemics, especially when they are
dressed up in a format of human interest stories and
interviews. That said, I stuck with it to the end. In
fairness, it is clear that Shavit is a gifted writer
with a flair for encapsulating worldviews in a few deft
phrases.The stories and interviews give the book a deep
human interest (even where one disagrees with the point
of view being expressed) and a personal touch that, for
the most part, held my attention.
Although much of the material was not new to me, the
chapters on the earliest period of Jewish immigration
and Zionist experiments in Palestine, the chapter on the
religous foundations of the settler movement, the
chapter on Dimona, and the chapter on the Tel Aviv party
scene were interesting, and added to my understanding of
the dynamics of the Israeli-Palestinian crucible, most
especially from an Israeli point of view. I found the
language of the settler ideologues fascinating and
hauntingly vivid and poetic, even as I strongly oppose
it. I appreciated his capacity to look at complex,
layered issues from a number of different angles.
The abovementioned positives notwithstanding, I found
the book permeated with an astonishing arrogance and
unexamined sense of entitlement. Although one can find
paragraphs throughout the book that indicate that he is
aware of Israel's failings and critical of the
occupation and willing to gore nearly every ox to give
the appearance of being objective, the basic worldview
that comes across is fairly standard Zionism. According
to this viewpoint, the Jewish people's narrative of
suffering and victimhood is without historical parallel,
and the only thing that will prevent their annihilation
by a Jew-hating world is a heavily armed Jewish state in
historic Palestine. So deep is the arogance and
entitlement that he justifies the deliberately-planned
ethnic cleansing and dispossession of 750,000
Palestinian Christians and Muslim families in 1947-48
and the ongoing Nakba continuing to the present day both
within Israel and in the occupied terriroties, on the
grounds that without it the Jewish state would not have
come to be. In other words, tragic and morally haunting
though these Israeli actions may have been, all of these
steps were taken by hard-headed realists, Zionist
heroes, who understood that it had to be, there was no
other alternative, Jews were and are entitled to the
land, and without Israel there is nothing but an abyss
awaiting the Jews. Essentially, Shavit argues that the
tragedy of the Nakba is justified because without it,
and without subsequent actions by Israel to solidify its
gains, Israel as he knows and loves it today would not
have come into existence. In other words, Israel's
"triumph" justifies its "tragedies."
Shavit clearly sees himself as above the fray, the
all-seeing commentator more objective than all others,
who criticizes "the Left" for its naivete and "the
Right" for its rigidity. He claims not to be critical or
judgmental (12) and "I am no judge, I am an observer"
(30). He also claims that the only way to "get the story
of Israel right" is not through polemics but through
stories. As interesting as the stories are, and as much
as they do indeed illuminate aspects of the history and
the current scene in Israeli politics and culture, I
found his journalistic persona as the dispassionate
"sees all sides" reporter as a deceptive disguise. He
weaves his rendering of the story of Israel in the form
of historical incidents, personal and familial
reminiscencesis, but in reality he is a Zionist
polemicist if ever there was one.
I thought it commendable that Shavit acknowledges and
laments that his great-grandfather was so consumed by
his own vision and aspirations that he was blind to the
Palestinians, that he didn't see them, or to the extent
that he did notice them saw them as obstacles in the way
of Zionist dreams. I also liked being acquainted through
the text with those humane and enlightened early
Zionists who advocated a peaceful and respectful
co-existence and cooperation between Jews and
Palestinians. Even after all the mutual afflictions
between the two peoples, I've personally heard many
Palestinians say they are open to this co-existence with
their Jewish neighbors and see much that could tie the
two peoples together for their mutual good, provided
that co-existence is built on a foundation of justice
and equal rights. This early Zionist period puts the lie
to the frequently-heard canard that "these two peoples
are ancient enemies and they've been at each other's
throats for centuries."
Still, Shavit stays very much within his Israeli skin
and rarely inhabits Palestinian realities. In his
discussion of the Arab uprisings in 1935-36, he knows
the names and personal backstories of several of the
Jewish victims of the violence, but none of the names or
stories of the Arabs or Palestinians who were also
victims of the violence. The one Palestinian he does go
into some detail about is Al-Kassam, an early
nationalist who takes up arms against the foreign
colonizers, but Shavit's treatment of him is unnuanced
and plays into the stereotype of the "savage Arab." I
have so much more respect for Israeli Jews like Miko
Peled and Jeff Halper, Eric Ascherman, and the B'tSelem
human rights activists who "cross the forbidden boundary
into real Palestinian life" and whose lives are utterly
changed by the experience. They transcend the
limitations of their self-absorbed Israeli culture and
manage to see the Palestinians in their true humanity.
In the end, because Shavit doesn't really do this, or
does it only in a very limited way, as with his
friendship with Mohammed Dahla in ch. 13, Shavit has not
grown much beyond his great-grandfather's original
blindness toward the Palestinians.
Shavit's treatment of the Nazi holocaust is fairly
standard stuff, repeating the usual tropes that German
hostility toward the Jews was pure hatred and
anti-semitism arising out of something evil in the
German character and Christian Europe. He fails to
mention several salient facts which are conveniently
absent from the "official" narrative and rarely
mentioned in textbooks, and which shed a somewhat
different light on the events of 1930s Germany: a) that
world Jewry led by prominent New York attorney Samuel
Untermyer and backed by several powerful financial
institutions declared war on an economically weak
Germany in the form of an all-out economic boycott --
selling nothing to Germany and buying nothing from
Germany - on March 24, 1933, well before Kristallnacht
(November 1938) or official German governmental
sanctions or wholesale reprisals against Jews were
carried out, b) that the leaders of the German Jewish
community expressed confidence in their relations with
the German people based on centuries of peaceful and
prosperous assimilation, and pled with the World Zionist
Congress not to impose this boycott because it was bound
to inflame hostilities toward the German Jewish
population, and c) the stated intention of the world
Zionist movement was to precipitate the mass migration
of European Jews to Palestine in order to expand the
Jewish presence and realize Zionist ambitions there. The
Zionist economic boycott in 1933 was calculated to
destroy a post-WWI-economically debilitated Germany.
These facts do not in any way excuse the horrifically
evil actions of the Third Reich toward millions of
European Jews (and other vulnerable or "undesirable"
populations), nor do they short-circuit sober Christian
reflection on Christian-Jewish relations and biblical
hermeneutics. But they help to contextualize these
horrors, and should not be omitted from a balanced and
truthful account of the period.
I don't recommend this book to the casual reader who is
not equipped with independent sources of information and
experience. Without them, one is quite easily swept
along by the rhetoric and will experience, almost
without knowing it, their brains being expertly washed,
their heart strings being skillfully played. Caveat
emptor.
J. Mark Davidson
|