I can't read this!!

Another public service announcement: Academics seem to think that because they have reached their position, that they now no longer have to try to write works that can be understood by

human beings. In my time in the university, I have come across articles and

books that may as well have been written in Mandarin Chinese rather

than Hebrew or English. Major problems have included: 1) Use of unnecessarily complicated terms and language (See Orwell's excellent article on the subject, which is still relevant today, unfortunately). 2) Lack of a central theme or argument (i.e. dumping facts, figures and events in one big heap without explaining the connection between them). 3) Failure to properly explain the argument (e.g. what on earth is the author trying to say). 4) Failure to follow the rule of KISS (=Keep It Short and Simple) - see my comments on academic conferences, as well. 5) Filler: long and unnecessary discussions of "theoretical aspects", obsession with irrelevant details etc. These are but some of the problems plaguing academic writing today. With the current "post-modern" trend, things are becoming even worse. Articles and books are becoming even more filled with giberrish and badly written pieces that would disgrace a third-grader (see for example, the articles written in Theory and Criticism). If you're an aspiring researcher or academic, do yourself a favor and get thee to Writing 101, before we all pay the price.

Tidbits

1) Truth is stranger than fiction... 2) A review of Alexander that puts others to shame... 3) Shai's back!

Feel free to comment...

I am genuinely interested in what readers have to say (as long as it is reasoned and not insulting). A lively discussion is always more interesting than a lecture - on the web as well as in the classroom.

Tidbits

- For those of you interested in seeing the primary material related to the Liberty incident, press 1 . - For those who would like a directory to the major archives in Israel, press 2. - For comic relief, please press 3, 4 or 5. - If you are interested in the latest in looney-left academic discourse (see comic relief) in Israel, please press 6 or 7. - If you are a chess fan, you might want to try the Israeli Chess Federation, available by pressing 34 (e4/d4). - For comic relief par excellence, try randomly pressing buttons to get to the Onion. - For interesting film criticism with an Israeli bent, you might try FishEye. (No, I don't know why they chose this title.) That's all for this week, folks.

He's Dead. Good. Yimach Shemo Ve'zichro.

Shai is much more thorough than me on this one, as usual. Lots of people are making post-Arafat predictions. My advice? Let's wait and see.

Benny Morris and the Refugees

It has been more than a decade and a half since Benny Morris' book on the origins of the Palestinian Refugee Problem appeared, creating a storm in both the political and academic world that has not fully abated. His book has been attacked, analyzed, debated, used and abused by anyone and everyone with a stake in the Israel-Arab conflict, most notably those with pro-Palestinian sympathies.

To be sure, there had been other studies of the problem before him, most notably by Rony Gabbay, but none attracted as much attention, both in the academic and the political arenas, as Morris' work. So much so, that the name "Benny Morris" has become synonymous with the study of the Palestinian Refugee Problem.

Now Morris has republished and revised his original 1986 work, retitled "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited", and has promised "shocking" new revelations - including new information about massacres and even rape by Jewish forces - in a self-promotional and controversial interview in Ha'Aretz. (Interestingly, while the interview itself garnered a great deal of attention, there has been not a single review of the book itself - except a brief overview in The Atlantic, and a couple of angry rants by pro-Palestinian reviwers - in the six months since it has been released.)

This "new" book is certainly very well done - it is clearly written, the chapters are usually structured coherently, and the book as a whole appears scrupulously documented - there are often more than a hundred footnotes per chapter. Morris has also tried to make use of much of the new research on the subject, including the study of the capture of Lod in 1948 by Alon Kadish, Avraham Sela and Arnon Golan, as well as Yoav Gelber's "Independence VS Nakba". Each "wave" of refugees has a chapter dedicated to it, as well as chapters discussing "Transfer" thought among Jewish leaders, the decision to prevent the refugees' return, and the post-war negotiations regarding the refugees' fate.

The fact that Morris takes much care to stress the background of the war - including explaining the motive for raids as well as discussions of Arab and Palestinian-Arab policy as well as Jewish policy, an aspect that is almost always missing from most books on the war in general - is laudable. Though Morris still tries very hard to find guilt among Jewish leaders - especially "transfer" thinking (more on this below) - his explanations for the causes of each "wave" of refugees, are careful, reasoned and backed up by evidence.

This is the good news. The problem is that Morris still suffers from a number of obsessions that mar his judgment. The first is his obsession with 'transfer' thinking -the idea that the future Jewish state should have as few Arabs as possible and therefore should remove them. His attempt not only to 'prove' that transfer thinking was a central tenet of Zionist thougt but that it was 'in the air' during the priod of April-May 1948 (his 'second wave') are simply not convincing. Most of his 'evidence' for the former has been dealt with by scholars such as Yehoshua Porat and Efraim Karsh, and Joseph Heller dedicated much of his review essay of "Righteous Victims" to refuting (convincingly, in my opinion) the idea that Zionist leaders were obsessed with 'transfer'. I doubt that Heller would be convinced now.

Moreover, even if we were to assume that he is correct, Morris would still be at a loss to explain the almost total lack of documentary evidence of any kind for this kind of thinking among the junior and senior commanders supposedly responsible carrying out 'transfer' during this stage. The more logical assumptions - that they were to preoccupied with securing the Jewish areas militarily (the central idea of Plan D) and thus didn't really think about the Palestinian-Arab civilian population or that they perceived the Arabs as a possible 'fifth column' - are unaccountably dismissed, and without proper documentary support. This lack of evidence stands in contrast to the proven existence of such views during the later stages of the war (during Operation HIRAM) which Morris presents.

Another problem is Morris' attempt to yell 'fire' at every opportunity. Thus every possibility of a massacre is trumpeted, even if the source is doubtful or unstubstantiated (an Egyptian broadcast, a single letter of complaint). Every case in which the IDF censor disallows Morris to see material is scrupulously mentioned (this is also hypocritical since Morris was allowed to see quite a bit of damning material in the IDF Archives), insinuating that there is a smoking gun still off limits.

Moreover, every staement of Ben-Gurion, such as his description of Jerusalem at one point as the most Jewish since the Roman destruction, is siezed upon as a statement of a desire to see the Arabs kicked out. In general, Ben-Gurion comes off in Morris' book as the manipulator and mover behind the Arabs plight - especially in the case of the explusion of the Arabs from Lod and Ramle, which Morris sees as Ben-Gurion's responsibility - even though there are other possible culprits such as Yigal Alon (who didn't need BG's OK to kick out Arabs).

These and other preconceptions mar the book, and stand in stark contrast to Morris' usual care. It is likely that other reviewers more knowledgable than myself will point to other problems.

There are, moreover, a number of factors that will likely prevent Morris' work from once again becoming THE standard, even if one ignores its flaws. The first is that Morris' study is no longer the only one on the shelves. Various studies on the subject of the refugees have appeared, and will continue to appear - the most notable being Yoav Gelber's "Independence VS Nakba"- which add a great deal of information, and often clash with or at least differ from Morris' perspective. Second, it is quite likely that as more documentation is released, our picture will become ever more nuanced - it may even turn out that some of the massacre smoke had no fire behind it.

Nevertheless, Benny Morris' study is a worthy, if no longer exclusive, addition to perhaps the most vexing problem of the Arab-Israeli conflict. I only hope that it will be given the attention it deserves.

Election Insanity

Well, an exciting and often nerve-wracking election has come to a close. Thank goodness it's over - I was afraid of the prospect of waiting 11 MORE DAYS to decide Ohio. I commend Senator Kerry for his decision to concede. His speech was also a model of graciousness, of a kind that politicians here would do well to learn. Now we can all breathe a little easier, now that it's over.

Tidbits' part II

Sorry for the delay. Here's some interesting items: - Of all the reasons to attack America, this is the best he could come up with?! Your average indymedia nut could do better than that.. - What a great idea! - Shai has another entry in his ongoing coverage of Israeli cinema (I think he should turn the entries into a comprehensive book, it's very good)

Tidbits

- Murphy's Law: My usual ride (6:30) had no room, but I got a hold of a person who was also going to BIU, only to find out that he left at 5:45 in the morning.... - The Ministry of Education conducted an inspection at the collel, to see if we all really learn there. - Finished Benny Morris' revised refugee book. I hope to comment on it another time.

I knew I was back in university...

1) ..when I stepped out and felt that suffocating, oppressive Shefela weather (remember, it isn't the heat, it's the humidity). 2) ..when I found out that the office I needed to enter happenned to be closed for another two hours that day. 3) ..when I found myself overburdened with courses, and still not making the required quota. Let us hope that this year is better than this first day experience.

Latrun: Myth and Reality

The telling of history, and especially military history, is often pervaded with incorrect and sometimes outright false information. This stems both from the unclear and disorganized nature of battle itself, as well as intentional disinformation spread by various parties. The Arab-Israeli Wars are perhaps the prime example of this. Many wild accusations have been made over the years, some of which are still prevalent today - such as the "240" dead at Dir Yassin (it was around 120) in 1948. One of the strongest and most emotionally charged of these stories is the "popular" description of the First Battle of Latrun at the end of May 1948, known also as Operation Bin-Nun Aleph. According to this version, David Ben-Gurion cobbled together a group of Jews "just off the boats" from Europe into a brigade (the 7th) and sent them - before they could be properly trained or even understand Hebrew - on a suicide mission to attack the Latrun area, fortified by two Arab Legion battallions, in order to relieve beleagured Jewish Jerusalem. He did this in flagrant disregard for both the advice of his operations officer (and de-facto Chief of Staff), Yigael Yadin, as well as the brigade commander himself, Shlomo Shamir, both of whom pointed to the unpreparedeness of the brigade on almost every level. The result: a slaughter unheard of in the annals in the Israeli War of Independence. The number killed, according to this version, range from the hundreds to the thousands. Needless to say, this makes Grant's attack at Cold Harbor (also inaccurately told - see Gordon Rhea's book on the subject) look like a skirmish. It is also incorrect in almost every aspect. Whatever isn't exaggerated is taken out of context. There isn't room on a blog to rebut everything here, so I'll stick to some of the main points, with a bibliography at the end for the rest. 1) The 7th brigade was not compiled solely of immigrants "just off the boats" at the time of the First Battle of Latrun. Several, more experienced units, including the veteran 32nd battallion from the Alexandroni brigade, were attached to balance it out. The 32nd was compiled of native born Israelis or veteran immigrants. 2) Neither Ben-Gurion nor the brigade command knew that the Arab Legion was at Latrun at all, let alone entrenched with a strength of two battallions. According to the (outdated) intelligence in their possession, the positions in and around Latrun were held by Palestnian irregulars. 3) On the basis of this information, the brigade planned to attack Latrun and neighboring Dir Ayub with only three of the nine available companies. The rest were to provide support or perform other tasks. Of the three companies that were to attack, two belonged to the 32nd, and were to attack the Latrun police station itself. Only one company was from the 72nd, which was one of the two battallions made up of new immigrants, and was to attack Dir Ayub. 4) The number of those killed at Latrun is as follows: 32nd battallion - 52 killed, 72nd battallion - 22 killed. NOT 400, CERTAINLY NOT 1,000, BUT 74 killed. Most of those killed were not "fresh off the boat", but were in the country a relatively long while. Moreover, the battle was not a constant charge against entrenched positions with "boat cannon fodder" as has often been alleged, but was rather a retreat almost from the outset. Next time someone tells you, or writes about the "hundreds slaughtered at Latrun", remmeber that this is baloney. For those of you who are interested in finding out more, I recommend the following (in Hebrew): 1) A. Yitzhaki, Latrun, Part One, Jerusalem 1982, p. 210-236. 2) Y. Gelber, Nucleus for a Hebrew Regular Army, Jerusalem 1986, p. 248-253. 3) Y. Markovsy, Gahelet Lohemet, Tel Aviv 1995, chapter on the first battle of Latrun.

Conference Blues

Well, university starts next week, so no more slacking off :). I decided to take this opportunity to write on one of the academic activities I enjoy the least - the academic conference. Academic conferences are always too long, too boring, and too pointless. I have yet to attend a conference, even on subjects I like, that did not evenetually make me want to jump out of my skin for lack of something to do. Therefore, as a public service, and in the hope that conferences will not be nearly as bad as years past, I have compiled the following short list of pointers for those who have to lecture at conferences (commentary will follow in a seperate posting): 1. Keep it short, simple and to the point. 2. If you are assigned 20 minutes, the lecture had better damned well be no more than 20 minutes. No exceptions. 3. Thank you's should last no more than 3 minutes. 4. Look at the audience, not at your notes. Engage us. Use humor if possible. 5. If there is "time to kill" during a session, don't. The audience will thank you. 6. STAY ON TOPIC. 7. Don't use 20 examples when 3 will do. Save the other 17 for the article. The same goes for evidence supporting your argument. 8. Lectures are not laundry lists. Please make each subject interesting in and of itself. Avoid the following monotonic method: "there's this....and then there's that....and then there's this..." 9. If you can not follow any of the above, edit the lecture. As for you poor shmoes who have to attend conferences, here's some suggestions: 1. Assume the worst, that the conference will be awful (it usually is). 2. Bring a book, CD Player, or play games on a pad of paper. 3. Make sure you sit in the middle or back, This way no one will pay attention if you fall asleep (snoring, on the other hand...). This has been an Emergency Public Broadcast for the conference- impaired. If you have attended a conference, don't forget to scream in horror on your way out. Thank you, and have a nice day.

Acharei Hachagim (After the holidays)

'Round here in Israel there's a special period known as "Acharei Hachagim - after the Holidays - which is both a term for a time period, as well as an excuse ("I'll get to it after the Chagim") for the procrastinaters among us (you know who you are). Myself, I'm pretty happy that the Chagim are over and that I will get back to learning - university vacations are much too long for my taste. Anyway, I had a very good time - my relatives from abroad visited us and will be staying a few more days for my sister's bat mitzvah. I hope that everyone had a good time during Tishrei, and wish everyone the very best "Acharei HaChagim". PS You might want to check out Shai's very interesting series on Israeli cinema.

Hashem Yikom Damam

I don't think that there's anything left to say.

Stunning discovery

"I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling (Hamas members) is going on in here (UNRWA)" -Casablanca

Out of Sight, Out of Mind

Many commentators have said that if we only retreat all the way to the Green Line, with no exceptions, then peace will come to the Middle East and everything will be hunky dory. I will only tackle one aspect of this fallacious assumption - the subconcious belief that there's nothing beyond the Green Line except settlements deep in Palestinian territory. As a public service, I will therefore make a short list of some of the places that are beyond the Green Line: 1) A section of Road No. 1 (Jerusalem-Tel-Aviv Road) in the Latrun area. 2) Road 443 to Jerusalem. 3) Gilo, French Hill, the entire Old City etc etc. 4) Gush Etzion, Modi'in Think about this the next time you delude yourself that the '49 borders are miles away from Israel.

Yom Kippur, Part II

On the same subject, from a slightly different perspective, is the following article in the JPost (registration required). I should note that his description of Latrun is very inaccurate (more on this another time).

The Double Meaning of Yom Kippur

Posted below is an essay I wrote last year, when the Yom-Kippur

War "Blame Game" reached a crescendo. The recent controversy

over the Chinse Farm would suggest that little has changed.

The Double Meaning of Yom Kippur Yom Kippur is the holiest day of the Jewish calendar. It is a time Of both judgment and atonement. It is the culmination of a 40-day Period of soul-searching and stock-taking, and which Jews, both Individually and collectively, try to learn from their mistakes and Become better people in the future. Yom Kippur is more a-historical than other holidays. Unlike

Passover and Shavuot, Yom Kippur is not dependent or based on Any specific event that occurred in our history. It is

a day removed from time, a universal standing before

the Almighty to ask for forgiveness. Yet Yom Kippur also has a different significance,

a meaning grounded completely in history. For on this day, the second

bloodiest War in Israel’s short and bloody history began. On that day, Syrian And Egyptian forces attacked the thinly defended IDF lines along the Suez Canal and the Golan heights, starting what would be known as The Yom Kippur War, or simply the ’73 War. It lasted less than a month, and in the end we were victorious, but the Cost was horrific. In less than a month, the IDF had suffered 2781

dead plus tens of thousands wounded, almost one half of

the human cost of the War of Independence, which took more than a year. The war sent shock waves throughout Israeli society, and the trauma Still reverberates to this very day. It was a war in which the seeds

for both Gush Emunim and Peace Now were planted. It is more

than likely that the war had a part in the fall of the Labor Party

and the rise of Menachem Begin. Besides the raw numbers, a feeling took hold that these losses were unnecessary*, that the government, specifically Prime Minister Golda Meir and Defense Minister Moshe Dayan, by failing to call up enough troops in time, had caused needless loss of life, all due to the post-Six Day War feeling of invincibility known in Israel as the ‘conception’. Others would later claim that they were responsible for the war because they failed to heed Sadat’s ambiguous 1971 call for a negotiated land-for-peace deal, thus ‘forcing’ him to go to war. Thus started what has become a national pastime, an annual carnival -the Yom Kippur War “Blame Game”, or the anniversary of the ‘Mehdal’. Every Yom Kippur the same story, the same arguing over who was more responsible for the failure to call up the troops-the government or the military. Every year, Meir, Dayan and “Dado” are dug up from their graves to face a kangaroo court of public opinion that decides each year whether or not they deserve to be shot. Rather than pay respects to those who fought and died, or were scarred, both physically and emotionally, in defense of this country, pages upon pages are wasted on the irrelevant question of who was more at fault or who was more responsible for the circling of the Third Egyptian army. Nobody ever stops to think and wonder whether these arguments and blame games lead anywhere or serve any tangible purpose. No one does any real soul-searching or try and learn lessons from ‘Israel’s Shiloh’**. Rather than ask “what went wrong”, newspapers and pundits spend each year asking “whose fault was it” or "who screwed up". The time has long past for us to take the lessons of Yom Kippur the Day of Atonement and put them to use to understand Yom Kippur the historical event. The time has long past for us to learn what really happened and why. It is time that we look at the pain straight in the eye, and come to terms with what we lost, as well as what can be healed or learned in the future. Rather than argue endlessly what generals and leaders did or did not achieve, we should be asking those who were there-the soldiers themselves, those for whom the war was a living, breathing nightmare, not some abstract theoretical discussion. We must hear their story and learn from them, as well as those who were in the home front, the real experience that was the Yom Kippur War, and learn from it. To achieve closure, however partial, we must be willing to face reality and not run from it. We have the tools, we have the people, and we have the experience of 3,000 years of annual stocktaking to be able to face this challenge. The only question that remains is-do we have the guts?

* Recently this has been supplanted with charges of

misconduct and negligence of senior officers

at the Chinese Farm.

** One of the bloodiest battles of the American Civil War, in which the Federal army was taken by surprise by the Confederates, due in part to the high command’s failure to foresee, or properly prepare for, a Confederate assault, being busy with their own offensive plans. The Federals were ultimately victorious, but the losses were staggering-some 13,000 Federals and 10,000 Confederates were killed, wounded or missing the end of the two-day battle.

The Man and His Work (on Bobby Fischer)

I do not think that anyone would today deny that Bobby Fischer was one of the greatest chess players of all time, or at least of the 20th century. His games against Donald Byrne, Robert Byrne and others are masterpieces that are a joy to play over and over again. Yet I don't think anyone would deny that Fischer is also a hate-mongering, paranoid lunatic (anyone with doubts should see this essay, registration required). His anti-semitic rantings are even more repulsive given the fact that he himself is a Jew. So what is one to do about this clear difference between Bobby Fischer, chess genius, and Bobby Fischer, lunatic? Do we ignore Fischer the man to enjoy Fischer the chessplayer? Or maybe he should be ignored, removed from the pantheon for his actions? A few years ago, a similar argument took place regarding Richard Wagner. The composer Daniel Berenboim wanted to play Wagner in Israel, despite the man's virulently anti-semitic background and the protests of Holocaust survivors, who had to hear him play in the German camps. The argument was heated as those opposed pointed to both Wagner the man and the feelings of the Holocaust survivors. Thosewho were in favor argued that the artist must be seperated from his art, and that Wagner's music could and should be seperated from Wagner the man. Sometimes peole tried to poo-poo Wagner's anti-semitism, so desperate were they to justify themselves in hearing Wagner. I remember how an op-ed appeared in Ha'Aretz (where else would such a piece appear?) tried as hard as possible to whitewash Wagner and play down his hate-filled past. This was a clear attempt to enable himself and others to hear his music with a "clear conscience". I will make no such pretense. I know and acknowledge that Fischer is a scumbag and a despicable bastard (so was Wagner). Still, does this mean I can't enjoy his games? Where does one draw the line? Can the artist truly be seperated from his art?

Chess Link

As mentioned before, this blog will also cover chess. To start with, here's a link to an excellent site featuring more than 400 problems. A new problem is introduced every week. Unlike other sites, this one does not give "Mate in X number of moves" or "what is white's best move?". Rather, it contains problems that require calculation and patience. Recommended for anyone who wants to improve their technique, win the on-site competition, or just enjoy some good chess positions.

Demography

Pundits both right and left have been screaming bloody murder, arguing that unless we take drastic action soon (negotiations and the establishment of a Palestinian state, transfer), the Jews will be a minority west of the Jordan and a unitary state of Palestine will be erected, with predictable results for the Jews. I would like to ask these folks a number of questions: 1) If the Palestinians really have such a winning card, why should they bother negotiating with us at all? Why ask only for the '67 borders when they can have it all in a little while? 2) The Palestinians and their supporters have been crying about the "occupation" for the longest time, and it has taken them decades to get anywhere with it. Is it conceivable that they will be able to shift gears and suddenly argue for the "South African" model after arguing the opposite for so long? 3) Heck, why haven't they demanded the right to vote now? Given the fractousness of Israeli politics, they would be a controling bloc for any government. Any answers?

Welcome!

I'm a 22-year old American-Israeli student at Bar Ilan University, and I'm setting up this blog to be able to put in my two cents on various subjects from the prosaic (chess, weather) to the interesting (history) to current affairs. At the request of a friend, I will try not to concentrate solely on Israeli politics (though it's pretty hard!). Stop by and tell me what you think!