The Full Monty

Much discussion has been caused by a recent article in the London Review of Books (available here with footnotes, batteries not included), which attacks the evil Israel Lobby, and regurgitates virtually every anti-Israel canard currently on the market, accepting them hook, line and sinker. This article is the most extensive and thorough piece of anti-Israel propaganda now available online, one so full of BS that it would take a week with a full team of experts to completely rebut it. On the other hand, the article also presents an opportunity. Its very thoroughness presents Israel's defenders with a chance to come face to face with the entire laundry-list of charges and rip them to shreds.

Where would one start though? How's about the regurgitated libel that Israel massacred hundreds of Egyptian POW's in '67. This charge was originally brought by James Bamford who allegged that Israel bombed the USS Liberty to cover up the crime. It was rebutted years ago by Dr. Michael Oren in the New Republic, who showed that Bamford's "evidence" was no such thing. The authors merely bring Bamford's evidence, blissfully unaware of the rebuttal.

What about the contention that the only argument regarding the Palestinian Refugee Problem is not whether it what ethnic cleansing - they claim it was - but rather, it is whether it was born by war or design? This statement is a repetition of our good friend Norman Finkelstein's claim that there is a consensus that the Paslestinian Refugee Problem was caused by Israel 'ethnically cleansing' them. [He claims to rely on 'leading scholars' such as Morris, Kimmerling and Pappe. Kimmerling is a sociologist, not an historian, and is known for his anti-Israel views. Pappe is about as objective and reliable as, well, Norman Finkelstein. Pappe is hardly a 'leading scholar' nowadays. Not only has his reputation been tarnished over the Tantura affair, his 'History of Modern Palestine' was destroyed for stupid and elementary factual errors. Even scholars sympathetic to his viewpoint such as Stephen Howe and Charles Smith, had to point out such blunders as the claim that Deir Yassin is near Haifa (it's near Jerusalem).]

The only 'concensus' exists in the fertile minds of Finkelstein, Walt & Co. Many prominent historians of the relevant period - Joseph Heller, Yoav Gelber, Anita Shapira, Mordechai Bar-On, Efraim Karsh and others have disputed many of Morris' arguments, especially when it comes to his belief that 'transfer' was a central part of Zionist thinking during 1937-1948. Prof. Alon Kadish and Prof. Avraham Sela (Hebrew University) recently disputed Morris' claim of a massacre and premeditated expulsion in Lydda in the Middle East Journal. Of course, since most of this debate takes place in Hebrew-Language and 'Zionist' journals such as Zion and Cathedra, or by evil 'Zionists', we can forgive these 'Israel Experts' from failing to actually read what non-fringe historians say. BTW, I actually read Morris' revised book, not just his much-publicized interviews, and nowhere did I find a statement that an 'ethnic cleansing' had taken place.

I hope this helps contribute to the thorough demolition of these libels. Readers are invited to add more in the Comments Box or in other forums.

The Israel Shahak Fan Club Redux

We have had opportunity on this blog to make mention of one Israel Shahak, Jewish anti-semite, and his band of followers from the looney left. Now it turns out that the distinguished Middle East Policy Council openly endorses Shahak's views on Zionism and Israel, apparently unaware of the man's openly hateful and distorted views of Judaism.

Those who read this blog are invited to write this organization and protest this inadvertant support for a hate-mongerer.

An Attempt at a Fisking of an Anti-Zionist

A recent self-righteous and rather childish rant in favor of "debating Zionism" has prompted me to make my first attempt at a fisking. Here goes:

The debate over Zionism going on in Jewish communities is as old as Zionism itself. It did not end after the Holocaust, and it did not end conclusively with the founding of the State of Israel.

So far as I know, it was settled, and the majority of Jews accepted the existence of Israel. The mere existence of a debate does not mean that both sides are equally legitamate, accepted or relevant. There are still people who argue in favor of the South's right to secede in the Civil War. The fact that there were still a few insignificant minority voices such as the ACJ is irrelevant. Moreover, I would like to see some evidence for this sweeping statement.

The champions of Zionism among Jews seem to have become a majority only after the 1967 war, but even then there was a significant minority of non-Zionists in any Jewish society.

Surely someone who participated in a debate knows that one needs to present evidence for their claims. Rather than do so, Baram simply claims that "it seems" this was the case. As such, there's nothing to refute.

However, it seems that the more powerful the Zionism trend has become among Jews, the more hysterical its supporters have turned. They engage in constant stable-cleaning, sniffing for dissidents behind every curtain, finding non-Zionists under each cupboard.

Once again, "it seems" that this is the case, and there's no need for evidence. If Baram had done any historical research at all, she would have known that arguments between Zionists and anti-Zionists were no less heated prior to 1967 (and the anti-Zionists gave as good as they got). One need only read Rory Miller's study on Jewish anti-Zionists in Britain during 1945-48, and the Zionists' fight aginst them, to know this. As they say, a little learning...

...Reading the responses of Emanuele Ottolenghi ("Jews against Israel," February 22) and Melanie Phillips (in her infamous blog) to the recent debate over Zionism held in Cambridge in which Brian Klug, Richard Kuper and myself argued for alternatives to Zionism, one would think that Israel was not a nuclear regional superpower possessing the fourth most powerful army in the world, but a shaky sanctuary where Jews are annihilated by the thousands every day.

Let's see, on the one hand "we" argue against the very raison d'etre of the State, and then we wonder why our opponents are jumpy (I wonder if they would feel the same way if people who debated "alternatives" to Palestinian nationalism countered that "one would think that the Palestinians aren't the darlings of the international community, and coddled at every turn"). Then we throw in an utterly irrelevant remark about the strength of the country's military, as if that has anything to do with the diplomatic attempts to dismantle it. Surely Baram knows the difference between apples and oranges.

BUT ARE WE really not strong enough to have such a debate? Abraham Leon's book arguing against Zionism was smuggled out of Auschwitz; Algerian dissident Abraham Sarfati held on to his non-Zionist criticism even after years of imprisonment in Algiers for his opposition to the local regime. Zionism is not an obvious response to suffering or to persecution. If those people, true Jewish heroes, kept on debating the subject while exposed to the most horrible perils, so, surely, can we.

Once again, so you get the point, the existence of a debate does not make it ipso facto legitamite. One must prove such a point. Appeals to authority (so and so debated Zionism) do not convince. The second point is even more laughable. Zionism was an obvious response to persecution - it remains an historic fact that many Jews became Zionists because of it, even prior to the Holocaust. Hovevei Zion was a reaction to persecution. Once again, however, this would require knowing history.

...One can only wonder what really poses a danger to fellow Jews - Brian Klug's suggestion that Jewish existence not center around Israel (he never said "There's no place in this world for nationalism")? Richard Kuper's revulsion over Israel's behavior in the West Bank? My own claim that Israel should belong to all its citizens? Or maybe, as one dead prime minister might tell us, were he able, it is those who wildly incite against anybody who dares divert from the party line.

Wow. Baram really pulls out all the stops on this one. First there's the support for nationalism for everyone except Jews. Then there's the "revulsion" over the West Bank, which does not have a bearing on the argument itself, which is about Zionism in general. We also get the obligatory support for a "state of all its citizens" without any explanation as to what that means. The icing on the cake is of course the not-so subtle "Rabin-murderer" smear that still has not gotten old.

FYI, Ms. Baram, Rabin, for all his faults, was a convinced Zionist to the end of his days, and he must now be rolling in his grave seeing you abuse his murder to render yourself immune to criticism so you can smear the country. It's very sad that this is the current level of intelligent debate at Cambridge...

Karsh VS. Pappe

Efraim Karsh demolishes Ilan Pappe's new book, while (justifiably, IMHO) blasting Cambridge University Press for having published such a poor work. Read the whole thing.

PS Check out Benny Morris' demolition as well. AIWAC

East VS. West

Once again, Ben-Dror Yemini hits the nail on the head with a no-holds-barred op-ed on the cartoon riots. Put simply: Edwards Said and his acolytes have prevented any and all criticism of the Middle East, and that region is still stuck in self-denial, believing, as always, that nothing is their fault. Recommended.

Back to Israel = South Africa

The Guardian (where else?) has now come out with a long article on why Israel is equivalent to Apartheid South Africa. (Hat Tip: Augean Stables)

Six years ago, I would have been shocked to hear of this sort of thing. Nowadays, such items are about as routine as reports of traffic accidents. This is a very sad testament both to the amount of anti-Israel propoganda that has been disseminated and its acceptance as legitamite within too many "enlightened" circles. This is not good at all. AIWAC

Israel Shahak's Heir

Steven Plaut has the goods on Yigal Elam, a man with a self-loathing so severe that he makes Norman Finkelstein look relatively tame. No words exist in any language that can describe my utter contempt and disgust at people such as Elam. To say that people like him are like something from under a rock is an insult to reptiles and insects everywhere.

Zionist Historians and Zionist History

The phenomenon of the "New Historians" has pretty much played itself out (for Israel's first decade, that is, they're just getting started on the next). Everything that could have been said has been said, and it is unlikely that either side will be swayed one way or the other at this point. However, even if the arguments have been done to death, the question of how to rewrite Israel's history, especially for the high school cirriculum, in such a way that it incorporates new revelations on the one hand, and maitains a pro-Zionist (or at least not anti-Zionist) outlook on the other, is a challenge that requires immediate attention. We are, first and foremost, a people rooted in history and common identity. If we can not answer the mal'izim in a way that will convince the uninitiated that Zionism and Israel is just, even if it does make bad mistakes, then the whole structure is in danger of collapse.

Consider, for instance, a scathing critique of Efraim Herzog's book, recently republished, on the Arab-Israel wars in Ha'Aretz (where else?) by a left-wing Zionist historian, Professor Yehiam Weitz. Weitz decries the outdated nature of the text and its ignorance of recent research that shows Israel in a somewhat more negative light (whether the research is ipso facto correct just because of its recentness is another matter...). Indeed, the recent attempts to come out with albums and books simplisticly reaffirming old values seem to yours truly to be an act of desperation to stem an ever-flowing tide towards anti-Zionism as well as a radical critique of everything we hold dear.

Nevertheless, Weitz's complaint can serve no purpose if it is not matched by an equally determined effort on the part of those historians and scholars not bitten by the anti-everything bug to produce a history that is capable of swallowing the grains of truth in anti-Zionist claims and putting them in context, and spitting out the rest. To do nothing but complain about those who make a genuine, if insufficient effort to reaffirm our core values is to prefer cursing the darkness to lighting a candle. It will achieve nothing.

To write a "new Zionist" history that deals with the good and the bad is by no means impossible. Prof. Yoav Gelber and Prof. Joseph Heller, to name just two scholars, have both come out with studies on controversial topics that deal with, and dispose of, revisionist claims. This effort must now increase tenfold - the "critical scholars" have a lead in terms of the sheer amount of revisionist and critical works published under various auspices. Time is of the essence.

Wow

Anti-Chomsky on Munich. No words do this post justice - Read the whole thing.

Tidbits - February Issue of Commentary

• Efraim Karsh takes Robert Fisk to the cleaners.
• Guenter Lewy debates his critics on the Armenian Genocide.
• Hillel Halkin on why we lost the Hasbara War.
• Gabriel Schoenfeld takes on Munich.

Hot Off the Presses

Uri Bialer, one of Israel's most prominent historians, has recently come out with a book on the relations between the State of Israel and the Christan World between 1948 and 1967, entitled "Cross on the Star of David" (also available in Hebrew). Highly recommended.

The Carrot and the Stick - Israeli Universities

In his editorial on the sorry state of education in the state of Israel, David Hazony does not spare the universities. In his opinion, and in mine as well, standards for courses have been greatly reduced, to the point that any addition to the task burden in courses leads to a student outcry. There are various reasons for this state of affairs, such as the fact that most undergraduate students have to finish their degree at the breakneck speed of three years - in addition to holding down a job or other responsibilities. The students thus legitimately complain that they simply have no time to invest more than the minimum required for each course they take (often 8 or more a semester).

There are of course various ways to solve this problem. Standards can and should be raised. Students should have the option of 'spreading' their responsibilities over 4-5 years, thus enabling them to gain more from their studies (de facto, this is what happens, since many students invariably spend another year or two making up missing courses, often being penalized for doing so by the universities). Such suggestions, however, are only part of the solution, since they recommend more enforcement, but ignore the lack of motivation on the part of the student to excel in their studies.

Indeed, why should they? Mima Nafshach, if the student is aiming for an M.A. or a PhD, they will likely give short shrift to investing in 'mere' undergraduate studies - the scholarships and the fame are almost exclusively limited to M.A. earners and above. If, on the other hand, the student simply wants the degree for a pay increase or because of societal demands, why should s/he bother excelling? Excellence can not be increased by enforcement alone - it must also be encouraged and rewarded. Your prospective student should know that there is something to be gained by spending more time on their studies, other than the private satisfaction of having done a good job.

I think that one way to do so would be to set up an undergraduate online journal for each faculty. Students should be encouraged to write their papers with an eye towards having their material published in the journal. Also, online debating forum and the writing of "blogs" should be encouraged as a way for students and teachers to share information outside of the confines of the classroom.

If any of you have other suggestions, feel free to 'drop' them in the comments box. AIWAC

The Return of 'Diasporism'

"The Jews' problem is not that they are not assimilable, but rather that they are too assimilable" - paraphrasing of Cecil Roth

It is a common assumption that Jewish anti-Zionism in its various forms died out, or was marginalized, by the twin blows of the Holocaust and the establishment of the State of Israel. Especially shaken, according to this view, was the 'diaspora' ideal, which actively negated the concept of Jewish self-determination, and exalted the concept of Jewish subject communities throughout various countries. The 'symbiosis' of various communities with their host countries (take your pick - Germany/Iraq/Britain Morocco/Soviet Union etc) were touted as proof of this vision. The Holocaust drove this movement underground, at least for a time.

I think it can be now stated that Jewish anti-Zionism in the form of 'diasporism' is now back in full swing. True, it never completely died, but even non-Zionists, at least for a time, accepted the reality of a Jewish state. Now, however, it is a full-blown, fully legitamized intellectual movement, comprised mainly of intellectuals and academics of varying calibers, united in their hatred of Jewish nationalism in any form, and determined to return to the 'good old days' of Jews 'fertilizing' other cultures. A good example of this is Reuven Snir's article in the 2003 Issue of Middle Eastern Studies on the 'Jew-Arab' golden age, as well as Eric Hobsbawm's and Henry Wasserman's lament of the glorious German-Jewish tradition, destroyed by the evil manipulative, narrow-minded Zionists.

There are those of you who will respond that this is a 'lunatic-fringe' phenomenon, a collection of the usual self-hating Jews. Sadly, this is simply not true. At least in Israel, this movement has gained respectability and even semi-official recognition. Articles by 'diasporists' are often written up in Ha'Aretz, and their books are published by 'establishment' publishing houses such as Am Oved, HaKibutz HaMeuchad, and the Van Leer Institute. Moreover, these scholars, together with 'critical sociologists' and 'new historians', are often in senior positions in their universities, ready to mold young minds against the evil Zionism and to exalt the diaspora. More to the point, there exists no comparable intellectual movement to stem the steady erosion of Zionist values accomplished by this and other movements.

I don't know about you, but I am increasingly having less and less faith in our ability to stem this tide. AIWAC

Replacing old myths with new ones

I will let my few readers here on a little secret - "myth-busting" is one of the most cherished and sought-after prizes among would-be and actual historians. Alongside lifetime prizes and collegial respect, nothing makes our mouth water more than the prospect of making a conference presentation or writing an article - stating that everything historians believed up until now is baloney - and watch them squirm.

It goes without saying that I have nothing against "myth-busting" efforts per say. "Myth-busters", however, must be very knowledgeable people - they must know what they are talking about. Otherwise, instead of squirming, the prospective buster will be laughed out of the room as an ignoramus and never heard from again.

It is with some regret and much satisfaction that I must place the recent "Hannukah Myth-Buster" written in Slate, for the most part, in the latter category. Although a number of facts presented in this openly anti-Zionist piece are correct, the article overall contains factual holes large enough to drive a train through, or even an Hellenic army. The fact that I can say this even though my specialty is the Modern Period makes Ponet's effort even more laughable (The fact that he is the Jewish chaplain for Yale is disturbing). While I invite others more knowledgeable to punch more holes, I will point out some of the main problems:

• Ponet makes no mention of other sources such as Josephus, who is our only source for the period post-Shimon.
• Ponet neglects to mention that of all the ethnic groups that were in Hellensitic Palestine - only two have survived - the Jews, and a small sect of Samaritans. Everyone else, the Edomites, the yeturim and the Nabateans, all disappeared. This does not bode well for the "it's possible to survive and maintain one's identity under foreign rule" thesis.
• Ponet "conveniently" forgets that the decrees by Antiouchus Epiphanes - attested to in the Macabees books - may very well have been recommended by said Hellenic Jews (Bickerman's argument).
• The fact - attested to by archaeology - that almost all of Eretz Israel aside from Samaria became Jewish under the Hasmoneans is forgotten. Before that we were geographically confined to the Jerusalem-Lydda area and likely would have suffered the fate of the Edomites.
• The "civil war" between the Perushim and the Zedukim during the Hasmonean and Roman periods (as opposed to the hellenists) is well documented in Jewish sources.
• The claim that the "Maccabean dream" was the main reason for the Great revolt and the Bar Kokhba revolt (as opposed to, I don't know, say Roman oppression, ethnic conflict between Jews and non-Jews, social conflict between the elite and the dispossessed, the establishment of the destroyed Jerusalem as Aelia Capitolina etc) is a load of BS.
• As for whether an ethnic group needs a nation-state, in light of the ever-shrinking Jewish population in the diaspora, my answer would be an emphatic yes.

  So remember - "myth-busting" is only for those who have a command of history - AIWAC

Tidbits - Misc.

• Yeesh, what a grouch.
• I always though the Romans had something to do with it...

To Love the Nothing

I recently watched a movie called Closer, which details the rotten moral world inhabited by four characters - two male, and two female. The film can best be described as utterly heartless, even cheerfully so. The characters are blunt in their statements about their infidelities and feelings, and 'humanity' or morality is a currency that has no value.

Several years ago, I read Lord of the Flies as part of the required reading for the literature bagrut. That work, although it ultimately described the victory of animalistic and immoral tendencies over humanity, was meant more as a warning about the dangers of this happening to us if we are not careful. Closer, by contrast, is a celebration of its own moral vaccousness. It is but a symptom of a broader tendency in the Western world to celebrate the nothing, to praise the id. What was once called "criticism" is often not meant to help change things for the better but rather to bask in the putrid state it claims society is currently in. It makes me sick to my stomach that we've come to this. This is the civilization that brought democracy, human rights and mutual tolerance?

The same reasons that made me resist the message of Lord of the Flies make me feel disgusted by this movie. Humankind has shown itself capable not only of horrible things, but also great ones. Contrary to the director's narcissistic view, many of the people I've "bumped into" over the years have been quite decent folk. Not saints, to be sure, but certainly not the bastards described in this movie. We are taught in Judaism that we have a good inclination alongside the evil one. To look only at bad deeds and people, but to ignore the good ones, is no less of a deception than to do the opposite.

Some of you may very well want to walk down that road of self-negation. To those of you who decide to do so, I bid you farewell - I will have no part in it. AIWAC

The Definition of Progress

Seen in the Efrat Pharmacy:

"Doctor, I have an earache"

2000 BC: "Eat this root"

1000 AD: "Roots are for unbelievers. Pray for your health"

1850 AD: "Prayer is silly superstition. Take this pill"

1940 AD: "The pill's no good, drink this liquid"

1985 AD: "The liquid's no good, take this antibiotic"

2000 AD: "Antibiotics are artifical, eat this root"

Tidbits - Academic

• Prof. Sam Lehman-Wilzig, Head of the PoliSci department at Bar-Ilan, writes a .pdf-blog, where he discusses various issues regarding Israeli academia (in Hebrew). His latest post is a discussion of a sad fact - in the land of Hebrew, only publications in English are considered worthwhile.
• The new Azure is out, with an essay by David Hazony on the sad state of Israeli education today, including universities, and an interesting piece on the concept of borders and sovereignty in Zionist thought (free reg. required).
• Israel Affairs has also come out with an issue dedicated to Israel and Islam. (Sadly, Israel Affairs is a perfect example of what Wilzig laments - that is, an excellent, informative, scholarly journal about trends in Israel that is only available in English, which no-one here will willingly read).

An Israeli Shabbes

Israel is a hectic place. Political and economic problems are ever-present in print and visual media, as well as discussions between people here. Too often, the obsession with everyday problems spills into Shabbat, and the atmosphere of the day is punctured with heated debates about Sharon, the economy, the elections and what not.

For many years, I too would read the Friday newspapers for much of Shabbat. Then, slowly but surely, I came to the realization that it just wasn't worth it. The newspapers rarely had anything interesting, and the news was usually depressing and made me feel miserable. So, for the past few months, I have forced myself into a change of habit - I read the papers early on Friday, and either completely avoid or minimize my newspaper reading on Shabbat.

I can not begin to describe how much more pleasurable Shabbat has become for me since I made that change. For me, Shabbat is now more than just a day where I don't watch TV and talk on the phone. Suddenly, the Day of Rest really is a day unconnected to the world and its insanities, including the Israeli ones.

So I wish you all a Shabbat Shalom, and hope that we will all be able to truly appreciate Shabbat for what it is. The problems of the world and the Jewish people can surely stand to take a break for one day in the week.

History and Propaganda

Professor Yoav Gelber's indispensable history of the Israeli War of Independence (otherwise known as the 1948 War) is now available in paperback. I highly recommend reading the appendices, available online, which compare what actually happened at Deir Yassin and Tantura, with the version present in Palestinian propaganda.

Enjoy,

AIWAC

The Land Before Time

"...Nostalgia is the longing for what never was" - Sir Harold Evans, The American Century

Once upon a time, not too long ago, there was a state called Israel. It was a veritable paradise, with a booming economy, an egalitarian society and a unified nation. There were few terrorist casualties, and the border was rather quiet. Then came the stunning victories of the Six-Day War, and the country began going downhill. Capitalism, settlements, militarism, occupation, and religious fanaticism are but some of the results that came of this disasterous victory. The NRP dared to turn from a MAPAI lapdog to a party with a will of its own (albeit the wrong one, IMHO), the fascists took over (Likud) and the state became ostracized. Worse, the Jewish populace itself began to split into various factions, creating the chaos we see today.

If you believe the above description, then I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you, real cheap. I will leave it to others to punch holes in the historical innacuracies in the above narrative. Indeed, I would not have bothered mentioning it if this were not the position of many on the left, from the lunatic-fringe (scroll down to Oren's letter on Judt) to the old-guard Zionists.

I can't shake the feeling that the cry "back to the " '67 lines" means a lot more than just a position on the state's final borders. It represents a desire to turn back the clock and reverse the events and trends in Israeli society that have taken place since the Six Day War. How else can one explain Elazar Stern's desire to create a Ben-Gurion style IDF, Sharon's desire to actually become the next Ben-Gurion and the obsession with the Galilee and the Negev? More to the point, are so many people so deluded that they think that even a return to the Green Line will instantly solve all problems, like some magic wand? Do they really think they can turn back time?

Comments would be greatly appreciated. AIWAC

On False Symmetry and non-Jewish Jews

Leon Weiseltier has a devastating critique of Speilberg's Munich, as well as it's writer Tony Kushner, in the New Republic (free registration required). The pathology of people like Kushner never ceases to amaze me.

Life in an Israeli University

• Your average classroom will contain 25% knowledgable, active participants, 65% stenographers, and 10% who don't show up.
• The most common questions in the classroom are: "Could you repeat that again?" and "What will/Will this be on the test?
• Everything - from grades to attendance requirements - is open to negotiation.
• Things you will never hear a student say in an Israeli University: "What? Only English and Hebrew? I want Latin, Ancient Greek, and Russian!", "Sir, I think the grade you gave me was too high", "Only 25 pages? That's only enough for my introduction!"
• Skills acquired in an Israeli classroom: knitting kippas, staring in space, and handwritten stenography.
• Tests are better than papers when you have to write papers. Papers are better than tests when you have to take tests.
• "Liberal Arts" does not exist here. Consequently, many university graduates are educated ignoramuses.
• Don't bother sucking up to the teacher - tests are graded blind.

Beneath Contempt

This article needs no introduction. I can only hope that Finkielkraut will make it through this. (Hat Tip: Azure)

Countdown to Eviction

I don't think there's anything left to say. Welcome to "Hitnatkut - the Sequel", with hundreds of thousands people being evicted instead of 8,000. I'm sure all our left wing folks will have a field day. Somehow I don't feel like writing anymore. AIWAC

Damn It, Not Again

Another mass murder has taken place in Netanya. I hope there's a nice place in hell set aside for the murderer. My prayers are with the families of those killed. Shelo Neyda Od Tza'ar.

Muslim Period Conference Report

[Disclaimer: Once again, I am reporting on a subject about which I know comparatively little. The opinions of the various scholars are their own. Please do not shoot the messenger. Thank you - AIWAC]

Well, I must say that the conference was not a total disaster. Most of the lecturers remained within their alloted time frame (more or less), and many of the presentations were quite enlightening. Some people even remembered to tell jokes and keep the audience (including yours truly) awake. Below are some some of the highlights:

As mentioned before, this subject of this conference was Israel during the First Muslim Period, from the Muslim conquests in the 7th century until the Crusades (late 11th century), although most of the lectures covered only the Muslim Conquests and the Ummayad Period. The subject of the reliability of the Muslim historiography of the conquests was a particularly contentious subject. Prof. Amiqam Elad and a master student of his (forgot his name) argued that it was possible to unearth historical facts and events from the Muslim sources through a critical reading thereof. They claimed that although the Muslim sources we now have were written a century or two after the fact, this does not prevent us from discerning the earlier sources and checking their credibility (ala Josephus, for instance). Prof. Moshe Sharon, on the other hand, dropped a bombshell by claiming that the Muslim histories were a bunch of bubba mayses with kernels of truth. He compared the Muslim historical project to an alternate reality in which no documents survived from WWI, and in which the history thereof was done by interviewing some old Germans. Needless to say, this caused much consternation and discussion. [Sharon has an article plugging this line that is due to come out soon in Studia Orientalia (I think this is it). Should be interesting.]

Archaeology of the Muslim period was another theme in the conference. Prof. Yossi Patrich discussed the transition of Ceasaria from the Byzantine to the Umayyad Period. Dr. Katya Zitrin discussed the subject of roads in Israel during the Umayyad period, where she showed that the Umayyad "road project" consisted mainly of maintenance of Roman and Byzantine roads and installations, rather than the construction of new roads or milestones. Dr. Gideon Avny of the Israeli Antiquities Authority shed new light on Ramle, the city that was erected from scratch during the Umayyad period. He showed that the number of excavations being done there has grown exponentially and has contributed a great deal to our knowledge of the city.

Another theme of the conference was the life of the Dhimmi communities under Early Muslim rule. The picture that emerged was mixed. Dr. Michael Erlich showed that the historical evidence points to a general tolerance of Dhimmi religious structures, with mosques and churches/synagogues exiting side by side rather than mosques replacing churches. Dr. Avni also showed this to be the case - in Jerusalem, for instance, Christian institutions (at least until the 9th century) grew during this period, and Dr. Shimon Gath showed that there were large, mainly unmolested Dhimmi communities in Ramle, a Muslim-built city. On the other hand, another lecturer (whose name escapes me for the moment) showed that the flight of much of the population of the cities along the coast during the Muslim conquests - due both to fear of war and a Muslim policy of expelling the Dhimmi inhabitants along the coastline - lead to a collapse of these cities and a break between the Middle East and the Mediterannian (which became called 'the Byzantine (hostile) Sea'). The Christian communities were now cut off from centers in Asia Minor, and had to adjust to life under Islam.

All in all, an interesting conference. I hope that there will be a discussion of later Muslim periods (Fatimid, Mamluk etc), to see whether the picture described above changed and why.

Here Goes Nothing...

So help me, I am going tomorrow to an all-day academic conference on the effects of the "First Muslim Period" (63~-1099) on Israel from a geographical and religious point of view. At least I can take comfort in the fact that some big guns will be there - such as Moshe Sharon and Ronnie Ellenblum.

"Gentlemen, Start Your Screaming!" - Penguin to Batman, Batman Returns

On Selective Outrage

Ben-Dror Yemini blasts the hypocrites who only seem to find 'corruption' on the opposite side of the political spectrum. Ken Yirbu.

Tidbits - Academic (and Jewish) Stuff

• Ronnie Ellenblum is known for his book on Frankish settlement in Israel during the Crusader period. In it, he questioned the perception of Crusaders as alien invaders who cowered in castles and cities for protection - he showed that there was quite a bit of settlement going on in some areas. Moreover, he demonstrated that many of the castles were built in relatively safe areas, and thus can not be explained as mere fortresses. He also attacked the notion that the local population (Eastern Christian and Muslim) was uniformly hostile to the Crusaders. Now, Ellenblum is coming out with a new book on Crusader Castles, also meant to undermine simplistic notions of 'Crusaders VS everyone else' in the Middle East. Let's hope Ellenblum's second work turns out to be as thought-provoking as the first.
• The latest issue of Israel Affairs is a veritable jem, loaded with informative and interesting articles, from a discussion of 'escapist' parties in Israel (Green Leaf, anyone?) to a long critique of Israel's radical academics. Well worth a trip to the nearest university library.
• Also worth a trip is an article in the latest issue of Middle East Journal. The article is a discussion of the Lydda/Ramle controversy by Alon Kadish and Avraham Sela, two professors who wrote a book on the subject (with Arnon Golan) which was published in Hebrew in 2001. The subject itself is too long for a blog post, but suffice it to say that Kadish and Sela dispute (convincingly, IMO), Benny Morris' claim of a massacre in one of the mosques during the 12th of July, and make a strong case against the idea that the expulsion of the inhabitants of Lydda and Ramle was premeditated. Well worth the read, whatever side you're on.
• ...and finally for something Jewish, as promised. Dr. Gur Alroey, author of an excellent study of Jewish immigrants to Israel during the second aliya (all the immigrants, not just the pioneers), has recently set up a database of names of Jews who contacted various agencies in an attempt to emigrate from the 'Pale of Settlement'. In their own words:

  ...The MJMD records are base on the applications of Jewish emigrants who applied to the JCA & ITO's information bureaux which were scattered all over the Pale of Settlement in the Russian Empire in the early twentieth century...In particular, the MJMD aims to understand the causes, characteristics and patterns of the Jewish Migration in the early twentieth century. In addition, the MJMD enables, via search engine, to look for relatives who possibly migrated through the two information bureaux...The MJMD invites the public to visit us at this site.

  I highly recommend that you do so.

That's all for now, folks. AIWAC

A Victory for Decency

The mythological Captain R., who was accused of having committed "kill verification" on a 13-year old girl who was killed when she came too near an army installation, was acquitted of all charges today. Thus ends a horrifying saga in which R. was mercilessly attacked as a cold-blooded monster.

It would be nice to say that this was a one-time incident. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Put bluntly, in the court of public opinion in Israel, you are presumed guilty until proven innocent, if then. You are not entitled to any kind of presumption of innocence. Moreover, the papers will never give the kind of attention to your acquittal (buried on the back pages), that they dedicated to spreading every rumor, however unfounded, "proving" your guilt. I still remember the "Strashnov affair" which burst onto the Israeli media scene for a week during Netanyahu's reign, only to fizzle out a year later. Such behavior is a blot on the Israeli media.

I have nothing but contempt for those who jettisoned all semblence of human decency in the case of Captain R. and others. May they live to suffer but a fraction of the humiliation and disgrace caused to Captain R by their irresponsible reporting.

The Coming Historical Firestorm (and it's not about the Arabs or the Israelis)

[Disclaimer: This post is meant as a discussion of the Armenian genocide/massacres question solely as a "news" item in the historical area. I make no pretensions as to authoritative facts on the issue, as I know little on the subject of the Armenian Genocide/Massacres aside from some second-hand info. I apologize beforehand if I make any stupid mistakes - AIWAC]

Gunter Lewy, a well-respected political scientist, is no stranger to controversy. He is the author of a book on the Nazi persecution of the gypsies, where he argued that though they suffered terribly and were often massacred en masse, their suffering was not "genocide" as there was no overall intention to wipe them all out, as opposed to the Jews. Recently, he also disputed the claim that the American Indians suffered a "genocide" at the hands of European colonists, again due to the lack of intent to exterminate them.

Both works aroused heated debate. However, none are as likely to cause the "earthquake" that will likely arise from his next work - on the Armenian genocide/massacres - that will come out at the end of the month under the University of Utah Press imprint. An article of Lewy's, perhaps meant as precurser to his book, has already received an indignant and long reply from Vahakn Dadrian, one of the leading authorities on the subject (It is probably his letter that is part of the "Armenian Genocide" Correspondence in the current issue of MEQ.)

If I understand correctly, and again I'm not an expert, no one (at least no reputable historian) denies that at least hundreds of thousands of Armenians died through forced famine, thirst (both due to deportations), and massacre during the First World War. Neither does anyone deny that the Ottoman Empire ordered virtually the entire Armenian population deported from areas near Russia, the enemy of the Empire. Rather, the debate revolves around the question of whether the Turkish authorities intended to physically exterminate, rather than 'simply' deport through hardship and attending death, all or at least a large part of the Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire.

To say that this is a controversial subject is the understatement of the year. To this day, the Turkish Government refuses to acknowledge any wrongdoing whatsoever with regard to the sufferings of the Armenians during WWI, and has taken action against those who try to say otherwise. Indeed, the state of Israel has been reluctant to adress the issue because of the danger of severance of ties with Turkey, an important ally in the region. On the other side of the spectrum are contries such as France, which not only recognizes the Armenian Genocide, but where Bernard Lewis was famously found guilty of tortious damage to the Armenian community in 1995 for denying that what happenned constituted genocide.

It then follows that Lewy's book is akin to pouring gasoline on an already raging fire. Will it force a thorough debate and discussion of the facts, so we can finally know who was historically right, as much as can be done? Or will politics prevail in this horrible, unending controversy, where actual debate of the facts will take a back seat to polemics and mud-slinging? Only time will tell.

Peretz, Post-Modernism and Populism

Caroline Glick has a long, erudite piece on the darker side of the "strike-king". I hope she's wrong. In any event, I hope that Peretz will never come to power. If that happens, God help us all.

Tidbits - Appetizers

1. A new and promising-looking issue of Middle East Quarterly is starting to come online. The first available article is a compilation and rebuttal of some of Juan Cole's rantings.
2. The new Hebrew Azure is (mostly) online (free subscription required). The article on the 'strike plague' in Israel, and how to fight it, is especially relevant.

That's all for now, folks. AIWAC

The Other Side of the Coin

Ten Years. It seems like only yesterday we heard that Rabin had been shot. It is hard to describe how I felt, an intense disbelief, as though something other-worldly had just happened. I can only compare it, perhaps, to the stunned feeling I had on 9/11. A suicide bombing would have at least felt like it belonged, in some perverse way, to the natural order of things. But this? To this day, I do not understand why Amir was not executed, or shot on the spot.

Yet, as the columnists and pundits waste ink and precious time arguing pointlessly "did we learn our lesson?", and ynet waxes nostalgia over the "candle youth", I can not forget the flip side to the reaction on the part of many to Rabin's murder.

Because I remember it - it is seared in my mind no less than that day. I remember how everyone who objected to Oslo was labeled an "inciter", or at least somehow an accomplice to the murder. I remember when "We will never forgive or forget" was a slogan of the left. I remember the calls to shut down Bar Ilan, as though the entire University was somehow to blame, for being religious, or for just being a convenient target.

At my first year at BIU, I remember the dorm manager telling us in oblique language that our dorm, where Amir stayed at, may still be bugged by the GSS. I remember my father telling me about the Bar Ilan professor who answered the question "did you cry?" with "No. I was in shock", only to have the latter sentence edited out. I remember my mother, going to light a candle, telling me of a reporter who was disappointed that she did not jump with glee at the news but was saddened.

I remember, too, the widespread historical revisionism that took place. I remember the obsession with Rabin's "legacy", the near-paganic rituals that took place in his name year after year. I remember how all of a sudden, Israel under Rabin was a picture-perfect time. No suicide bombers, no "victims of peace". People remembered only the peace demonstration where Rabin was murdered, but somehow all the anti-Oslo demonstrations were forgotten, except of course those where fanatics were present, shouting "Rabin is a Traitor" and the like.

I have stated before that history must be learned in its entirety, not just what we want to know. This period is no exception.

UPDATE: Sarah Honig also touches on this issue. Amotz Asa-El challenges Rabin's legacy.

A Little Learning Is a Dangerous Thing...

George Santayana is famous for saying that those who do not learn from hstory are condemned to repeat it. To this must be added that those who have only a minimal, or superficial, knowledge of history are condemned to misunderstand, or worse, to distort it.

A sad example of this can be found on Damian Penny's excellent blog, where he brings Noam Chomsky's false claim that the worst casualty rate of a pogrom was 49. There are more examples of this belief in the Comments section of the post. The reason for this is not malice, but rather ignorance. Most people have heard of the infamous Kishinev pogrom, which indeed had a "relatively" low body count, but which made waves throughout the world. Fewer have heard of the Ukranian pogroms against the Jews in the 17th century (known as Gezerot Tach Ve'Tat among Jews), or the mass slaughter of Jews during the Russian Civil War. The death toll in both was in the tens of thousands at minimum. A good summary of the pogroms can be found here and here. (BTW, Noam Chomsky's pal, Israel Shahak, considers the Ukranian pogroms to be a progressive event. It would be nice to know Chomsky's opinion on the matter.)

Let this be a lesson - to truly know history, one must know it in its entirety, not just snippets and slogans.

The Company They Keep

Israel Shahak, recently deceased, is a name not likely to ring any bells in this country. A former professor of chemistry [!] at Hebrew U, Shahak was an off-the-wall nut who was not just a run-of-the-mill anti-Zionist, but also an anti-semite. Yes, you read correctly. Shahak, who incidentally survived Bergen-Belsen, was a Jew-hater who openly espoused anti-semitic hate propaganda, as documented by Werner Cohn.

Shahak is a nut, a fringe lunatic. Unfortunately, as Cohn has shown, Shahak has received the endorsement of a number of far-left intellectuals, names that may sound familiar - Noam Chomsky, Gore Vidal and Edward Said, thus giving his "scholarship" an undeserved legitamacy. Sadly, it seems that this list must now apparently be broadened to include that of Norman Finkelstein, who "has no doubt that what [Shahak] wrote [on Judaism] is accurate". Next time you see someone espouse these gentlemen, you might want to bring this to their attention.

Anyone who knows of others who endorse or support Shahak's "history of Judaism" are welcome to do so in the comments section. Sunlight is the best disinfectant to this kind of poison.

The Old Jewish Death Wish

Anti-Chomsky has an enlightening post slamming Eric Hobsbawm's subtly anti-Jewish (pro-assimilation) screed. Read it all, for this view has been gaining in strength in the last couple of years.

Tidbits - Good Stuff

1. The new Azure is available online (free registration required), with a host of enjoyable articles to choose from.
2. A seal from the First Temple period (not comletely dechiphered yet) was recently found in the sifting of the Har Habayit dump. Ken Yirbu.
3. BTW, if you're interested, you might want to volunteer in the sifting (contact Zahi Zweig), or at least help them continue their work with donations. Trust me, it's a memorable experience.
4. On a lighter note, I highly recommended the very entertaining, and oh so true, stories in Israelity about weather, Starbucks, and...the DREADED PETEL!!! AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!

Shanah Tovah to every one of my readers and to Am Yisrael. She'Nikatev Ve'Nechatem Le'Chaim Tovim Ve'Shalom. AIWAC

Beneath Contempt

1. My attitude towards the "anti-disengagement" movement, as opposed to the actual settlers, has now hit an all-time low, with the following disgusting display. Something needs to be done about this extreme and vocal minority, which constantly smears our name in the eyes of the Israeli public.
2. Ha'Aretz continues to reach new depths as the "newspaper for anything not Jewish" with the following display of anti-Zionist, anti-anything book reviews. Even moderate left-wingers are starting to realize as much (see the attached letter at link).

As if we didn't have enough problems...

Our good friends at Bagatz will hand down a principled ruling on the legality of the seperation barrier tomorrow. The infamous ruling of the Hague will be taken into consideration. Forgive me if I don't expect anything but total disaster.

Enlightened Bigotry

I would find it hard to believe that any Jew can read this laundry list of acts of bigotry, especially the Magen David Adom part, without feeling both humiliation and outrage. Are we the only ones who actually have to make sacrifices in the name of "multiculturalism" or false "tolerance"?

No More Excuses

Over the past few years, extremist Israeli academics have gotten away with murder, constantly spewing outrageous anti-Israel statements and even calling for the boycott of their own institutions. Though these people represented only a small minority in their profession, they created the opposite impression, largely as a result of the failure of the vast majority of scholars to rebut their arguments, or at least make it clear that they are not representative of Israeli academia as a whole.

To be sure, things are changing now, especially with the enlistment of various Israeli academics to SPME. However, there is still much too much work to do to repair the damage done over the past five years. One way would be to "Go West" and join Dr. Ron Zweig as an Israel Studies teacher in a major university, either permanently or as part of a sabbatical. In doing so, you can give voice to the variegated, vibrant society that is Israel, instead of the "Nazi state" loksh that's being sold nowadays.

Now is not a time for excuses. Now is a time for action. AIWAC

UPDATE: Here's your chance - Yale's looking for new talent.

...and Raise it Again With Pride

David Hazony has an an excellent article on the 10th century structure -'David's Palace' - recently uncovered by Eilat Mazar (free registration required). Enjoy.

I Hang My Head in Shame

According to the following report, Israeli teachers are the least insistent on hard work. (Hat Tip: Azure)

This needs to change. Now. Any suggestions as to how to do it?

Frenchmen of the Mosaic Faith?

A while back David Pryce-Jones wrote an article in Commentary exposing the pro-Arab and often bigoted outlook of the French Foreign Ministry and government. It should therefore come as something of a surprise that the most vehement and indignant letters in the current issue of Commentary were both written by French Jews.

These letters, pathetic and laughable paeans to France, make me wonder about the anomaly that is French Jewry. It would seem that there are some members of this community that are more "French than the Frenchmen", to the degree that they would prefer France over Israel in a debate, and even agree at one point in the past that "Zionism is a dangerous utopian project". It is difficult to otherwise understand the behaviour of Charles Enderlin, also a French Jew. Efraim Kishon Z"L once said that Jews hate themselves even more than Arab terrorists. These letters would seem to prove that statement.

Tidbits

1. Commentary has a nice summary on L'Affaire Al-Doura.
2. MEQ has a pretty damning, though somewhat overstated, indictment of the CFR's Middle East Recommendations. (interestingly, there is no response by Benny Morris to Efraim Karsh's article in the Spring 2005 issue)...
3. Last but not least, My Obiter Dicta has a post on the tomb of the Rambam that is a prime demonstration of the saying "kol hamosif gore'a".

Tidbits - Well Said

1. Martin Peretz has an excellent collection of post-disengagement musings online (free registration required).
2. Ben-Dror Yemini once again plays the part of the sane one (hebrew).
3. Meyrav Wurmser hits the nail on the head.

The End of the Beginning

It's over. The disengagement has been successfully carried out, with little violence, and without the civil war predicted by some, endorsed by others. The precedent has been set.

The question is: Now what? Where do we go from here? Will we follow Condoleesa Rice and the Europeans and make a bee-line for the green line? Will we try to hold on to something? Is there even the slightest chance that this will lead to a quiet modus vivendi (forget peace)? Perhaps more importantly, where are we going as a nation, if we can be called that? Will the post-Zionist train derail, or drive us off the cliff at full speed?

My Obiter Dicta has pointed out that the most pressing issue at the moment is the care for the thousands who have been evicted. It will take time to absorb them and help them fit in. But no-one has the right any longer to duck the pressing issues at hand. We are a badly divided society, with several forces, most on the far-left, and some on the right, trying to pull us into the abyss. The fundamental issues we took for granted - Jewish identity, our right to self-determination, have been called into question.

Moreover, we can no longer delude ourselves that we can hold the entire West Bank indefinitely. We can no longer indulge in fantasies that "it won't happen" or "millions of Jews will come" or "Jordan is Palestine". We must now cut our losses and save what we can. Most importantly, we must reconnect to Israeli society. The tendency to segregate ourselves in "religious only communities", both within and beyond the Green Line must stop. Now.

I am sure that many will disagree, even vehemently, with what I have stated here. But if the disengagement has proven anything, they can no longer afford to ignore it.

Yehi Ratzon She'Yichleh Charon Apo VeNizkeh Le'Geulah Bimhera Beyamenu. AIWAC

God, Not Again

There's been another Jewish terrorist attack on Arabs, this time by the driver of workers at an industrial site. No words exist which can contain the outrage and shame I feel at hearing this incident, the second of its kind within weeks. May his memory forever be erased, as should all those who defile the land with innocent blood, and who desecrate God and use his name in vain.

My condolences to the families of those killed.

Are We Next?

I suppose this is a good a time as any to reveal the fact that I live the Gush Etzion area. That's right, I am a settler, an evil war criminal who derives pleasure from beating and killing Palestinians and uprooting olive trees (If you believe this description, there's a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you, real cheap). The reason I reveal this is because I believe that I should be expecting an eviction notice soon as well.

With the disengagement going into full swing, I can not shake the feeling that we are going to retreat all the way to the Green Line, no exceptions, just as the Europeans desire. This includes, for the uninitiated - the entire Old City, Ramat Eshkol, the Mt. Scopus part of Hebrew University, part of road no. 1 and so forth. This also means that "concensus" settlments such as Gush Etzion, Ma'aleh Edumim, will be on the chopping block as well. This Jewish population living across the Green Line is circa 400,000. Kicking them out will create a human disaster that will make the disengagement look like a cake walk.

I recently expressed this fear with an acquaintance, who told me that Gush Etzion was part of the "concensus" and thus won't be removed. To this I replied that it used to be a concensus that Jerusalem should be undivided - now it's up for grabs. Apparently, the "demographic demon" means that we must forfeit even unpopulated areas like Latrun, or areas that contain archaeological remains of supreme national importance, like Silwan/City of David.

To be sure, I lay some of the blame at our own feet - i.e. the settler community and leadership. There were many territorial compromise plans that would have allowed us to hold on to at least some of the territory gained in the Six-Day War. Then, of course the Green Line did not have the sacred value it has today, nor were people so obsessed with the Nakba narrative of the poor Palestinians. We rejected every one, insisting on holding every inch permanently, ignoring the demographics and fantasising about "millions of Jews" who will come.

Sharon may not really intend to hold the "concensus" Blocs, but we never considerd this to be an option. Recently Dan Diker has tried to argue for a return to the "defensible borders" concept in Azure (free registration required). To this I reply - too little, too late.

Nevertheless, the fact that so much of the intelligentsia and the public probably equates eveything across the Green Line as equally illegitamite - even when this is not so, as I have tried to explain - depresses me to no end. It would seem that even Jerusalem has ceased to be of much importance, and so the "Israeli" has beaten the "Jew". Ben-Gurion must be rolling around in his grave, although I'm sure many are now dancing on our grave.

Was this why we fought, was this why over 20,000 people died in the various wars? So that we could assimilate differently, if as "Israeli" or "Jew-Arab" or "Yiddisher"? Was this why we stayed alive for 2,000 years in exile, so that we could do to ourselves what even the worst of our enemies couldn't do - i.e. make the Jews de fatco disappear?

Deeply depreesed, but still hoping,

AIWAC

Interesting Reading

The first online article from the Fall issue of MEQ is a real eye-opener, making clear the intense antipathy of Europe to the Jewish state, their hatred for Ariel Sharon, and their sympathy for the Palestinians. If this article and the Table of Contents is any indication, the issue promises to be very interesting. Stay tuned.

Invitation to Fisking

Prof. Charles D. Smith, author of what is often hailed as an 'objective' history of the Israel-Palestine conflict, has recently thrown his facade to the winds with this very uninformed screed. As others are probably more informed on the subject of Islam, and its relationship to the Jews, I leave it to them to dissemble this 'expert'.

Update - 'David's Palace'

It is interesting to compare this even-handed article in the JPost on the subject with the NY Times' hatchet job (BTW, I think it is a black mark on Israeli academia that Mazar is considered a 'black sheep' for having objected to the destruction of artifacts on the Temple Mount).

I think it is important to be careful with the subject nonetheless. Prof. Reich is right - it will take much more time, including a full excavation of the building and its surroundings, as well as examination of the artifacts, before we can argue whether or not this is really the fabled palace of David.

Nevertheless, the discovery is very important. For years archaeologists have argued whether or not Jerusalem really was a capital city during the tenth century (David and Solomon's time) or simply a 'small village'. The dearth of published pottery from this period seemed to support the nay-sayers. Recently, it was proved that there WAS pottery from this period in various later houses.

The discovery of a building this extensive from the 10th century - even if it is 'only' an administrative building - gives us not only evidence of the importance of the city at the time but also an idea of where the 'nerve center' of Jerusalem was located. So champagne is called for in any event.

I Couldn't Have Said It Better Myself

Prof. Barry Rubin rips apart the NYT's disgusting attempt to pooh-pooh Dr. Eilat Mazar's important archaeological findings. It seems they haven't improved since the good old days of WWII, when the Holocaust was constantly downplayed. Well worth the read.

Finding Your Way in Israel

"...and now for something completely different" - Monty Python

Do you have trouble finding places in this country or getting proper directions? You might want to make use of the E-Map Israel service, now available in English. A real time-saver.

The Next Blood Libel

Just in time for the nine days, the PA would seem to have officialy accepted the "Arafat was poisoned" theory (Hebrew link), which is spreading across its media as we speak.

Welcome to the Twilight Zone.

Tidbits - Good News

1. The largest desalination plant in the world is now operational in Ashkelon. Now we can rest a little easier about our water supply.
2. Yad Ben Zvi has come out with an English-language album-style history of the Land of Israel, written by top scholars. Perfect as a gift or a souvenier.
3. Shai has gathered together all his "Weekend Miscellaneous Pop Culture Entry" posts in honor of its "50th anniversary". Highly recommended.
4. My Obiter Dicta's back, with some interesting insights.
5. ...and you can check out the official website of the Tell Es-Safi excavation project, where I recently spent a week as part of my degree requirements.
6. ...or check out the possible discovery of King David's palace (notice the NY Times' efforts to bend over backwards and poo-poo the whole thing).
7. ...or enjoy some of Martin Kramer's choice lectures.
8. ...and finally, a hilarious blog on Syria.

"Always look on the bright side of life" - Monty Python

Thou Shall Not Kill

I am ashamed beyond words at hearing this, and even more so at the equivocating and glorifying of his friends (How dare they call this killer one of the Aseret Harugei Malchut?). Murder is murder is murder. Period. No ifs, and or buts about it. My condolences to the families of those killed.

The Great Demography Debate

Many of you familiar with the various debates over Zionism, and "Palestine" during the late 19th and early 20th century, have probably come across the "empty land" agument. To make a long story short (and it's a VERY long, complicated issue), pro-Zionists and pro-Palestinians argue whether or not the area was sparsely or densely populated from the advent of Zionist settlement onward. By extension, they also debate what caused the great increase in the Arab population, especially during the Mandate, when it more than doubled itself in 30 years. Some of the pro-Zionists will argue that there was substantial immigration into the country during the 19th and 20th century, while pro-Palestinians will insist that the country was densely populated almost solely by locals, and grew only by natural increase.

The current consensus by top Israeli scholars is that while the country was not empty, it WAS sparsely populated during the '70s and '80s of the 19th century[1]. Moreover, this population was not evenly distributed - the main concentrations of settlement were in the hill country and nearby ports, while many of the valleys and lower areas (such as the Sharon) were relatively spare in people[2]. Moreover, while it is generally agreed that immigration played only a small part in the overall increase in the Arab population in the country, at least since the 1870s onward, there are now studies that show that immigration constituted as much as 20-25% in the population increase in areas along the coastline, i.e. the main areas of Zionist settlement.

Until now, only Prof. Moshe Brawer's study[3] (and to some extent Prof. Arnon Soffer's presentation in a 1986 conference on demography) could serve as evidence for this phenomenon. Now, in the most recent issue of Cathedra, the leading Land of Israel Studies journal, we have another study on the Arab population growth in the Sharon area, which also argues for such a proportion of immigrants in that area. It will be interesting to see further study done on this issue.

That's all for now, folks. AIWAC

[1] See for instance, Yehoshua Ben-Aryeh's articles in various issues in Cathedra on the subject.

[2] David Grossman, Ha-Uchlusiyah Ha-Aravit Ve-haMa'aHaz Hayehudi (The Arab population and the Jewish Foothold) (Hebrew), Jerusalem: Magness Press 20o4.

[3] Moshe Brawer, Immigration as a factor in the increase of the Arab village in Palestine (Hebrew), Merhavim 2 (1975), p. 72-81.

A wake up call

Out of Step Jew hits the nail on the head with this post on the necessity to revive Zionism. Let's hope someone's listening.

A Bleak Future Ahead

Here are some more reasons to be miserable during "bein hametzarim" (besides the obvious, that is):

1. The disengagement will happen. The question of how violent it will be is irrelevant. The religious community will continue to be further ostracized, while voices such as Ben-Dror Yemini, who actually believes in a JEWISH and democratic state, will continue to be drowned out by the pro-assimilatinist ("post-Zionist") crowd.
2. Norman Finkelstein's book, after having received tons of undeserved publicity no thanks to Alan Dershowitz's campaign against it, will come out next month. In all likelihood, it will receive rave reviews by the usual suspects, while those capable of debunking him will hide in their little cubbyholes.
3. Tom Segev's book on 1967, already a bestseller here, and receiving positive reviews almost across the boards, will likely come out in English soon. Only Michael Oren's book will serve as something of a counterbalance.

I could list more, but I don't have the heart for it. My only consolation is that the Jewish people have survived worse. I just wish we didn't have to want to self-destruct so much.

AIWAC

The Revival of Hebrew

One of my favorite blogs, Rishon Rishon, has a very illuminating post about the revival of the Hebrew language. He is, of course, correct that the revival itself is not just due to Eliezer Ben Yehuda, but more importantly, the successful spread of the language itself among a highly diversified group of Jews.

However, I don't think he managed to cover the whole story. While it is true that the beginning of this spread of Hebrew began with small, highly ideological units - it did not just spread because of their rise to power. Rather, two more widespread forces were at work: the Zionist movement and the Jewish educational system in "Palestine" and later the state of Israel.

The Zionist movement, and more importantly, the leadership in the Yishuv, were fiercely zealous when it came to teaching and speaking Hebrew. After the "language wars" during the 'Second Aliya' period, Hebrew became the increasingly dominant teaching language in an increasingly Zionist-dominated education network. Almost all Zionist leaders (including "Cultural Zionists") spoke Hebrew or at least advocated its teaching - at the newly-founded Hebrew university, for instance. During the Mandate, when large groups of Jews speaking diverse languages arrived here, the educational system available to Jews was almost exclusively Zionist and Hebrew-oriented. It goes without saying that Hebrew became THE language in the state of Israel, learned by generations of Olim thereafter. Thus, the adults may or may not have been successful in learning Hebrew, but their children most certainly would.

Moreover, Zionist leaders and activists worked very hard at making Hebrew the sole language used in the Yishuv, as aginst Yiddish and German. Sometimes this even went so far as to try to legally ban certain German-spoken activities within Tel Aviv, for instance. A book recently came out on the "underground" use of Yiddish in the Yishuv, though I haven't read it (I have suspicions that it's another "post-Zionist" initiative - describing a genuine reality solely to undermine Zionism).

All of this, of course, would not have been successful, if it weren't for the willingness of the Jewish Olim to have their children learn Hebrew. The Zionist movement provided the means and the ideological incentive, the Olim gave their consent. These forces, and not just the identity of the leadership, were responsible for the amazing success of the Hebrew language.

Tidbits - Archaeology, Real and Fake

1. Across the Bay, one of my favorite blogs, has a devastating critique of one of the (if not THE) main pillars of Palestinian pseudo-scientific propaganda - the equation 'Palestinians=Canaanites', as well as the 'academics' who support such statements (Khalidi, Massad, Cole etc). I've said it before and I'll say it again - if you're looking for propagandists and 'party-line' historians, look no further than folks like this.
2. Efraim Karsh comments on this sad phenomenon from a different angle in Commentary.
3. An article on a project of paramount importance - the sifting through the Temple Mount remains dumped by the Waqf. (Yours truly participated for two days) A book on the findings up until now (the project will continue next year) is planned in the coming months.
4. ...and a discussion of Lachish in honor of the publication of the full report of the most recent digs there (1973-1994).

That's it for now. AIWAC

On Narratives, Part I

An unabashedly pro-Palestinian piece of propaganda published in Ha'Aretz (Hat Tip: Israellycool), gives me the opportunity to discuss a few of the many problems which "post-modernism" has inflicted on historical study, especially of the Arab-Israel conflict. Due to length, this posting will be split up into a number of parts, each dealing with a specific problem:

The first problem has to do with the prominence "narratives" are currently given in the study of history. A legitamite method in literature and anthropology, the idea that history itself is simply a group of "narratives", none better than the next, and that there are no bona fide "facts" (or at least very few "facts"), has been festering in this field for some time. So much so, that "collective memory" and "cultural images" are now more discussed and studied than what actually happenned, when and why. Perhaps the prime example of such warped thinking is Mark LeVine's study of Jaffa, which if the promo is any indication, is more concerned with how people perceived their cities than with how things actually were.

This is not to say that perceptions of events do not have a place in the study of history. History, after all, is the study of human actions and thoughts, and these can't be understood without knowledge of the cultural background, and, yes, the "narratives" or ideas that run through various socities. We are not simply a collection of fact-collecting robots, always working according to some non-human rules regardless of where we come from. We are creatures of our surroundings, whether we reject or embrace them.

As imortant as "narratives" might be, however, their value stops at the door of the establishment of the factual record. The essential, critical part of history which examines what happenned, when and why, has no place for "narratives" or "multiple truths" or "rashomons". The fact that Israelis and Palestinians perceive the actions of Officer Hinks differently does not mean both, or even either, perception is correct. Officer Hinks may be a murderer (for killing a family in cold blood) or a hero (for killing rioters) or neither, but he can not be both. As Yoav Gelber points out in his important essay on history - either 80 or 250 people were killed at Tantura - both numbers can not be correct. History only happenned one way, and as much as Prof. Bar-On and Dr. Masalha would like to have Israelis and Palestinians listen to "each other's narrative", in many cases one, or both of the narratives will be false.

If history, especially charged history like the Arab-Israel conflict, is to remain a legitamite discipline and not a laughing stock where charlatans and story-tellers can claim equal standing with actual historians, the border seperating fact from perception or "narrative" must be clearly maintained.

Tidbits

1. The JPost has a new section called Cafe Oleh, with all sorts of interesting stuff by and for new immigrants.
2. Shai has a long, excellent post on one of the greatest Israeli bands (and my personal favorite) - Kaveret.
3. The Head Heeb recently posted a thoughtful sketch of the behavior of "post-genocidal states", including Israel, of course.
4. Avi Shlaim's The Iron Wall has come out in Hebrew. IMHO, while it might have been a "contoversial" book had it come out (in Hebrew) in the '90s, I doubt anyone will take it seriously now (except for the usual Israel-hating folk, that is).
5. Speaking of "New Historians" (an overused and out-of-date term if there ever was one), I have yet to hear of a response by Benny Morris to Efraim Karsh's review of his book. Perhaps someone reading this knows of one?

Train Disaster

A horrible accident has occured in the south - part of a pasenger train derailed after crashing into a truck. The death toll now stands at 7 and rising. Let us hope and pray for the wounded in this disaster, and our condolences to the families of those who died. She'Lo Neida Od Tza'ar.

Research Suggestions

This post's subject:

The Haredi Community in Jerusalem During the War of Independence

Very little work scholarly work has been done on the Jewish civilian population's trials during this period, and even less on the Haredi community. With the exception of an article by Yuval Frankel in Ha'Tzionut, almost all discussion of the Haredi community in Jerusalem during 1948 tends to be superficial and biased.

Part of the problem is that documentation is hard to come by - if there are organized archives of the community and its institutions, they are hard to track down. Sub-questions could include: How many military-age Haredi Jews joined the Hagnah/Palmach/Etzel/Lehi? What was the attitude of the various parties and Rabannim to the problems that came up during the war? Is there responsa on the subject? What kind of relationship existed between the population and the military (Haganah, later IDF) and the civil (Va'ad HaKehilah, later Dov Yosef) authorities?

Good Luck.

AIWAC