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

A Reminder

For those of you who still believe the boycott is only about the '67 "occupation", I give you the following quote of Hilary Rose, one of the founders of the boycott initiative, from an interview given in the Jerusalem Report:

"As a young woman I shared the general sentiment that Israel was a wonderful thing," Rose says in a telephone interview, in clipped English tones. "Now I believe that in a terrible sense Israel was Europe's last act of anti-Semitism. Europe's failure to deal with anti-Semitism after World War II meant they colluded with the Zionist dream to build a state on somebody else's land." (Emphasis mine)

BTW, British Jewish anti-Zionism is deep-rooted. Already in 1917, Edwin Montagu, an assimilated Jewish politician, watered down the Balfour Declaration and tried to have it rescinded. A book by Rory Miller covers the anti-Zionist movement among British Jewry in the years 1945-48 - Divided Against Zion. Although most Jews made their peace with the state after its establishment, it would seem that Jewish anti-Zionism is back in style. God help us all.

Tidbits - Historiography

1. Professor Yoav Gelber's (Haifa U) important article on the development of Israeli historiography is now online. You might want to check out his analysis of the current state of history teaching in the universities.
2. David Greenberg has an interesting 2-part article on the pitfalls of popular history.

That's all folks. AIWAC

Research Suggestions

This time round: Tell En-Nasbeh Pottery

The site of Tell En-Nasbeh is perhaps the best candidate for the title of site of Biblical Mizpah, where Shmuel Hanavi visited, and which lay on the border between the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Extensively excavated in the 30s, the analysis of the site was nevertheless restricted by the level of research back then, which has since improved by leaps and bounds.

Recently, Jeffrey Zorn has re-analyzed the strati (levels) of the site, showing that there were five "stages" in the development of Tell En-Nasbeh (Zorn has an impressive site dedicated to Tell En-Nasbeh, with a wide selection of sources). In effect, Zorn wrote what my teacher here called the Perush Rashi for the architectural report on the site, allowing researchers to better understand the site.

The time has long past for someone to take up the mantle and do the same for the extensive amount of pottery found at the site, which was only roughly catalogued. The documentary material exists, now someone has to take the descriptions and catalogue them accurately according to type, period, style (burnished/unburnished, painted etc) and so on.

Good Luck.

Tidbits

1. We now have our very own high school teacher-students sex scandal. Hurray.
2. Asaf Sagiv has a good, albeit long, critique of Slovaj Zizek in the most recent Techelet (Hebrew).
3. Efraim Karsh has fired the first round against Benny Morris, hitting him at his weakest point - his "transfer" thesis.

That's all for now. AIWAC

Why can't we just disappear in peace?

In other news this week, Amos Shocken has finally shown his true colors. Anyone who deluded themselves that Gideon Levy and Amira Hass were merely exceptions to a generally Zionist newspaper can now hang their heads in shame. Schoken is just as anti-Zionist, and anti-Jewish, as the rest of them.

At least one can take solace in the fact that the Maariv op-ed page, edited by Ben-Dror Yemini, dedicated its section to five op-eds rebutting Schoken's stupidity.

For Shame (Rav 'Amar and the JPost)

I'm sure you've heard by now that Rav Shlomo 'Amar, Sepharadic Chief Rabbi, will be questioned by the police on his knowledge of the beating of a young man who wooed his daughter. I can not think of anything more humiliating or degrading for Torah and Judaism.

The JPost, however, has gone too far in calling for the abolition of the rabbinate - drawing a straight line between Rav Kuk and Rav Metzger, to show how the mighty institution has fallen. In my opinion, the analogy is false - what about Rav Goren or Rav Ovadia Yosef (pre-politics)? Besides, do two poor candidates make the entire system rotten? Why is it that instead of thinking in terms of reform, people are so eager to destroy the whole building? I also suspect that the JPost's call is neither isolated nor sudden. Although their political line has veered rightwards, and is now somewhat centrist, their line on religion has always been akin to that of their sister publication, the Jerusalem Report. Put simply: anything goes. Any form of Judaism - even "Messianic Judaism ", i.e. missionaries, get the puff-piece treatment from these guys. It feels as though they have now joined up with Shinui on their secualr crusade to remove religon from public life.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe this post is an intemperate reaction to an intemperate op-ed written by someone who is genuinely shocked by the depths to which the Rabbinate has sunk. I doubt it, though.

Tidbits - Perfidy

• The May 2005 issue of Commentary has an excellent online article about the French, Jews, Zionism and the Arabs. The more things change...
• In the same issue is a review of a book on the New York Times' deliberate downplaying of the Holocaust.
• You might want to check out the major study of French policy towards Zionism and the State of Israel during the years 1945-49 (Hebrew).

That's All for now, folks. AIWAC

Book Recommendation

I'm currently reading a beautiful, touching book entitled "Letters to Talya". The "book" contains the full correspondence between Dov Indig, a Hesdernick from Cerem DeYavneh, and Talya, a secular teenager living on a kibbutz up north, between the years 1971-1973. For those of you who read Rav Haim Sabato's "Adjusting Sights", the character Dov, who is killed on the Golan in the Yom Kippur War, is the aforementioned Dov Indig. The extended correspondence opens up the world of both of the writers, and includes subjects both deep (religion, the Holocaust) and trivial (Bagruyot).

I have not been so touched by a book in a long time - it made me feel optimism at a time when everything seems to be reeking with cynicism. I cannot recommend it enough.

Benny Morris

It turns out I was wrong about Benny Morris' book. Those of you who read my review will know that I was curious about the fact that the book had received few reviews. Well, things are heating up now. The Journal of Palestine Studies, always on the hunt for any book which might undermine the Palestinian National Narrative, has published two articles on the subject in their latest issue, one an apparent rehash of Joel Beinin's rant in MERIP, and another a reprint of a 1959 article written by Walid Khalidi (is he a relation of Rashid?), who might be known as the father of the National Narrative (with Edward Said as is its most successful promoter).

The article by Khalidi has been reprinted because the editors think that Morris revived the claim that Arab leaders called on the Palestinians to leave. Had the editors actually read the book, they would have known that Morris makes no such claim - he merely argues that leaders DID allow for limited evacuation in a number of cases, which contributed to the general chaos. The cases he documents are clearly backed up by evidence, and I don't see how a 1959 article, can rebut that (I am also sceptical of his use of Arab sources, since most of this type of material is off-limits to most historians and thus difficult to verify). For all the hay about the Israeli Establishment VS. the "New Historians", the real unmoving establishment exists on the other side, embodied by this selfsame journal.

In any event, the real fireworks will start after Efraim Karsh's article on the book comes online in MEQ. Karsh, you will recall, wrote the most direct assault on the "New Historians", and has fought Benny Morris tooth and nail ever since. I highly doubt that Morris will take it lying down, so things should be interesting. Stay tuned.

Tidbits

• Couldn't make it to Israel this Pesach? Enjoy the next best thing, with beautiful aerial photos of choice sites throughout the country, as well as a "bird's eye" map ("Hover" section) of the Old City of Jerusalem.
• Shai, as usual, has a nice obit for Ezer Weizmann. His description of the Hametz obsession is, unfortunately, not that far off the mark even in "sane" circles.
• Quite a bit has been said about the AUT's decision to boycott my university as well as Haifa U. A correspondent of mine from Haifa says there's nothing to worry about, while others are, justifiably, up in arms. Personally, I think we should see if this "decision" has real teeth, as opposed to just blowing off hot air. Besides, as others have pointed out on the academia mail list - the less publicity given Ilan Pappe, who compensates for his mediocrity by screaming "boycott", the better.

The Blurring of Terms

Recently I came across the following paragraph coined by the AUT, which will decide on whether or not to boycott select Israeli academics and institutions tomorrow (via Jonathan Debyshire):

In addition, the AUT deplores the witch-hunting of colleagues, including AUT members, who are participating in the academic boycott of Israel. We recognise that anti-Zionism is not anti-semitism, and resolve to give all possible support to members of AUT who are unjustly accused of anti-semitism because of their political opposition to Israeli government policy. (Emphasis Mine)

For some time now, left-wingers, especially those on the lunatic fringe, have created a mental equation according to which criticism of Israel policy is anti-Zionism, and is falsely claimed to be anti-semitism. Conversely, anti-Zionism is no different from criticism of Israeli policy, and just as legitamite. Of course, many have abandoned this strange balancing act, and have simply reverted to a simple criticism=anti-zionism=anti-semitism equation (Michael Rivero, for instance). This formula has allowed "critics" of Israel to push the envelope in their "critiques", all the while claiming that there are simply "critics of Israeli policy". This equation is almost completely false, a self-deception meant to legitimize that which is reprehensible.

Let's start with the first part of the equation, namely that criticism of Israeli policy=anti-Zionism and vice versa. There are many critics of Israeli policy both here and abroad. They come in all shapes and sizes, from both the left and the right. The difference, however, between them and anti-Zionists is this: they do not deny the legitimacy of the state of Israel as a state for the Jewish nation, an expression of their self-determination. They may hate the occupation all they want - but they do not argue that Israel, at least behind the Green Line, should cease to be a Jewish state, or at least a "state of the Jews".

Anti-Zionism is exactly that - the denial from the Jewish people of the right to self-determination. The question of the borders of that state are irrelevant to that fundamental principle. Critics of "Israeli policy" criticize something that can change, that is transient, and not essential to its being. Anti-Zionists are not "critics of policy", since no policy save self-annihilation would reduce their antipathy. But what about "antizionism=antisemitism"? In my opinion, the answer is the same, allow me to explain why:

First of all, as Manfred Gerstenfeld has ably shown, pure "anti-Zionists" often use cliches and imagery (neocon cabal) that are openly antisemitic. Second, and more important, anti-Zionism is an act of political violence against the Jewish people. But, the critics will say, there were and are Jews who object to Zionism, not just Hardeim but enlightened folk. Judith Butler has resuscitated the spirit of Judah Magnes, who supported binationalism and tried, up to the very last minute, to prevent the establishment of the Jewish state.

As MS Arnouni, author of an interesting and out-of-print defense of Israel once put it - it is one thing to try and prevent the birth, once the baby is out, to kill it is murder. The same goes for the Jewish state. Before it was erected, one could, and many do, bring arguments against it. However, the Jewish state is now established, and an attempt to kill it, or dissolve it, would be to destroy the only state in the world for the Jewish nation. The fact that there are Jews that object to the state does not make it any less legitamite than any other state, some of whose citizens or fellow nationals would like to see their country disappear or vanish into some larger being. To claim then, that anti-Zionism is not anti-semitism simply because it does not threaten individual Jews, but "only" removs their right to self-determination is egregious and sophistic.

Keep this in mind the next time someone says they're "only criticizing Israeli policy".

AIWAC

Tidbits

• HNN has a nice article online about bloggers and the 1st ammendment.
• Shabtai Teveth has won the Israel Prize for his monumental multi-volume biography of Ben-Gurion (up to 1946).
• Rabbi Israel Meir Lau, also winner of the Israel Prize, has recently come out with an autobiography.
• Video Conferences Online: The SPME conference on Columbia U at Columbia U, and a major conference on the Battle of the Chinese Farm during the Yom Kippur War - specifically the one involving the Tzanhanim (paratroopers).

That's all for now, folks.