 |
What We Talk About When We Talk About Palestine |
|
 by Kim Chernin, September 14, 2009 |
||
TAGS:
Kim Chernin is the author of Everywhere a Guest, Nowhere at Home: A New Vision of Israel and Palestine. She is guest-blogging this week on Jewcy, and this is her first post.
I am worried about us, the whole community of us, American Jews who have lost the ability to hold a reasonable discussion. I became aware of this as I was writing a book about Israel and Palestine. I had published many books before so it is customary, when I run into old friends or acquaintances, to be asked what I'm working on. In the past, people didn't seem particularly impressed or interested; I guess the question was mainly polite and I learned not to answer it in too much detail.
But with this book, everything was different. The responses were often explosive and urgent, sometimes immediately embattled. I remember a few of them. "Why Palestine? Are you one of those self-hating Jews? What do you have to say that hasn't been said a hundred times already? We really need another book about Israel? I sure hope you're not going to attack Israel." Those were the negative responses from people who were not friends but belonged to a larger circle of acquaintances. It wasn't clear to me why their response was hostile before I had a chance to describe the book or my intentions for it; perhaps the word Palestine in the title sounded suspicious, as if anyone writing about both Israel and Palestine was probably not going to take Israel's side?
The positive responses sounded something like this: "Good for you. Oh, are you courageous. That's the most important topic in the world right now. Oh boy are you going to run into some angry people. I hope you're ready for a strong response." The neutral responses were few and far between. "What's your point of view? I'll be interested to find out what you are thinking." I explained, when given a chance, that my point of view was evolving; that the book was difficult to write, especially for a woman who had been a Zionist since she was a little girl, when the State of Israel was established in 1948.
Most of the discoveries I was making while doing research were about my own ignorance. I had lived in Israel for a time, I had strong opinions about Israel, but once I started to read it was clear to me how little I knew. I had a couple of basic misconceptions. I thought the Israeli army was fundamentally different than any army in the world. I took seriously that it practiced a "purity of arms." My boyfriend, when I lived in Israel, was a student at the Technion. He was studying to be an engineer but he loved poetry and was becoming interested in the Kabbalah. When he came to stay at our Kibbutz as the commander of an armed border patrol he had hair down to his shoulders, played chess in the Moadon after dinner, and was always engaged in serious discussions with members of the Kibbutz. For me, and for everyone else who met him, he embodied the idealism we wanted to associate with the Israeli army. In fact, for a long time, my entire impression of the Israeli army was based on him, and on an article I had read that Israeli soldiers cried at the funerals of their comrades and that the army higher command was debating whether this was an appropriate behavior for a soldier. Long-haired soldiers who read poetry and weep at funerals: that seemed at the time sufficient knowledge on which to base my strong opinions about Israel's fighting men.
But my reading and research were opening up other views of the Israeli army, a ferocious fighting force, the fourth largest army in the world. Israel, my little-sister country, had nuclear weapons and the largest army in the Middle East. Did that mean that Israel was perhaps less endangered than I had thought?
My other misconception concerned the Palestinians: I had thought that all of them were terrorists.
These are pretty slim qualifications for writing a book, I admit. But in their own way this these misconceptions became interesting AS the subject of a book written by a hot-headed, opinionated, ignorant author. All I had to do was turn the focus on myself, to wonder how I'd come to hold such strong opinions in the face of such blatant ignorance and to wonder whether other Jews who also were constantly getting into heated arguments about Israel might have arrived at their condition in the same way that I had. I put a lot of facts and statistics and quotations and stories and anecdotes in my book but the book remained essentially a narrative of consciousness-how it shaped itself through what it was willing to include and what it forcefully and militantly kept out of itself.
It's funny to think that one could be inspired to write a book because of one's misconceptions. But here we are.
An absurd non-scandal might cost the World Bank president his ...
Art Excess During Depression 2.0
We must return to the founding fathers' favored foreign policy...
Big noses, rapping Rabbis, and Jewfros – even retro forms of...
The authors of 'The End of the Jews' and 'The Jewish Messiah' discuss...
| Advertise | Privacy Policy & Terms of Use | FAQ | |  | | Comment Policy | About Us | Contact | Submissions |
| Hosting provided by Tilted Planet | ||
Disco_Stu
Hi Kim.
Because I have a strong interest in kibbutz life, the 70s in general, and particularly life in Israel in the 70s, I read your memoir about living on the kibbutz and enjoyed it.
Like many people, I can relate to your initial impression of the benevolent Israeli super-soldier and the state he represented. I never thought all or even most Arabs were terrorists though. The 70s were a simpler time in Israel, at least for impressionable Americans. It was before the settlements took center stage, before Labor's monopoly on power was upset by groups with different interpretations of Zionism, before the Lebanon War and Ariel Sharon, and of course, before the dirty secrets of Israel's early years came to light and we realized that the highly romanticized narrative of Israel's War of Independence (featuring many of the prominent 'good' Israelis of Labor) left out quite a bit of the uglier facts.
If someone left Israel in the 70s with the idealized impressions of Israel from that era and was only much later confronted with the full truth, then it would be natural that that person would be shocked, angry, and mistrustful, among other things.
My own Israel arc begins in the late 80s when I went to a year of college at Hebrew U in Jm. At that point I was in appropriate awe of the nation of Israel and completely steeped in the founding mythology of the state. By then, Labor was in the political doghouse, settlers had taken over the mantra of Zionism, and the Lebanon War blew the lid off the notion of Israel's 'perfect army'. But I was still relatively naive and hopeful and presumed that this could all be blamed on the rise of the Likud to power, and that once a strong Labor leader could come in and reenergize Israel, it would be like the good old days again, especially once s/he showed the world that Israel wanted to close the wounds of 1948 by creating a Palestinian state in the territories.
Well, that kind of happened. I was delighted when Rabin won and the govt proposed leaving upwards of 80% of the territories right off the bat. Suffice it to say that in the intervening years, I've come to see how naive and simplistic my view of the situation was. It's as naive to think that a bunch of well intentioned Westerners can create a viable nation of Palestine out of scratch on two noncontiguous pieces of land as it is to think they can create democracy in the Arab world through a regime change in Iraq.
The point is, while many people (especially here in NorCal) feel angry and betrayed because the Israel they thought they knew turned out to disappoint them, the overreaction can be just as wrongheaded as the initial naivete. Peace won't simply break out if Israel dismantles the settlements or if Israel promises to work really hard to create a Palestinian state. It's not that easy.
Unfortunately, I find too many 'progressives' are all too willing to channel their disappointment with the real Israel vs the idealized Israel into a blanket dismissal of Israel and Zionism entirely. That's fine if you choose to live somewhere else, but there are liberals/progressives/doves/whatever who are still trying to live in Israel and have not given up on making it a Western, democratic, and Jewish state. Oslo represented a great hope for them. Unfortunately Oslo went down in flames and, imo, that was not because of Israel.
The failure of Oslo has shattered the Israeli peace camp. The moderates have left (presumably for Kadima), and it's now the province of 'post-zionists', 'one staters', and other free spirits. It's now a fringe movement, but of course nothing is more natural for Bay Area progressives than fringe movements with pie in the sky ideals.
Well, I suppose I should read the book to find out the answer, but I find the level of naivete behind so many of the Israel/Palestine discussions to be so high that it renders all the ersatz meaningful dialogue into farce. There is the situation in Israel, and then there is 'talking about the situation in Israel', and the latter seems to be a world unto itself populated by a lot of animated characters, and having virtually no bearing on the real life situation in Israel.
Unfortunately while 'recovering Zionists' are dancing in peace parades and boycotting couscous, actual Israeli moderates are trying to eke out an existence between an intractable ethnic conflict in the most tribally stubborn part of the world and a formidable movement of Jewish fundamentalists who respect not the notions of democracy and western liberalism.
If I remember correctly, your long haired IDF boyfriend ended up leaving Israel and moving to Britain, which seems aphoristic enough. But not all centrist and left of center Israelis are ready to give up on Israel just yet. And at the end of the day, while yet another dialogue among American Jews might serve as a self-edifying exercise, it will almost certainly bring nothing new or helpful to the people actually tasked with living the tribulations and celebrations of everyday Israeli life. Or so I feel.
centrist
I am a little bit worried about your research if you think that Israel's military is the 4th largest in the world and the largest in the Middle East. It's about 30th in the world in standing manpower. Both Egypt and Syria have militarys that have twice the manpower of Israel. Some people might view Israel as having the 4th most powerful army in the world, but it is not a measure of the number of soldiers or arms, it is a measure of its training, ability and willingness to wage war.
I have been to Israel only once, in November 2007. I stood in Sderot one day and looked over to Gaza. It was the one day that month that Sderot was not rocketed. The reason why was that it was Arafat's birthday and Fatah came out to march in memory. Hamas shot into the crowds, killing 6 and wounding 85. No, most Palestinians are not terrorists, but consider that they were willing to put bullets into 91 of their own civilians on that day. If you were an Israeli, how must trust would you put into the Palestinians?
As an American Jew, there are lots of things I would like to see the Israelis do differently, but their lives really are on the line. So they see things differently. From Kalkilya (in the West Bank) to Tel Aviv and the Mediteranean is only 7 miles. The entire belt of Israel would be open to rocket fire if the West Bank was returned.
Even if Israel had the most powerful army in the world, 7 miles is nothing. The question the Israeli's face is simple; "If I make a deal will that actually mean peace?" It's not a question Americans can or should try to help the Israeli's answer. It's not our children.
Daniel-in-Brookline
Hi Kim,
I mean no disrespect, because it does sound as though you're taking your subject seriously and earnestly.
Nonetheless, I feel obliged to say: if you based your mental image of the IDF on one soldier, then yes, you're going to get a distorted picture. The same would, of course, apply to any other group.
Israeli soldiers are a cross-section of Israeli society. Included among the ranks are starry-eyed idealists, cynical pragmatists, Peace Now types, Greater Israel types, kibbutzniks, city kids, old people, young people, politicians, artists, criminals, scientists, felafel salesmen, unemployed people, black people, white people, and so on, and so on.
Which one of those is representative of the IDF? The answer should be obvious: none of them are.
Which trends are prevalent in the IDF, and have greater influence on where the whole organization goes and what it will do? Ah, now that's a question that will lead in interesting directions... and one that I hope you explore in your book.
(Naturally, as an expatriate Israeli and a discharged IDF veteran, I have my own opinions on the trends of the IDF... but I'd much rather you saw for yourself.)
Similarly, to think that Palestinians are terrorists is as nonsensical as to think that Germans are Nazis. Yes, there are Palestinians who are terrorists; yes, there are also those who are not. Again, the question becomes: which trends are prevalent, indicating the general direction that a society will go?
After all, a few criminals doesn't imply a criminal society... and a few Good Samaritans doesn't imply a peaceful society either.
If many American Jews harbor the same simplistic stereotypes you did, and you're able to dispell those stereotypes in your book, then you'll have accomplished something important. I do want American Jews to support Israel -- but they should do so based on what Israel is, not what they think she might be or should be. (And if they determine that they can't support Israel for what she is, that's their choice... but it'll be a choice made from knowledge, not ignorance.)
respectfully,
Daniel in Brookline
voolf
What is Palestine? Are you referring to the muslim nazi occupied areas of Israel that were formerly occupied by Egypt and Jordan?
Palestine is a MYTH, there was never a palestinian government, currency, or people. I'm afraid You've fallen for the enemy proproganda.
Robin Margolis
Dear Friends:
I am glad that Kim Chernin has written another book, especially on this subject, and I hope that Jewcy will do a book review of it. I am sure that it will be good, as I have read other things she has written.
Now, I am puzzled by the other commenters on her essay. They keep talking about Israel as it was in the 1970s, 80s, and 90s.
They appear to assume that trends in the past will persist into the future -- that the Israeli seculars will remain dominant; that Israel will remain more powerful than the Palestinians; and that the Jews will remain a majority within Israel.
As someone who reads the Israeli newspapers on a regular basis -- they are available free of charge, in English, online -- I would submit that the preceeding commenters are not taking into account several demographic facts:
1. One-third of all Israeli kindergartners are now Haredi Orthodox.
2. Haredi Orthodox children constitute an estimated 25% of all Israeli first graders.
3. Forty-eight percent of all children in Israel's school system are currently in Haredi Orthodox schools or Arab schools.
That means in fifteen years, one-third of all Israeli eighteen year olds will be the black coat Haredi Orthodox, a group that is pious and Jewishly learned, but vehemently opposed to democracy.
They do not serve in the IDF -- they live in poverty on stipends from the state and study Talmud, as their schools teach very little English, science, math or computers -- their overworked wives bring home small salaries -- they have at least six children per family -- many of them are strongly opposed to democracy and pluralism, regarding it as against Jewish law --
Now, imagine that they are one-third of all Israeli Jews.
So what will happen to Israel? The Haredim have already made up their minds what will happen and discuss this freely in Israeli newspapers. They plan, as soon as they get enough votes, to make Orthodox law, the halacha, the law of Israel, just as sharia, the religious law of Islam, is the law in some Arab countries.
They make no secret of their plans.
They plan to turn Israel into what I call a "Halachic Republic of Israel" -- just like the Islamic Republic of Iran. Israel will not be a democracy any more.
And will the Israeli Arabs -- who will be very large in number by that time -- stand by while the Haredim take over the country? They can't afford to, as a "Halachic Republic of Israel" will not be friendly to them, to put it mildly.
A civil war will break out, in which the Israeli Arabs will be assisted by the very numerous Palestinians on the West Bank and Gaza. Israel will be torn to pieces.
I believe that we cannot spend our time discussing which peace effort failed between 1970 and 1990. That is the distant past.
We must be realistic and deal with the Israel that is coming.
Sincerely,
Robin Margolis
Disco_Stu
Robin, what a lame post. What were you thinking?
First you state how glad you are that Kim Chernin wrote a book about this subject, then you castigate everyone who bothered to respond on topic.
I don't get it. Why does Kim get praise for writing the book whereas those who attempt to add value and context to the discussion get a finger wag and a lecture?
I'm well aware of the haredi/secular divide in Israel. Kim Chernin didn't mention it anywhere in her post though, did she? (For the record, I did bring up the haredi/secular issue when I wrote this: "Unfortunately while 'recovering Zionists' are dancing in peace parades and boycotting couscous, actual Israeli moderates are trying to eke out an existence between an intractable ethnic conflict in the most tribally stubborn part of the world and a formidable movement of Jewish fundamentalists who respect not the notions of democracy and western liberalism.")
For some reason you've decided that providing context (you know, bringing up the 70s, 80s, and 90s) to this argument is doing the world a disservice.