The premise of an introduction to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with two authors seemed incredibly promising. I thought that dividing the work into an Israeli presentation of the facts by a Jewish historian and a Palestinian scholar presenting the Palestinian side would be an excellent exercise in comparing/contrasting the narratives around the Palestine-Israeli Conflict. However, I was ultimately left disappointed with how this idea was executed.
Billed as a "beginner's guide," the way the authors chose to chronicle events seemed counterintuitive. Countless names, places, events, and dates were dropped at a breakneck speed. This was done without taking the time to present the information to the reader, who, in all likelihood, is learning about these topics for the first time. On the other hand, the presentation was far too limited to have much value for those already familiar with the subject matter.
Additionally, I was baffled by the authors' choices of what to omit from the discussion. For example, El-Alami, the Palestinian scholar, neglected to even mention the Nakba! Instead, he rushed through the displacement of the Palestinian people in 1948 with very few details provided or addressed. I am not exaggerating when I say that the word "Nakba" only appeared once in the entire main body of text (3 times total if you count the 2 appearances in the index and the glossary).
One would think the ethnic cleansing and forced displacement of an entire nation, or 750,000 people (80% of Palestinians in 1948), would warrant some discussion. Especially as this event launched almost a century of conflict between Israel and Arabs, central to the Palestinian plight.
Instead, El-Alami only wrote: "Jewish terrorist organizations had fought the British since the 1930s but had showed restraint during the war. After the war, however, there was a wave of Jewish terrorist activity against Palestinians and even more so against the British. On 9 April 1948 a branch of the Irgun led by Menachem Begin carried out a massacre of men, women and children in the village of Deir Yassin. The calculated intention of this was to cause mass panic in the surrounding areas and in this aim it was entirely successful. Entire villages fled in fear that they would suffer the same fate. The two most notorious acts of Jewish terrorism against the British were the hanging of two British officers and the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. These were the final events leading to the British decision to give up the Mandate and withdraw their forces."
Immediately after, he moves on to Ben-Gurion's declaration of the foundation of Israel. That's it!
The Deir Yassin massacre alone could have warranted a few pages, not to mention the entire Nakba. I recognize that the text is fairly short and the goal is not to probe in depth each event between 1948 and now, but come on! It is absolutely ridiculous to consign what many consider "l'élément déclencheur" of the whole conflict to less than 150 words. (Note: I recommend Pappé's "The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine" for anyone looking to learn more about the Nakba.)
What's more, I found Cohn-Sherbok narrative incredibly perplexing, in that he will uncritically present ethically ambiguous actions from Israel and either won't address it or will blame it on Palestinian violence and resistance.
The following quote, explaining Israel's initial view and treatment of the native Palestinians in its first 2 years of existence, was one shocking example of this:
"Zionists insisted that Israel should be a Jewish state - there was no place, they argued, for non-Jews within the mainstream of national life even if Arabs were granted citizenship. For many, the Arab remnant in Israel was perceived as a potential threat to the stability of the country.(…) [Prime Minister] Ben-Gurion, for example, was adamant that the Arab minority was a dangerous presence. Throughout his tenure as Prime Minister, he continually pointed to the inherent danger posed by the Arab population. It was, he believed, a hotbed of conspiracy.
From the beginning, Israel's policies towards the Arabs were in accord with this perception: they were seen as implacable enemies of the state. From 1948 ninety per cent of the Arabs lived under Military Government (…) The most important aspect of Military Government was the restriction of movement: Article 125 of the Emergency Regulations of 1949 granted military governors the power to declare any area or place a forbidden area that no one was allowed to enter or leave without a written permit. Under such a provision, nearly one hundred Arab villages were designated closed areas out of which no one was permitted to move without a permit. (…) Other powers granted to military governors included the right to banish, restrict the residence of or detain Arabs without trial, and to impose a curfew. The justification for such regulations was state security. (…) [F]or this reason, any expressions of Arab nationalism or anti-Zionism could be suppressed by the military authorities. Such emergency provisions were seen as vital for Jewish survival given the nature of Palestinian resentment.
Such restrictions might appear to undermine the principle of equality of citizenship. But the Israeli government was determined to protect the new Jewish state at all costs. It should be stressed also that these restrictions applied to areas rather than individuals. Nonetheless, the main objective was to ensure that any form of Arab insurrection would be thwarted and that the Arab population would be strictly controlled. (…) [They] were keenly aware that they had been denied the right to equal treatment within the Jewish state.
Nonetheless, the first generation of Arabs in Israel were aware of their loss of land. During the fighting between Jews and Arabs, a sizeable area of Arab territory had been seized and this was later legalized by the Knesset under the Land Acquisition Law of 1953. In addition, Arab lands were taken by the military authorities on military grounds and given to Jewish settlers. Financial compensation was offered, but those who had lost their property refused to accept such payment in the hope that the land would be returned. The majority of land and houses taken belonged to Palestinian Arabs who had fled during the fighting; this was confiscated under the Absentees’ Property Law of 1950. This property was given to Israel’s new immigrants. Approximately 418 Arab towns were taken over during this period. Dismayed by this state of affairs, dispossessed Arabs harboured deep resentment against those who had seized their land that had been inherited from ancient times and their ownership of which the British Mandate had respected. This transformation of Arab life in Palestine was coupled with the loss of Arab control. Arabs had had no political power under Ottoman rule or during the British Mandate. After Israel’s defeat of Arab states during the 1949 campaign, Ben-Gurion instituted the law of abandoned property in 1950, resulting in the acquisition of agricultural land, urban real estate, houses and shops. In this way Arab wealth and influence were totally undermined."
Cohn-Sherbok casually presents that Israel was a fundamentally intolerant colonialist project, an ethnostate by design which aimed to keep the Palestinians as a permanent underclass to prevent resistance, and then moves on as if it didn’t compromise his view of Palestnians being the principal cause for unrest in the region. Excuse me? Is there really no possible criticism for Israel militarily controlling the lives and movements of an entire race of indigenous people? Flabbergasting, honestly.
In summary, I deeply disliked this book, finding the pacing and level of detail inappropriate and miscalculated, whether the reader was new to the topic or already comfortable with the subject. I also found the events and discussion points (or lack thereof) to make the discussion deeply frustrating for both authors. Altogether, I give the book 1.5 stars for the interesting concept of the book and because it was also occasionally informative by presenting diverging historical narratives and letting the reader consider these different framings.