Someone sent me a link to this book review recently. It’s of a book called The Other Side of Israel: My Journey Across the Jewish/Arab Divide, by a British-Israeli woman called Susan Nathan. She recounts how she made “aliyah” (migrated) to Israel, learned Hebrew, and then went to live in what is called variously, in the review, an Arab “village” and an Arab “town”.
The reviewer, Laura Levitt, Ph.D., is described as “the Director of Jewish Studies at Temple University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Her review reads very much like part of an ongoing discussion inside the confines of a certain subset of the world’s “progressive” Jewish community, about the nature of Israel.
Levitt writes:
- Most upsetting for me were the stories Nathan tells about the ongoing efforts to confiscate ancestral land and property from Arab Israeli citizens. These are places that had been inhabited by these Palestinian families for centuries. As she explains, Israel
Given that she acknowledges that most of “these people”–let’s call them here the Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel, which is a name to which most of them do not object– have their own strong preferences about how they like to self-identify, what on earth are Levitt’s grounds for using “a variety of terms” to refer to them…. that variety also including the common Jewish-Israeli monicker for them, “Arab Israelis”– which most of them really hate?
Possibly because the identity question is a matter of some disagreement among the Arabs in question, and can’t be reduced to a single term?
The issue of whether Arab citizens of Israel are “Palestinian Israelis,” “Arab Israelis,” “Palestinian citizens of Israel” or some other term is a subject of debate within that community much like the question of whether the descendants of slaves living in the United States are “African-American” or “black.” Polls tend to show anywhere from a third to half of Arab citizens identifying, on some level, as “Israelis.” Moreover, even those who don’t self-identify as Israeli don’t always consider themselves Palestinian, and the Islamicization of Palestinian identity has made this an especially acute dilemma for Christians.
Given the complexity of the Arab population in Israel, I’d argue that the use of multiple terms is appropriate, and that the use of a single reductionist phrase is profoundly inappropriate. I think the scattershot way Linda Levitt uses these terms is equally inappropriate – rather than using them at random, she should tailor her language to the self-identification of the particular Arabs she’s writing about – but their use itself isn’t.
I can also think of at least one other reason to use the term “Arab Israeli” – to emphasize that they are as much a part of the state, and that the state owes them as much of an obligation of fair treatment and equality, as Jewish Israelis. The term “Palestinian citizens of Israel,” used exclusively, places them somewhat outside and, in a way, almost acts as a justification for differential treatment.
All in all, Levitt comes off as someone who knows very little about Israel, and even less about Israel’s Arab citizens, but hasn’t let that stop her from writing a book review. I could say a great deal else, but I won’t.
All right, I will say one thing more:
Her switching between describing the Israeli-Palestinian place where Susan Nathan goes to live as, variously, an “Arab village” and an “Arab town” is another aspect of the colonial naming phenomenon.
This is a matter of legal status. Some Arab communities in Israel are villages, some are towns, some are cities. Nazareth, Umm al Fahm, Sakhnin, Shfaram and Rahat in the Negev all have the status of city; I believe there are one or two others, but I’m not going to look them up now. Tamra, where Susan Nathan lives, is also an iriyat (city) that was raised from village status in 1996, so describing it as a “village” or even a “town” is inaccurate.
The distinction between villages, towns and cities also rests in part on the type of community – towns and cities have commercial and cultural centers, while villages usually don’t. Some of the larger Arab communities in Israel, like Umm al Fahm, are cities in every sense of the word, while others are big villages. From what I know of Tamra, it would be considered a town or small city in most countries.
BTW, there’s another review of Susan Nathan’s book in the Daily Star. It’s interesting to juxtapose the two reviews – they reveal almost as much about the reviewers as about the book.
All right, one thing more. (Yes, I know I’m acting obsessed.)
Susan Nathan, and for that matter Linda Levitt, give the appearance of people who have lost their illusions. I’ve seen a number of interviews with Nathan since reading the Daily Star review, and she had a highly idealized view of Israeli society before immigrating. Once she found out that Israel wasn’t a madonna, it crashed all the way to whore. Loss of illusion frequently leads, in precisely this way, to adoption of equal and opposite illusion.
Personally, I think it would be far better to approach the situation in Israel (as anywhere) without any illusions, to avoid extremes of idealization and demonization, and to make full use of Israel’s political and rule-of-law institutions to correct its social injustices. This means, on the one hand, acknowledging that there are injustices in Israel, but on the other hand, recognizing that this fact doesn’t delegitimize it as a nation. If only just nations were legitimate, then who in this world could claim the right to exist?
Jonathan is quite correct about the distinction between town and city in Israel being largely a legal distinction, not having anything at all to do with “colonialism”. The same confusion in nomenclature – between kfar (village) and ‘ayara (town) occurs among primarily Jewish communities, because these terms refer to subjective, not legal, issues – the former meaning, more or less, “rural”, while the latter just implies more dense settlement and less agriculture. They are not legal distinctions.
This confusion is largely due, I believe, to the fact that communities are distinguished, primarily, by the kind of administration that they have (according to their classification by the Interior Ministry). Tamra, for example, is a mo’eza meqomit, or local council. Um al-Fahm, in contrast, has an mo’eza ‘irya, or city council with a mayor.
I will also indulge myself with one more comment.
…that tiny– and on occasion, shall we say, just ever so slightly self-referential? [sic]– portion of world’s people that is Jewish, that styles itself “progessive”…
I find this to be a bit condescending, and I would hope that the author would take the time for some self-reflection on this.
I would imagine that, as a proportion of the world’s population, those Palestinians who could be categorized as truly “progressive” is even smaller than the “self-referential” [sic] group referred to above. Does that, therefore, negate the rights of all Palestinian Arabs to define themselves as such and, on this basis, demand national self-determination? I think not.
It became Iriyat Tamra in 1996, although it was a local council before that.
Helena, your problems with the book remind me of what one hears from the Jewish/pro-Israeli side when they’re discussing ARab points of view that attempt to make sense of the conflict. You’re excoriating Nathan for not having an Arab point of view, for being a clueless ex-Zionist. She’s trying to see things from a new point of view, and you’re chastising her for not having *your* point of view.
The real story is that she started out a Zionist, moved to this village, got some new experiences and opened her eyes, and wrote about the transformation.
Her point of view is not going to be that of an Arab, or a person who has lived in the Arab world, or a person who sympathizes with the plight of the Palestinians. So of course if you are any one of those things, you are going to find fault with her view.
I simply find it of interest that she’s trying to examine any of this at all.
As an Arab-American who tries to make sense of this stuff, I sometimes get attacked from both sides of the conflict – for either being too sympathetic to the ARab POV and not sufficiently attuned to the Israeli/right wing/ultra-Zionist POV, or for being too willing to look at matters from the Israeli/Jewish side and therefore not paying sufficient attention to the suffering of the Palestinians.
Your work with the Quakers is admirable, Helena; I hope you don’t descend into the Angry Arab/Tony Badran rhetorical method of attacking even those who might agree with you because they are insufficiently fervent, or simply “not on our side.”
Thanks to this post and its comment thread for alerting me to the book, to the Daily Star review, and to many subtleties of the Israeli scene I would have otherwise missed.
Leila,
I don’t know what others say to you, but I find your POV very honest and refreshing. Thank you!
I’m usually a lurker on your side Helena, but I agree with Leila that it was wrong to pick on a woman who is apparently changing her position. Anyway, if you’re looking for people who are utterly clueless about Palestinians, I think my fellow American evangelical Christians should be on the very top of the list. As an extreme example, I just saw a week ago a “Christian” on a Christian group blog who said he favored the scorched earth approach to Palestinians. They support terror, he said, so level their cities to the ground. Most of us aren’t that bad, but as I’m typing this I can remember another occasion where a Christian friend said (in front of Christians) that maybe the solution to the IP problem would be a complete expulsion of the Palestinians and nobody else seemed shocked. (Maybe they were silent, like I was, out of embarrassment, but I really doubt it.) And then…well, I have a couple of other stories, but I’d say the progressive Jewish community, flawed as it might be, is light years ahead of most evangelical Christians in my experience.
Hi Leila,
You’re excoriating Nathan for not having an Arab point of view, for being a clueless ex-Zionist. She’s trying to see things from a new point of view, and you’re chastising her for not having *your* point of view.
I’m not Helena, but I think her criticism is directed at Laura Levitt the book reviewer rather than Susan Nathan the author. And, frankly, some of the things Professor Levitt wrote do sound pretty clueless. Levitt was the wrong person to review this book – she’s a Jewish-studies person with a focus on feminist scholarship, and she clearly doesn’t know enough about the Arabs in Israel to engage Nathan’s writing on an intellectual level or analyze her conclusions critically. The ideal reviewer would have been Sayed Kashua (or another Arab-Israeli intellectual with similar literary talent) or, failing that, at least someone with working knowledge of Israel and its Arab citizens.
Nevertheless, I don’t see anything in Professor Levitt’s writing that calls her sincerity into question, and for that reason I agree that the content and tone of Helena’s criticism was unwarranted. To take one example, I don’t think Levitt deserves to be mocked for writing that the world has “forgotten” the Palestinian refugees. After all, many of the refugees themselves argue that the world has forgotten them, so maybe Levitt was just trying to show sensitivity toward their plight.
(And while I’m at it, I also don’t buy Helena’s implicit equation of the terms “Arab Israeli” and “Zionist usurper.” While some of Israel’s Arab citizens, especially those who self-identify as Palestinians, might construe “Arab Israeli” as an insulting term, it isn’t inherently so. It isn’t a condemnatory term when used by a Jewish Israeli, and may even be an inclusive one. “Zionist usurper,” on the other hand, can’t be construed any other way than as an insult – and, unlike “Arab Israeli,” it isn’t a term of self-identification for any significant number of Israeli citizens.)
BTW, Helena, have you thought of sending Professor Levitt a link to this post? Her e-mail address is available on her faculty web site, and she might be interested in joining this conversation.
Well, Jonathan, as usual you read more carefully than I do, and I thank you for the clarification. OK, so Professor Levitt was the clueless one.
I’m still heartened that this book and this dialogue are happening at all on the Jewish/Israeli side of the conflict. To me it looks like a sign of hope – a change in the weather.
JES, thanks!
I’m not posting much because I just started grad school and really don’t have enough brain cells to keep the blog going, too. I’m afraid to post about this book & the commentary because really, my mind is occupied with so many things, I’m concerned I’ll make a mess of it.
I’m still heartened that this book and this dialogue are happening at all on the Jewish/Israeli side of the conflict. To me it looks like a sign of hope – a change in the weather.
Me too – and, while I’m sure I’ve told you this before, I completely agree with what JES said about you.
say, just ever so slightly self-referential?– portion of world’s people that is Jewish, that styles itself “progessive”, but that is reluctant to examine too deeply or too critically the basic tenets of Zionist ideology has seen fit to do so.
Just exactly which progressive Jews are you referring to? All the progressive Jews that I know beat their breasts comstantly about the imperfections of Israeli society.
The problem is that they only beat their breasts (they never seem to tire of it either) about the imperfections of Israel, not the deeper implications of the Romantic Nationalism on which it is founded–Zionism. They have a hard time grasping the terrible fact that such a mythologized belief system can only whip up a herrenvolk worldview that is fundamentally at odds with liberal values.
Eric Hobsbawm, someone who knows from first hand experience which way madness lies, had this to say in ‘Nations and Nationalism since 1780’:
The logical implication of trying to create a continent neatly divided into coherent territorial states, each inhabited by a separate ethnically and linguistically homogeneous population, was the mass expulsion or extermination of minorities. Such was and is the murderous reductio ad absurdum of nationalism in its territorial version, although this was not fully demonstrated until the 1940s… The homogeneous territorial nation could now be seen as a programme that could be realized only by barbarians, or at least by barbarian means.
such a mythologized belief system can only whip up a herrenvolk worldview that is fundamentally at odds with liberal values
Give me a freakin’ break. Ethnic nationalism doesn’t have a better track record than other political philosophies, but it certainly doesn’t have a worse one. Two of the three greatest killers in the 20th century were pure universalist utopians, and the massacres and ethnic cleansing of the North American and Australian natives was carried out by high-minded liberals without a trace of ethnonationalism in them. Conversely, the European Union has created a working liberal democracy along the ethnonationalist model with its system of national minorities and autonomous regions. Ethnic nationalism doesn’t mean ethnic supremacism, and like anything else, it’s adaptable into liberal as well as totalitarian forms.
Israel isn’t as far along that learning curve as the EU, not least because it’s a newer country and has never really been free of external conflict, but it has the tools for self-correction and it’s improving. Moreover, given that Zionism can be expressed in terms of values as well as ethnic survival, it can provide an ideological basis for reform. Emmanuel Levinas, among others, has argued that one of the Jewish values that a Zionist state must affirm is respect for the moral rights and dignity of non-Jews.
Personally, I’d say that a great deal less breast-beating is in order, and a great deal more concrete support for civil rights in Israel. Those interested in a rational discussion of these issues (including some cogent disagreement with me from both directions) might want to look here.
excellent comments, Jonathan and JES!
This blog grows better by the day with your help. Keep it up.
“Ethnic nationalism doesn’t have a better track record than other political philosophies, but it certainly doesn’t have a worse one.”
From a South African point of view it looks like you are hedging your bets, Jonathan.
Further down you write of “more concrete support for civil rights in Israel.” You really mean “more substantial”, or “more material”, don’t you?
The concrete (in the philosophical sense) is not really your bag at all, is it?
You are dedicated to the empirical, the eclectic, and the abstract, aren’t you? You are an encyclopaedist, a master of exhaustive detail, but incapable of dialectics, aren’t you?
I’m not philosophically trained, so I accept your correction. By “concrete” I did indeed mean “material.” In other words, rather than making futile expressions of remorse about the state of civil rights in Israel, those who give a damn should provide financial and political support – and, if possible, labor – to the people and organizations who are fighting to improve the situation.
I do tend to look at things empirically; I believe that past performance is generally the best predictor of future results. I don’t find dialectical reasoning very useful most of the time, although that may be another result of my lack of formal philosophical training.
Jonathan, I really like you! I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, you are a gentleman. You are a good companion.
sk: you wrote that Zionism was founded on Romantic Nationalism. In what way is Zionism “Romantic Nationalism”. After what Jews endured for hundreds of years in Russia and Europe, Zionism always struck me as having much more to do with basic survival than with any romantic ideas, that having their own state and territory was the only way they were going to be able to protect themselves.
Your own prejudice and antagonism to Jews is clearly revealed by this comment:
“The problem is that they only beat their breasts (they never seem to tire of it either) ”
There are thousands of Jews both in and outside of Israel who work tirelessly to bring about reconciliation with the Palestinians.
So get off your high horse with your talk about barbarians and herrenvolk worldview. Your dislike and disdain for Jews oozes from every pore. Your high-minded talk about liberal values fools no one except yourself.
Miriam, I think you are a bit hasty with your comments about sk.
He quotes Hobsbawm, who is as Jewish as they come, isn’t he?
sk’s beef is not with Jews but with liberals, which is to say people (whether Jews or not) who work tirelessly to reconcile the irreconcilable, fo example the rich and the poor, the excluded and the included, and so on.
Hobsbawm is not the only Jew who can be counted on the side of the revolutionaries, as opposed to liberals. Spinoza, Marx, and Rosa Luxemburg come to mind, as well as some of our South African revolutionaries like Joe Slovo and Rusty Bernstein.
I have received the following message from Laura Levitt, which I quote by permission:
And also the following:
I hope this clarifies matters somewhat.
I can’t agree that the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans was carried out by “high-minded liberals without a trace of ethnonationalism in them”. I think the comparison of the Palestinian and Native American situations is critical because it shows how much liberal capitalists have reverted to Victorian ideology in our sorry time. But in Victorian times, there was plenty of ethnonationalism in America. “White” and “American” were inseperable concepts; once the Abolitionists were safely marginalized we declared war on Injuns as an explicitly racist crusade with no sector of society resisting. I heard a story about a “high-minded liberal” who was proposing a system of Indian reservations to solve the war with the settlers, and went on a speaking tour in Colorado to promote the idea. He asked the rhetorical question, “what would we have to do? Kill them all?” Only he was greeted with thunderous applause from his mainstream, non-liberal audience (my ancestors). If anything the liberals held back our redneck population (again, my kind) from just murdering all the Native Americans like they did in California. The hatred came from our white Christian masses, and they indulged in many other forms of bigotry in subsequent decades that practically defined White Nationalism by process of elimination. It served its purpose, and the US Nazis of today are just an embarrassing reminder of what our ancestors were like as they rose to global power. Or a foreshadowing…