My Promised Land
First, and probably foremost, it’s a good read. And that’s saying a lot. Second, it’s got lots of history, commentary and insight into Israel’s society and context that is new and interesting (at least to me). Third, I think I’d like and agree with Shavit on most questions — he’s liberal, not overly religious, curious, a journalist. Which makes me inclined to trust and appreciate his point of view and that trust makes the reading a bit easier — especially in the treacherous terrain of Israel. I’d definitely recommend this book to friends and colleagues who want to read a sympathetic, although not uncritical exploration of Israel’s history and condition.
A few things struck me:
I’d never heard the story of Shmaryahu Gutman who, in 1942, endeavored to cultivate a warrior ethic among Jewish youth in Palestine and used field trips to Masada to create a lore and mythic mentality. Gutman himself was Hagannah and was building the moral force necessary to fight the war necessary to create Israel. Interesting stuff — also in context of the Jewish-Palestinian terror that reigned just prior.
The story of the citrus industry, mass immigration, and the building of Dimona and the quiet creation of nuclear weapons capacity are all interesting and important. He interviews many players in Israel’s history— and contemporary society — almost exclusively Jews — and provides interesting and mostly sympathetic portrayals. And at the same time paint a picture of a country born in blood and tragedy that is a miracle of political, military, economic, and social achievement.
Shavit sees the occupation and, even more, the settlements as wrong and potentially fatal to Israel. And he was a peacenik, civil rights activist, and documented the torture of Palestinians in Gaza.
But without being Jewish, it’s hard to have sympathy with his core concern, which is the survival and sustenance of non-Orthodox Jewry. He admires American Jewry, but sees the demographics fading and argues that Israel will soon be majority of non-Orthodox Jewry. Paraphrasing, “Europe killed Jews by the millions, but America will kill Judaism through apathy and entropy.” Which is a little heavy handed I think. And maybe true, but also, who cares? If people leave their parents’ religion by their own choice, why is that wrong? If you’re a committed Jew, it’s wrong, I suppose. If you’re not… who cares?
Shavit doesn’t spend a lot of time talking about Orthodox Jews. But that’s curious because as he shows, they are and will make up a growing portion of Jewry, including in Israel. He says they don’t work, don’t pay taxes, don’t serve in the military. When he describes demographics, he treats them as he does Arab Muslims in Israel: as a problem or worse. But why? Is the project is to sustain Judaism, are they not relevant? I get not feeling very sympathetic and seeing their demographic growth as a problem and their hostility to secular Israel and liberal values as a threat. But shouldn’t he wrestle with it more? Especially since, in his concluding chapter, reconciling and integrating them into Israel is key to Israel’s future.
I’m pretty sympathetic to the Jewish project (survival and sustaining traditions). I’m sympathetic to the Israel project — which serves an historic and moral necessity. Or at least it did. And reading Shavit it’s hard not to be awed by the industriousness, intelligence, moxie, guile, and ambition of Israel and it’s proponents. It’s an amazing history and accomplishment.
And yet, basic moral standards can’t be waived and the righteousness of the cause is undermined over time by bad behavior and betrayals. Given Israel’s precariousness and the demographic challenge it faces, it must have a moral high ground to sustain itself and to seek and maintain international support. But Israel in 2019 has fallen and must be redeemed to survive — or at least to earn the support of a new generation. It can fail. It may.
Shavit sees this danger and is obsessed with it. But his argument is not convincing. For one, he never really overcomes the original sin of Palestinian expulsion. He can argue it was necessary and is an historical fact. But old sins must be redeemed and the victims made whole. This must be done for Israel to achieve peace. And he has no solution and doesn’t accept the challenge, even while he himself says this is the existential problem in Israel’s relations to Palestinians (rather than the occupation).
Nor does he wrestle with the emerging rot at the top of Israel, the rank corruption and increasing authorianism. Netanyahu. He doesn’t defend Netanyahu, but doesn’t delve into the problem. And that’s too bad, because he’s been a defining figure and has transformed Israel — at least in the world’s eyes. The ongoing atrocities in Gaza, the brutal treatment of occupied Palestinians. He doesn’t defend them, but also doesn’t explore them in enough depth to see through to the other side.
Here’s a good review of how Shavit provides deeply human, sympathetic but not uncritical profiles of Jews and ignores or dehumanizes Palestinians — and decontextualizes their actions. https://www.thecairoreview.com/book-reviews/noble-jews-and-bloodthirsty-arabs/
[note may update this as I think of other things. like:
- Why am I not surprised he’s a problem? https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/22/opinion/metoo-sexual-assault-forgiveness.html?smid=tw-nytopinion&smtyp=cur.
- I’m a little embarassed I didn’t see how invisible women are in his book: https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-the-jewish-world-s-metoo-crisis-is-much-deeper-than-shavit-and-cohen-1.6316456]
ENDS///
