My Promised Land - The Triumph and Tragedy of Israel by Ari Shavit

God bless the NY Times.  They never disappoint; if they can stick it in the eye of Israel you can count on them to do so.  This time it was the review of Ari Shavit's book, "My Promised Land - The Triumph And Tragedy Of Israel" reviewed by Leon Wieseltier.

Okay, so what was the tragedy of Israel?  As reported by this review, it was that "(t)here was another people living on the same land. 'The miracle is based on denial.'  … 'Bulldozers razed Palestinian villages, warrants confiscated Palestinian land, laws revoked Palestinians' citizenship and annulled their homeland.'  Shavit's narrative of the massacre and expulsion of the Arabs of Lydda by Israeli forces in the war of 1948 is a sickening tour the force, even if it is not, in his view, all one needs to know about the war or the country."

If you know nothing about Israel's history Shavit's words as reported and amplified by Wieseltier, paint a horrific picture of Jewish behavior.  Since I am not a historian, I had to do a bit of research.  The facts are these:  Lydda (now Lod) sat at the intersection of east-west, and north-south roads.  The quickest and easiest way for the Jews to supply their fellow Jews who were fighting the Jordanians in Jerusalem was to travel the road through Lydda.  But, that was not possible because local Arabs and Jordanians had taken up positions in Lydda.  To support the Jews fighting off the Jordanians in Jerusalem, the Jews had to find an alternate route.  This was the one referred to as the Burma Road because of the difficulty in traveling on it.  To defend themselves the Jews ultimately had to clear out Lydda.

But, was all this necessary?  Not if the Jews and the Arabs had accepted the division of land as determined by the UN.  And, the Jews had accepted the UN's division of the land (as ridiculous as it was), but not the Arabs.  The Arabs made it clear that if the Jews declared a Jewish state, they would "drive the Jews into the sea."  And so it was that the Jews facing forces from Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq (have I left anyone out?) had to fight back and fight back hard.  With some Jordanian forces sitting in Lydda, the Jews had no choice but to clear out this city.  If this is "sickening" then perhaps it's war that's sickening.  And, Israel certainly did not want war.

People should realize that the Middle East is no Switzerland.  It's not a place were people speaking different languages have d learned to live together.  Without question, displacement is difficult on the displaced.  Jews know this because as soon as the UN voted for the creation of a Jewish state, Arab nations rushed to expel their Jews, Jews who had lived in places like Egypt and Iraq for generations.  By some great irony, the number of Jews made refugees by the Arab nations numbered essentially the same as the Arabs who fled or were displaced by the Jews.  I might add that the Arabs fleeing of their own accord outnumbered by far those who were forced out.

It didn't have to be that way.  There would have been enough land to go around.  Palestine was no Singapore or Hong Kong teaming with people.  It was pretty much as Mark Twain had described it on his travels.  It didn't have to be; but it was.  And, I might add that despite Arabs living in relative comfort in Israel, Abbas has announced that no Jew will be allowed to live in a Palestinian state.

(I trust the reader of this piece will be sufficiently informed to understand that before the State of Israel was founded, everyone on that land was Palestinian including the Jews.  It changed only afterwards.  It must be understood that if one state declares war and then loses that war, it must pay a price.  No price was paid by the Egyptians.  No price was paid by the Jordanians.  Only the Syrians paid a price.  Their loss of the heights from which they fired on the Jews below must remain forever Jewish.  I would further point out that the Druze who lived there, now live at peace as Israelis.

Footnote:
On C-SPAN Book TV, on November 24, I saw Ari Shavit, along with the author of "Lawrence In Arabia," Scott Anderson.  A question posed to Ari Shavit at the end of the program showed him not to be quit as leftist as reading Mr. Wieseltier would suggest.  The question by someone from the left was essentially this:  Do you, Mr. Shavit, see any hope that someone more peace oriented than Netanyahu will emerge who can finally make peace with the Palestinians?

Mr. Shavit replied as follows:  Israel on three occasions reached out to the Palestinians, on each occasion, they were met with either rockets from Gaza or seeing Jews blown up in Israeli buses.  Israelis, based on their experience, see little reason for holding out hope for a peace with the Palestinians.

Israel Served Up Without Controversy

I was invited to join the Israel information committee at my Temple.  Fine, I thought, and went to my first meeting.  They discussed this and that.  And, in the course of their discussions, one committee member warned, "We don't want anything contentious."  (Or, for that matter, controversial.)

That unleashed a flood of thoughts.  Was it really possible to think of Israel without evoking something of controversy?  Were Russian pogroms controversial?  Was the Dreyfus Affair controversial?  Was the Holocaust controversial?  Was the vote in the UN with Pres. Truman having to over ride his state department controversial?  Was Israel declaring its statehood controversial?  Were Israel's efforts to defend itself controversial?  Was the conflict between Ben-Gurion and Begin a matter of controversy?  What is there about Israel that isn't controversial?

Its very narrative, as set forth in the book Exodus, has become controversial.  I hear it said that the book is really not a very good piece of literature.  (I leave that up to lit majors.)  But, it did inspire hundreds of thousands of Jews.  Did the author posssibly get a detail wrong here, or perhaps there?  Perhaps.  But, in the main, it's true to life and captures Israel's struggle to survive.

Let's turn it around.  Let's try to avoid controversy.  You have the wonderful Jewish museums.  But, again don't peer at things too modern.  You have the kibbutzim.  But, again, they're not what they once were.  They're now very much into specialization.  You have kibbutzim that serve tourists much as any warm and friendly hotel would.  You have kibbutzim that have specialized into dairies.  Others have gone into furniture making.  And, of course, the number of kibbutzim is very much reduced.

Israel developed the drip method of irrigation.  It's now used around the world.  Israel has gone into the hybridization of plants as well as their genetic modification.  But that too is controversial.  It's pioneering work in UAV's (drones) has put it in a leadership position in the design and operation of these devices.  Then too it has extended its work into robotics.  (When you think about it, you realize that the drone is little more than a flying robot.)  Oops, all of this is controversial.

You want to visit the grave of Abraham.  That means going to Hebron.  Again, you find yourself in the midst of controversy.

You go to the Dead Sea and find it's disappearing.  Yes, there is a solution; namely, pumping water into it from the Gulf of Aqaba.  But, the Palestinian Authority disapproves.  Again, you have controversey.

I could go on, but I think you get my drift.  Israel is controversial.  And, why not make the most of that?  Why not visit Hebron and Sderot?  Why not visit towns and cities across the green line?  Why not walk the length and breadth of Jerusalem -- east side, west side, all around the town?  Controversial?  You better believe it.  But, you'll have fun.

Israel As The Linchpin For The Entire Middle East: The Debunking Of A Myth

A myth popular in Obama's circle is that, if only the Israel-Palestine conflict could be resolved, everything else in the Middle East would fall in place.

Well, kiddies, consider this:  Israel has for years been rumored to have one, or more, atomic bombs.  It remains a rumor only because Israel has never admitted to the rumor.  In other words, Israel has worked hard to maintain deniability.  Okay, but who actually believes that Israel has no atomic bombs?  (Golda Meier, at the time of the Yom Kippur War, warned that she would unleash Israel's atomic weapon, if she found Israel being destroyed.)

In any event, it is clear that Islamic nations are quite confident that Israel does, in fact, possess one or more atomic bombs.  And, that includes Saudi Arabia.  But has it prompted Saudi Arabia to acquire an atomic bomb?  No.  But, how the situation changes when Iran appears on the verge of producing such a bomb.  Saudi Arabia has made it clear that if Iran acquires the bomb, Saudi Arabia will buy one from Pakistan.  Indeed, the Saudis have already let it be known that they've made preliminary arrangements.

Let's recap: Israel with an atomic bomb leaves Saudi Arabia unperturbed.  Iran with an atomic bomb has Saudi Arabia running over to Pakistan to buy one for themselves.  Who worries Saudi Arabia the
most, Israel or Iran?

Less dramatic (perhaps) but equally compelling is what's happening in Syria.  Israel has been very careful to keep out of this conflict, with one exception; namely, when rockets are shipped to Syria for transfer to Hezbollah, Israel tries to destroy them (usually with some success).  But that's strictly between Israel and Hezbollah and, of course,  with their sponsor; namely, Iran.  The many thousands of Syrian dead and the hundred of thousands of Syrian refugees starving and without shelter is a truly horrible situation.  But, it's got nothing to do with Israel.

Then there's Egypt where the Egyptian government is working with Israel to keep the Sinai free of Islamists.  The only one upset with that situation seems to be Obama.

If that man would only stick to community organizing.