Historical viewpoints of Israel-Palestine can be said to divide between those who see the situation as one of occupier and occupied, and the more dominant force of those who see it as a conflict between two peoples, presented as if locked in a deadly but equal battle. In this book, James Gelvin merely flirts with the former, but positively marries the latter.
The book firstly establishes the ideologies of nationalism, Zionism and the Palestinian people; all of which, he maintains, have been central to the ‘conflict’. Gelvin begins by sweeping through the history examining how nationalism has been played out in the region.
The results are much more satisfying for Zionism. Gelvin fixes Zionism where it should be: in the late 19th century, developing alongside and in response to, other forms of nationalism. The motivations and events that led to the setting up of a Jewish state and the personalities that led them are truly fascinating and well-written. Gelvin considers both literature and events, as well as the politics of the time, to really examine the rationale and driving forces of the early Zionists.
He reveals some of the least palatable aspects of early Zionists’ view. He quotes Herzl, who stated they would ‘form a rampart of Europe against Asia, an outpost of civilisation against barbarism,’ an expression that over 100 years later is still being repeated by Israeli politicians, including the statement from the Israeli Foreign Ministry saying that ‘decent Western countries did not vote for the Goldstone report’ (following Israel’s anger about the vote that Israel should answer allegations of war crimes).
The portrayal of Palestinian nationalism is interesting but much less satisfying, partly because Palestinian nationalism does not fit as neatly into the nationalist picture that Gelvin paints. One disappointing aspect of this work was the failure to reflect at any point the fact that for many Palestinians, the desire for self-determination is borne out of necessity, not ideology, as it is seen as the only way in which to ensure that they can keep their homes and land, and ensure safety for their families and preserve their basic rights. Gelvin falls for the traditional version of the Israel-Palestine story. He talks of Palestinian rebels trying to forcibly reoccupy and repossess lands without recalling their occupation and possession in the first place by Jewish settlers.
Added to this, the personalities and lives of the Palestinians do not glimmer and glint with the same sparkle as the Israelis. You could argue that this is because there is less historical evidence, but Ilan Pappe in his History of Palestine does bring these people back to life in a way that Gelvin does not.
For the up-to-date reader, Gelvin’s coverage of the Nakba is the breaking point. His main source is Benny Morris (and it is unfortunate for Gelvin this was published shortly before Pappe’s seminal Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine). He self-consciously chooses the language of Israel ‘transfer of population’ rather than ethnic cleansing. Given the magnitude of these crimes and the devastating impact on the Palestinians, it is surprising that he devotes barely three pages in a 255-page book to the historical evidences of these crimes.
Indeed continuing in this ‘Israeli apologist’ role, he describes Israel’s ‘misfortune’ at being a settler state in the ‘harsh light of the twentieth century’, without pointing out how extraordinary it was for Israel to carry out these murders and expulsions in 1948 without any effective action from the UN. Indeed, how telling it is that these acts are not part of our historical memory of the post-war period today. He also goes on to describe ‘Israel’s misfortune that it attempted to build a state on the ruins of a society that had nationalist aspirations of its own’ without any apparent irony.
The lowest moment for me was his description of the demographics and the politics of the right of return for Palestinian refugees to Israel. In a key passage he explains that a law has been passed so that every Jew has the right to ‘return’ to Israel and states that: ‘Israel is a Jewish state .......... Israel could hardly retain its Jewish character if it extended the right of citizenship to large numbers of non-Jews such as Palestinians.’ Such as Palestinians?
And he fails to draw out the huge gulf between the exclusiveness of the Israeli Zionist view and the previously more inclusive world view of the Palestinians. For example, Gelvin is highly critical of Fatah’s late conversion to a two-state solution without reflecting on the fact that they were previously offering a one state solution, with equality of citizenship regardless of religion, for all: Palestinians, Israelis, indigenous and immigrant. Whilst this might be unacceptable to Israelis and many Zionists around the world; for a silent majority, a state formed around equality of citizenship regardless of religion or ethnicity sounds a good deal more attractive than one where the rights of the citizen depend on his or her religion.
In his obsession with parity, rather like the BBC, he often gives too much ‘talk-time’ to largely discredited viewpoints. For example, whilst looking at settlements he takes far too long to come to the issue of legality, giving equal space to the ‘opponents of the Israeli settlement policy’ who argue that settlements are illegal and Israel’s rather spurious arguments that they are not and concludes by saying ‘whatever the arguments back and forth’. The reader might be forgiven for not appreciating the widespread consensus elsewhere that this is simply an Israeli smokescreen and they are very clearly on the wrong side of international law.
Added to that, whilst Gelvin explores the problems of Israeli settlements and the apartheid system of Israeli-only infrastructure around it (though of course he certainly does not refer to apartheid!), he does appear to grasp some of the impact of the occupation on Palestinian life, but continually underestimates its impact. For example, he lists five key reasons why Palestinian nationalism survives and yet fails to mention anything about the daily, routine and sometimes extraordinary and dramatic abuse of human rights experienced by the Palestinians at the hands of their occupiers, which is in all probability the greatest driving force.
As long as historians like Gelvin continue to repeat the myth of a conflict rather than a conquest, they will perpetuate the myth that the Israelis and Palestinians can negotiate as equals, rather than as state and stateless, occupied and occupier. Whilst the crimes of land grabs, ethnic cleansing and discrimination against other religions go under- or un-reported, Israel will continue to be treated as an equal partner by the democratic world. There will be no lasting peace settlement whilst those conditions remain and this history remains unchallenged. The history of Israel and Palestine needs a fresh perspective, and this certainly does not appear to be coming from Gelvin.