|
|
|
Review
| Israel Challenges to Identity, Democracy and the State, by Clive Jones and Emma C. Murphy. London and New York: Routledge, 2002. 176 pages. $85.00, cloth. $24.95, paper.
|
| We are more than half a century away from the founding of Israel, and people are still raising questions about whether the Jewish state can endure? Clive Jones and Emma C. Murphy address the issue starkly by asking "...whether the plethora of competing identities that have sprouted within the modern Israeli state can be reconciled within existing political structure." At the very outset of their book, they opine that Israel's long-term survival is "a doubtful prospect" [p. xxi] because of "...the ethnic and religious-secular fault-lines that run through Israel, [i.e. Ultra-Orthodox and Arab populations] and the challenges that they present to democratic intentions and structures..." [p. xxii] |
1
|
|
Jones and Murphy portray an Israel torn by ethnic conflicts and religious divisions, and plunged into turmoil over how to resolve their dispute with the Palestinians. Despite their claim of offering a balanced approach to Israel's political history—one informed by both the Zionist narrative and the imperialist colonial framework—their tendency is to see Israel's political evolution as confirming the latter more often than the former perspective. |
2
|
|
The basic premise from which they start produces a Zionist history that is a distorted version of events and developments. Some examples are less consequential for a full and proper analysis of Israel, but they are important for teachers of history. For one, Jones and Murphy describe Russia's Jewish population in the nineteenth century as living "on the land" [p. 5], a misunderstanding of both Jewish life and of the small towns in which most made their homes. They then claim, "the Tsar appeased the Russian peasantry by allowing them to hound the Jews off the land and back into the city ghettos," a tidy explanation that misses the complexities of Jewish Russian relations. |
3
|
|
The history of Great Britain's Mandatory Rule in Palestine is recounted with similar inattention to nuance or precision. Their view of Great Britain's support for the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish national home gives a surface credibility to the notion of an aggrieved Palestinian population inevitably finding the power, resources, and opportunity for sustained violence rendering the imperialist power's position largely untenable. But Great Britain's stance in Palestine did yield economic and strategic benefits that policymakers across the political spectrum were reluctant to relinquish. |
4
|
|
Finally, it is important to consider their analysis of current conditions in Israel. While divisions of ethnicity, nationality, and religion may be growing sharper in the country—as the authors emphasize—significant countervailing developments are also becoming salient, something Jones and Murphy fail to incorporate into their assessment of Israel's chances for survival. The Ultra-Orthodox are more dependent than ever on state subsidies, and their policy stances often reflect different mixtures of religious and political motives. The same is true of Israel's Arab population. For them, national antagonisms are sometimes less important than religious animosities and, most often, their central complaints stem from not being fully integrated into Israeli society. Most recent battles have been part of an effort to change particular Israeli policies rather than destroy the country's political structure. |
5
|
|
Although Jones and Murphy aim at providing a balanced history of Israel's political development, even to the point of acknowledging in a footnote the issues posed by Holocaust deniers [p. 29], they have not succeeded in unraveling the complex interconnections among Israelis who are accustomed to operating in a political culture fragmented by rivalries, but not about to burst apart. Most Israelis remain committed to protecting a Jewish state as a touchstone for their identity. |
6
|
|
The complicated story of Israel's political development invites a range of interpretations, and Jones and Murphy are correct to stress the differences in perspective. Unfortunately, their accounts of actual events do not match in precision or depth their desire to provide a comprehensive analysis of the several challenges to "identity, democracy and the state in Israel." |
7
|
| | |
| Smith College |
Donna Robinson Divine |
|
Content in the History Cooperative database is intended for personal, noncommercial use only. You may not reproduce, publish, distribute, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, modify, create derivative works from, display, or in any way exploit the History Cooperative database in whole or in part without the written permission of the copyright holder.
|