This article was downloaded by: [Thammasat University Libraries]On: 09 October 2014, At: 01:45Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Israeli History: Politics, Society, CulturePublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fjih20

Book ReviewsSusannah Heschel aa Dartmouth College, Department of ReligionPublished online: 04 Sep 2006.

To cite this article: Susannah Heschel (2006) Book Reviews, Journal of Israeli History: Politics, Society, Culture, 25:2,361-384, DOI: 10.1080/13531040600810326

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13531040600810326

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Book Reviews

American Jewish Women and the Zionist EnterpriseSHULAMIT REINHARZ and MARK A. RAIDER (eds.)Hanover, NH: Brandeis University Press, 2005lix þ 393 pp., illustrations, bibliography, index, ISBN: 1-58465-438-4

During the early years of the Zionist movement, centered in Europe in the late

nineteenth and early twentieth century, ambivalence toward women was rife. Zionismpresented itself as an emancipatory movement for Jews, yet it kept positions of

political leadership firmly in men’s hands. In 1912 Henrietta Szold founded a women’sZionist organization, Hadassah, to provide medical care for Jewish settlers in Palestine

that ultimately became one of the largest and most powerful international Jewishorganizations, yet was often denigrated in misogynist rhetoric. Szold herself wasexcluded from the Zionist leadership and had to rebuff efforts to take over Hadassah

and eliminate her position.1 During the early waves of immigration to Palestine priorto statehood, women worked alongside men in the cultivation of farmland.2 Yet with

the establishment of the State of Israel, women were not granted proportional roles ofpower within the government.3 Instead, a myth of gender equality within the State was

promoted to disguise the reality of women’s subservience.4 Although Golda Meirserved as Israel’s prime minister from 1969 to 1974, few women have held senior

positions within the Israeli cabinet or parliament, and it is difficult, as Hanna Herzoghas shown, for women to enter the political system.5 Given the central role of army

service in establishing careers within the political and financial arenas, the unequalposition of women in the Israeli military has had long-term career consequences.Thus, while women held traditionally male positions within the kibbutz system, few

men took on traditionally female positions, such as childcare, and while womencontinue to be drafted into the Israeli army, they are assigned subordinate tasks and are

not given combat duty.Despite rebuffs from the male political leadership, American Jewish women were

idealistic Zionists whoworked hard to raise funds, join the pioneers in pre-state Palestine,and encourage political support for statehood. This new collection edited by Shulamit

Reinharz and Mark Raider provides an excellent view of the wide range of Zionist rolesplayed by American Jewish women, offering both some primary source material andessays evaluating women’s contributions. The overall interpretation stresses the necessity

for women to negate their identity as women in order to succeed as Zionists. For example,Mira Katzburg-Yungman, evaluating the impact of Hadassah in Israel, attributes its

success to “a movement that organized women for Zionist efforts, rather than an

ISSN 1353-1042 (print)/ISSN 1744-0548 (online)/2006/020361-24

q 2006 Taylor & Francis

DOI: 10.1080/13531040600810326

The Journal of Israeli History

Vol. 25, No. 2, September 2006, pp. 361–384

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

01:

46 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

organization of women on behalf of other women” (p. 177). Similarly, Anita Shapira, in abrilliant interpretative essay, delineates the difficulties facedbyGoldaMeier innegotiating

her femaleness in the male world of politics and international diplomacy. Her clever skillat enacting a female role, such as cooking and ironing, at crucial moments seems to have

reassuredmale colleagues that she was not threatening their masculinity but leaving theirpatriarchal norms intact despite her political successes.

Such negotiations of gender prevailed throughout the movement, which, whilecalling for radical emancipation of Jews from diasporic subjugation, did not

emancipate women from gender subjugations. Some women apparently wereoblivious to the inequities—or at least, the authors of certain essays in this volumepaint a picture of devotion to Zionism that obviated any resentments. Sara Kadosh’s

essay on Rose Vietels, who was active in the Yishuv, including the Haganah, portraysher as desiring nothing more than to express her love of Israel through dedication to

the Yishuv. A similar altruism is defined in Peri Rosenfeld’s essay about Sara BodekPaltiel, who emigrated to Palestine in 1932 and served as a nurse; neither inner

conflicts nor doubts nor difficulties experienced as a woman are mentioned.The editors introduce their volume as demonstrating that “American Jewish

women played roles as important as men did in the pre-state period” (p. xix). Onthe organizational level, it is clear that Hadassah’s membership was double that ofthe Zionist Organization of America, yet it is not clear that individual women

achieved the political influence of men on the international level or in the Yishuvand the state. Were Stephen Wise and Abba Hillel Silver, for example, receptive to

female colleagues in the Zionist movement? At the same time, the editors note thatthe United States afforded women opportunities for individual political organizing

and philanthropy that were unthinkable in much of Europe. The idealism of aZionist liberation of Jews was embraced by women who would never actually make

aliyah. Zionism, the editors write perceptively, “became a way of fighting their ownassimilationist tendencies, rather than a way of addressing the ideological imperative

of emigration” (p. xxii). Or was Zionism in part a means of assimilating into anAmerican culture that was pleased with the idea of sending Jews to their own MiddleEastern country rather than having them immigrate to the United States? Or

perhaps part of a quintessentially American voyage to self-realization, as theeditors note?

The most gripping section of the book is its collection of women’s memories of theirearly Zionist activities. Lois Slott, recalling her work as a stenotypist for the Jewish

Agency in New York in 1947, gives a vibrant portrayal of the personalities sheencountered and some of the crises they faced. Her description of Golda Meir’s plea to

Abba Hillel Silver to denounce the Irgun in support of Ben Gurion, and Silver’sadamant refusal to do so, is particular striking. The description by Yocheved HerschlagMuffs of her aliyah in the summer of 1947 and her experiences on a religious kibbutz

during the War of Independence are fascinating. Her attention to the details ofeveryday life is invaluable for the historian—friendships, food supplies, the first

elections, the settlement of a former Arab village. One wishes for a much longer

362 Book Reviews

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

01:

46 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

description, and also for an explanation for the author’s decision to leave Palestine andreturn to the United States.

Both Slott and Muffs composed their essays in 1999, recalling much earlier events,but a 1954 memoir by Irma Lindheim is striking for its trenchant political critique.

Born into an assimilated German-Jewish family living on Long Island, she writes thatZionism was a positive, dynamic movement that overcame the negativity of Jewish

identity. She became a pioneer on a nascent kibbutz and felt reborn, despite the physicalhardships. Zionism, she writes, was “a kind of class-consciousness in reverse,” “a great

liberating force” (p. 336). Her expectation was that the Jewish state would bring the“justice of the prophetic teachings” into its institutions, laws, and society, serving as anexample to the world. The disillusionment came for Lindheimwhen Zionism became a

state with political parties rather than an idealistic movement. Into the garden, “I saw aserpent crawl,” the capitalism of American enterprise that Lindheim blames for

undermining the not only the kibbutz but the social unity of Israel’s population.Reinharz and Raider write that the aim of their book is to promote new scholarship

on topics related to women and Zionism. Their book offers numerous suggestiveavenues for further research. With the many individual articles on the impact of

Zionism on a variety of American and Canadian Jewish organizations, andbiographical essays on individual women, they point toward a more overarchingexamination of Zionist politics on both institutional and cultural levels. How, for

example, did Hadassah compete with the National Council of Jewish Women, andother Jewish women’s groups, both for fund-raising and positions of power? Given the

difficulties women in leadership had in achieving successful marriages, what sorts ofmasculinities were created by the integration of Zionism, the Holocaust, and American

notions of maleness? Given Allon Gal’s brief allusion to Szold’s warning about Jewish-Arab relations after the 1921 Arab riots, what political differences in women’s Zionism

can be delineated, particularly in relation to the Arab question? Marie Syrkin’simportant role as an activist and scholar on behalf of Zionism was coupled with a

negation of Palestinian nationalism, as Gal notes (“village nationalismwas made into anational cause,” she stated), and also a denigration of Jewish involvement in theAmerican Civil Rights movement, as Michael Staub has elsewhere delineated.6

Like other socialist movements, Poale Zion denied the need for a separatewomen’s organization on the grounds that women were already emancipated by

socialism. Yet party leaders did not prevail, and Pioneer Women was founded in1926 in New York City. Its platform did not address any concerns specific to

women, however, and the organization disintegrated by the 1980s as its efforts weretaken over by other Jewish groups—and possibly also as a consequence of the

growing feminist movement in the United States that shifted women’s attentionfrom volunteer work to paid careers. American women who made aliyah to theYishuv were encouraged to assimilate and not retain an American identity, according

to Joseph Glass, who notes that a prejudice that “American women were too softfor physical labor” initially hindered Golda Meir’s acceptance by a kibbutz in

1921 (p. 205).

The Journal of Israeli History 363

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

01:

46 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

While numerous excellent studies have examined the gendered nature of Zionismand its creation of a new type of Jewish masculinity, Reinharz and Raider offer a set of

essays that suggest a variety of new research directions about American women andZionism.

SUSANNAH HESCHEL

Department of Religion

Dartmouth College

Notes

[1] Joan Dash, Summoned to Jerusalem: The Life of Henrietta Szold (New York: Harper & Row, 1979);Linda Gordon Kuzmack, Woman’s Cause: The Jewish Woman’s Movement in England and theUnited States, 1881–1933 (Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press, 1990).

[2] Deborah Bernstein, The Struggle for Equality: Urban Women Workers in Pre-State Israeli Society(New York: Praeger, 1987).

[3] Hanna Herzog, Gendering Politics: Women in Israel (Ann Arbor, MI: University of MichiganPress, 1999).

[4] Lesley Hazelton, Israeli Women: The Reality Behind the Myths (New York: Simon and Schuster,1977).

[5] Herzog, Gendering Politics.[6] Michael Staub, Torn at the Roots: The Crisis of Jewish Liberalism in Postwar America (New York:

Columbia University Press, 2002).

The Jewish Radical Right: Revisionist Zionism and Its Ideological LegacyERAN KAPLAN

Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 2005xix þ177 pp., notes, bibliography, index, ISBN: 0-299-20380-8

This slim volume is a welcome addition to the growing number of thoroughlyresearched works on the political right wing of Zionism. Since most recent

studies have seen publication in Hebrew, and not all of these have been translated,this work’s appearance in English is particularly propitious. Focusing on thecultural and intellectual origins of Revisionism from 1920 to 1937, Eran Kaplan’s

original contribution to the field lies in his illuminating exploration of theWeltanschauung of the Revisionist stream of ideology in the history of Zionism,

particularly in regard to its cultural aspects. This subject certainly merits close analysisand also comparison with other intellectual strains in Zionism as well as with the

European radical right in general. The author’s attempt to accomplish this ispraiseworthy.

Jabotinsky himself was profoundly conscious of the deep mental chasmthat divided the Weltanschauung of the left from that of the right within

the Zionist movement. Indeed, metaphorically invoking his favorite theory of

364 Book Reviews

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

01:

46 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

psychic-racial determinism, Jabotinsky described the difference between theantagonists as one so vast as to constitute two hopelessly incompatible psyches or

“spiritual races.” “The main difference between us and them,” he wrote in 1926 tofellow Revisionist, Dr. vonWeisel, “is not programmatic, it is psychic; at times I almost

have the impression (of course this is only a jest) that we stand before a mysteriousrace difference.”1

Kaplan’s major thesis, vigorously argued throughout the book, is that the politicaldispositions of Revisionist Zionism, so well emphasized and elaborated in the

historical literature to date, in fact emanated not only from a right-wing repudiationof the hegemonic Zionist Labor movement’s vision, but, more significantly in Kaplan’sview, from a particularly trenchant critique of modern Enlightenment-induced

culture as a whole. He contends that the Revisionist Zionist enterprise was first andforemost an attempt to formulate an alternative, comprehensive cultural and social

model for society; its revolution “was intended to be primarily a cultural one.”Moreover, venturing (provocatively?) to stretch his thesis to the contemporary

intellectual climate in Israel, Kaplan contends that the legacy of this enterprise inheresnot alone in the Likud political party, but also in the current post-Zionist critique

within Israel.With a measure of hyperbole, a not uncommon mark of insufficiently reworked

doctoral dissertations, the author claims that he is adding “a new dimension to the

historical discussion of Zionism.” Although mentioning works that have precededhim, he offers less than full acknowledgement of seminal studies by Yaakov Shavit and

Joseph Heller. Indeed, Shavit’s Jabotinsky and the Revisionist Movement, 1925–1948,2

which attempts to draw what he terms a “collective biography” of the Zionist-Israeli

right, probes the intellectual legacy of Revisionism no less profoundly and in somerespects more comprehensively. For example, his treatment of Revisionist nationalist

thought instructively includes Joseph Klausner (who barely features in Kaplan’s book)alongside of Vladimir Jabotinsky, Abba Achimeir, Uri Zvi Greenberg, Avraham (Yair)

Stern and Israel (Eldad) Scheib.Another touch of pretentiousness is the author’s tendency to draw comparisons

with, and inject quotations from, the pantheon of thinkers that contemporary

fashion seems to require in order to establish a scholar’s intellectual credentials.In this way luminaries such as Walter Benjamin, Jean-Francois Lyotard and

Michel Foucault pop up frequently even when not significantly apposite tothe subject at hand. Rather than this, Kaplan would have done better to expand

and deepen his much more pertinent comparisons of Revisionist thought withother streams of Zionism and Zionist thinkers such as, for example, Micha Yosef

Berdyczewski.An interesting innovation in this study’s analysis of Jabotinsky’s thought is the

amplification of his political monism into what Kaplan calls a comprehensive

“ontological philosophy.” Yet his treatment of Jabotinsky’s views and policiesoverlooks much, notably his willingness to acknowledge minority rights over

and above civil rights for the Palestinian Arabs. In order to demonstrate the

The Journal of Israeli History 365

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

01:

46 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

comprehensive cultural conception that he attributes to the Revisionists, Kaplanextrapolates, analyzes and synthesizes impressively from a handful of major radical

right personalities. However, he tends to blur the differences between Jabotinsky,who always retained significant liberal restraints, and the acerbically antiliberal,

quasi-eschatological conceptions of Abba Achimeir, Uri Zvi Greenberg andYehoshua Heschel Yevin. He paints the entire Revisionist camp with the same

brush. The result is an overly monolithic picture that fuzzes the real variety withinthe school of Revisionism as a whole. Although Kaplan’s own narrative shows that

there were important differences between Jabotinsky, on the one hand and, on theother, the Eretz Israelian “Maximalists” and Brit ha-Biryonim, as well as Yair Sternand Menahem Begin, he leaves the reader with the impression that these related less

to Weltanschauung fundamentals than to matters of praxis, such as policy towardsthe Arabs and Britain or the question of self-restraint in the face of Arab

violence. Central to his thesis is the contention that the importance of the coterieof intellectuals and visionaries who occupy his attention was less as political

activists than as a cultural and intellectual force. Nor does he choose to investigatein depth the actual impact they had upon the Zionist Revisionist Organization’s

rank and file.Admirably innovative and engaging sections of Kaplan’s study are to be found in his

chapters on what he labels “Revisionist Aesthetics” and “Land, Space and Gender.”

Also illuminating is Kaplan’s treatment of the Revisionists’ affinity with theMediterranean world, especially their fascination with Italy well into the 1930s. They

viewed the Italian leadership of their time both as potential ally and prototype.Drawing upon an impressive range of sources, Kaplan demonstrates the similarity

between the critical stance of the European radical right and the Zionist Revisionistdiscourse on aesthetics and on the relation between art and politics. Jabotinsky’s view

of the role of art is discussed insightfully. It was to lead the nation, and especially itsyouth, on a course of heroism and self-sacrifice. He presciently saw cinema as a

medium very suited for this task. Kaplan shows how major Revisionist thinkers soughtto “create a culture that would escape the limits of rationality and confront lifethrough artistic and aesthetic categories” (p. 77). He perceptively analyzes the thought

of Yevin, who held that Hebrew culture should neither be concerned with the banaland trivial nor criticize reality and try to mend it. Instead, it should become a medium

for expressing the values that the Jewish nation must embrace in order to survive—power and rage. Kaplan says that “for Yevin the aesthetic realm offers a unique escape

in which conventional rules do not apply and where beauty, freed from any ethicalconsideration, reigns supreme” (p. 85).

Here and there the analysis is appropriately enriched by comparing and contrastingthe aesthetic implications of the Revisionist Weltanschauung with those of the LaborZionist Weltanschauung as exemplified, for example, by Shlomo Zemach. Kaplan

contrasts A. D. Gordon’s return-to-nature idea with Revisionism’s affirmation ofindustrialism as the way of the future. Revisionist thinkers were admirers of modern

technology and Italian futurism. Labor Zionists espoused a new society that

366 Book Reviews

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

01:

46 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

challenged traditional gender roles and espoused gender equality, although theirpractice fell very far from realizing this. By contrast, the Revisionists were not in favor

of questioning traditional gender roles. Moreover, Zionism had to perform the task ofbreaking away from feminine values, so characteristic of diaspora Jewry’s self-image,

to a masculine world of heroic virtues. The Revisionist thinkers called for a transitionfrom the power of the spirit to the spirit of power. The Galut’s emphasis on the

spiritual and the holy had to be replaced by the cultivation of Judaism’s heritage ofvirility and power. For example, Achimeir rejected the traditional Zionist view that the

incipient Jewish diaspora of the Second Temple period signified national decline. Onthe contrary, it was a process of colonization, which is the mark of a virile nation thatexercises its power and expands its existence, just as the Greeks and Romans did when

they were at the apex of their virility and power.The aspect of this book which is pronounced as its most original contribution is,

regrettably, its least convincing feature; namely, the author’s attempt to show thatZionist Revisionism’s legacy can be found not only in the right-wing policies of the

contemporary Likud but also, as Kaplan phrases it, in “the heart of Post-Zionism.”Yes, the Revisionists, like other right-wing movements in Europe, balked at the

rational, liberal and progressive heritage of the Enlightenment. And yes, theideological outlook that is known as Post-Zionism draws intellectually on thepostmodernist critique of the Enlightenment’s modernist heritage. But it is a gross

non sequitur to conclude from this that contemporary Post-Zionist ideology is inany sense an outcome of the Revisionist Zionist Weltanschauung, or even that it

somehow shares the Revisionist heritage with the contemporary Likud. At any rate toclaim that it does so blurs, if not obfuscates, the complex reality of ideological

diversity and conflict in Israel, rather than illuminating it. Occasionally Kaplan isforced to recognize the implausibility of his argument. For example, in the section on

“Land, Space and Gender,” after showing that the Revisionists rejected the modernEnlightenment rational idea of progress, wanting to be “other” in relation to it, he

says: “But unlike contemporary post-modern critics, the Revisionists’ idea ofOtherness did not entail hiding away in a textual universe of endless interpretations;it meant entering the (masculine) arena of struggle and war” (p. 136).

If the scholar’s enterprise is to trace ideological heritages, then surely it is evidentthat Post-Zionism draws on Zionist traditions, if at all, only from Brit Shalom and

its later permutations, such as the Ihud during the 1940s. But far more so, Post-Zionism is patently a post-State of Israel mode of virulent pre-State anti-Zionism.

The essence of pre-State of Israel anti-Zionist positions is faithfully reproduced inthe campaign of Ilan Pappe and his likes against Zionism’s nationalist idea of a

Jewish (and democratic) state, and his embrace of the alternative prospect of asingle-state solution with an eventual Palestinian Arab majority. Nothing could befarther from the hypernationalist Zionism that the contemporary Likud party has

inherited from Revisionist Zionism. To be sure, less from Jabotinsky himself thanfrom its radical right-wing stream whose source was Abba Achimeir’s Brit ha-

Biryonim and whose successors were Menahem Begin’s Etzel and even more so,

The Journal of Israeli History 367

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

01:

46 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Yitzhak Shamir’s Lehi. But alas, the reader of the book here under review will learnnothing of this.

GIDEON SHIMONI

Institute of Contemporary Jewry

The Hebrew University of Jerusalem

Notes

[1] Jabotinsky to Dr. von Weisel, 11 August 1926, in letter collection, A1/16/2, Jabotinsky InstituteArhives, Tel Aviv.

[2] London: Frank Cass, 1998. See especially chapters 3, 4, 5.

Nationalism and the Israeli State: Bureaucratic Logic in Public EventsDON HANDELMAN

Oxford: Berg, 2004xiii þ272 pp., illustrations, bibliography, index, ISBN: 1-85973-780-3

In his new book,DonHandelman brings together two lines of inquiry that have engaged

him for many years—the study of bureaucracies as cultural systems and the study ofstate-sponsored public events. In so doing, he offers insightful re-readings of themes

that have become increasingly central to scholarship on Israeli culture, such as staterituals, national myths and civil militarism. More significantly, perhaps, proposing a

series of discussions of state-sponsored celebratory or memorializing events that areroutinely enacted on the Israeli public scene, he treats them as case studies whose

detailed analysis allows him to theorize about the shaping of cultural forms. He thusinvites us to rethink the socio-historical specificities of the Israeli cultural landscape innew terms, and at the same time provides uswith a conceptual frameworkwithwhich to

contemplate processes of cultural production more generally.The book’s title and subtitle neatly capture the three trajectories around which its

argument is organized—nationalism, bureaucratic logic and public events. I will takethe author’s lead in weaving my commentary around these same concepts.

Handelman’s insistence on the dominant role of what he calls “bureaucratic logic”in Israeli nationalism seems to me to be his most original contribution to our

understanding of Israeli culture. Bureaucratic logic, as expounded and amplyillustrated throughout the book, is concerned with classification and ordering:

This classification is linear, with two intersecting axes, vertical and horizontal. Thevertical axis is composed of levels of classification in a hierarchy of levels in whicheach higher level subsumes the lower, and is itself subsumed by the level above. Thehorizontal axis—a given level of classification—is composed of n number ofcategories, each of which contrasts with and excludes all others on the same level . . .The taxonomies produced may interface, interlock, and compete with one another,yet they discourage overlap and permeability among themselves. Bureaucratic logicis not a democratic dynamic, not an egalitarian one. (p. 19)

368 Book Reviews

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

01:

46 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

This kind of logic, furthermore, is characterized by its own “hermeneutic of closure”(p. 20). Placing a high value on symmetry, it signifies “boundedness, formality, order”

(p. 21). Handelman traces the emergence of bureaucratic logic as a dominant force inseventeenth- and eighteenth-century central and eastern Europe and its social

application in the Science of Police, which involved a deliberate planning andadministering of communities for the benefit of all: “To practice the good of all

required standardization and exactness in specifying similarity and difference in orderto introduce uniform classifications, thereby to compare and control persons as

specifically as possible” (p. 29).Much of the discussion of state-sponsored public events in the remainder of the

book demonstrates the workings of bureaucratic logic, with its impulse towards

classification, ordering and closure, in their design and execution. The detaileddiscussion of a range of case studies moves from early socializing contexts such as

holiday and birthday celebrations in Israeli state-controlled kindergartens to the mostimportant cluster of national celebrations in the Israeli calendar—Holocaust

Remembrance Day, shortly followed by Remembrance Day for the Fallen andIndependence Day—and to the multiple forms in which absence is made present in

war and Holocaust memorialism—in military graveyards, Holaucaust and warmemorials and museum-sponsored narrative occasions.This analysis of public events is made to serve the contention that “the boundaries of

state and nation are blurred in Israel” (p. 45) since the great identity project of the Israelistate is that of “shaping Jews as national in their citizenship” (p. 43). This classificatory

project, as the author argues, involves both the homogenizing of internal differenceswithin the Jewish population of the state as well as excluding its non-Jewish citizens

from the national imaginary. While the exclusionary power politics associated with theIsraeli nation-building project is widely acknowledged, Handelman’s account proposes

an additional, performance-based angle from which to view it. The primacy ofbureaucratic logic in his analysis, with its emphasis on ordering, classifying and

counting, does not rule out the national emotionalism usually associated with myth-making and ritual occasions. Indeed, in the book’s concluding chapter Handelmandescribes Israel as a “cyborg state” constructed out of the “power and danger of torquing

and intertwining the lineal logic of bureaucratic infrastructure and the dreamings of thenational” (p. 203). The hybrid nature of this “cyborg state” is epitomized through the

pervasive presence of military personae and symbolism in Israeli public events.Within this framework, making citizenship national through the routine

performance of calendrically-based public events and the highly designed spaces thathouse them becomes “one major crossover of the logic of the lineal into the holism of

emotions, holding the state together by homogenizing Jewish membership on the levelof the national” (p. 204). Thus, the more usual discussions of national sentiment,Zionist ideology and even group interest are subordinated in Handelman’s analysis to

the discussion of the cultural logic of the state form as a pervasive mechanism of socialorganization. Yet he fully recognizes—along the lines of Mary Douglas’s analysis—the

emotional foundations of classificatory systems, stating that “state infrastructure,

The Journal of Israeli History 369

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

01:

46 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

formed through bureaucratic logic, must be pervaded by and permeated withmetaphysical emotions of the national; otherwise there is little or no identificationwith

and commitment to the state, nor any desire for self-sacrifice” (p. 202). State-sponsoredpublic events, as described here, are constructed in such a way as to smooth over, for

both individuals and the group, the underlying disjunction of bureaucratic logic andemotional holism, which “interact uneasily, their contradictions profound and

consequential” (p. 204).Centered on experiences of sacrifice and loss associated with Jewish victimhood and

the self-identification of the nation-in-arms, these public events of presentationcombine lineal design and national emotionalism to amplify each other. As thedifferent case studies in the book demonstrate repeatedly, the performative symbolism

of these occasions simultaneously mobilizes national emotionalism through deeplyfelt tropes of sacrifice and loss yet strictly contains and streamlines them through

ordering tropes of hierarchy and boundedness. The state form is thus momentarilyinfused with emotional holism, and national emotionalism is experienced as orderly

and socially valued. The analysis of the symbolism associated with the state-sponsoredcommemoration that followed the collapse of the private wedding-halls of Versailles in

Jerusalem in the late spring of 2001, which opens the book and is effectively woventhrough it, clearly shows the extent to which this hybrid cultural logic of Israel as acyborg state permeates the domains of private life. The tragic loss of human lives in the

collapse of the private wedding-hall became nationalized through the public eventmarking the end of the rescue operation, which was modeled after national

commemorations, including the framing provided by military presence and Jewishlyrooted sacrificial rhetoric. As in the case of the national commemorative events

associated with national disaster and strife, the victims’ individuality is effaced and acollective sense of “we-ness” pervades the scene. But with the effacement of

individuality, individual responsibility is also diffused into an all-encompassingsolidarity. While some of the speeches called for appropriate punishments for

the culprits (presumably, the wedding-hall owner and construction engineers),this momentary invocation of the language of responsibility dissolved into theall-too-familiar idiom of shared sorrow in the face of disaster, the emotional drowning

the moral.Indeed, Handelman’s analyses of the spatial and temporal structuring of both micro-

and macro-level celebratory and commemorative events clearly bring out theweightiness of the classificatorymechanism that symbolically presents the Israeli state as

a Jewish one in away that excludes its non-Jewish citizens from the collective imaginaryandmystifies internal hierarchies of domination and privilege within it. What seems to

me under-analyzed is the uncertain, even vexed, relationship between the categories ofIsraeli and Jew.Whereas the symbolic collapsing of Israeli into Jew in these public eventscreates a strictly bounded category of inclusion vis-a-vis Israel’s non-Jewish excluded

citizenry (especially, of course, the Palestinian citizens of Israel), the position of diasporaJews vis-a-vis Israeli nationalism remains unclear. The subsection in the book entitled

“Who is a Jew?”which discusses court rulings related to the registration of individuals as

370 Book Reviews

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

01:

46 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Jews in “problematic” cases, is not complemented by a subsection entitled “Who is anIsraeli?” While the author recognizes that the paradigm of Israel as a Jewish and

democratic state erases “the distinction between Jewish nationality and Israelicitizenship, driving Israeli Palestinians to the margins of the state and beyond” (p. 47),

he does not similarly problematize how this viewof the state affects the categorization ofdiaspora Jews from the standpoint of the Jewish state. In fact, it seems to me that the

analysis presented in the book suggests a potentially fruitful approach to the explorationof this issue as well, for example, in exploring the permeability of the categories of

“Israeli” and “Jewish” in public events of presentation (in Israel and elsewhere) or inbureaucratically oriented pursuits such as the holding onto or the seeking of non-Israelicitizenship alongside the Israeli one.

As a matter of fact, in correctly arguing that the shaping of Israeli nationality “hasadded powerfully to the strengthening of essentialism through categorical difference”

(p. 45), the author plays down the multifaceted possibilities of Israeli identity that thepublic events he studies seek to obscure and obliterate. The contention that “each

Israeli citizen must belong to one and only one legal nationality, exclusive of all others”(p. 45) may represent the idealized version of bureaucratic logic that underlies public

events, but at least part of the meaningfulness of such public presentations lies in theirtroubled relation with the far more messy practices of everyday life.Approaching the high-profile, celebratory and commemorative events of Israeli

nationalism as cultural productions dominated by a state-generated, bureaucraticlogic is an intellectually refreshing move in and of itself. These occasions are more

usually discussed exclusively in terms of the national emotionalism associated withprimordial conceptions of the nation-in-arms, national victimhood, and the familial

metaphors associated with them. This alternative framing of high-profile public eventstakes the discussion of bureaucratic logic beyond its usual concern with the everyday

functioning of institutional settings into new realms of cultural practice and meaning.It also invites a phenomenological analysis of such events with a focus on their

aesthetic dimensions. This takes the form of meticulous and context-sensitive analysesof their spatio-temporal organization, their composition and structures ofparticipation, including the sequencing of the performative acts involved in

celebration or commemoration.Handelman’s form-driven and performance-centered account is as densely designed

and superbly aestheticized as the public events he is concerned with. It is also asauthoritative in its interpretative claims and ethnographer’s voice as the cultural

productions he so artfully deconstructs. Given the historical trajectory of theargument, as well as its formalistic-aesthetic thrust, I found myself wondering about

its scope—since, obviously, the impulse towards ordering and classification is part ofall cultural systems, in what ways is the case of the Israeli state distinctive? The book,while focusing on the Israeli case, suggests a way and a reason to study the role of

public events in modern nation-states more generally. It will therefore be of interestnot only to all students of Israeli culture and history, who are willing to take a step back

and reconsider familiar landscapes of meaning and form in a new light, but also to all

The Journal of Israeli History 371

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

01:

46 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

those searching for alternative ways of theorizing about the complex socioculturalrealities of modern nation-states.

TAMAR KATRIEL

Department of CommunicationUniversity of Haifa

Israel and the Maghreb: From Statehood to OsloMICHAEL M. LASKIERGainesville: University Press of Florida, 2004xv þ351 pp., illustrations, notes, selected bibliography, index, ISBN: 0-8130-2725-X

North Africa has long been a source of interest to many Israelis. Although thesecountries (Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia) were geopolitically peripheral to Israel,

they enjoyed a high degree of resonance within the Jewish state, particularly amongformer North African Jews who settled in Israel. Israeli scholarship, however, showed

little interest in studying the region, and devoted greater attention to neighboringMiddle Eastern countries rather than to the Arab world’s remote western corner, the

Maghreb (west). The sole exception to this was the study of North African Jewry: thisinterest produced important studies of communities whose historical chapter has byand large come to an end, and who have little relevance to the contemporary

Maghreb.Later developments transformed this reality. Morocco’s role in facilitating

Egyptian–Israeli peace negotiations in the 1970s, as well as the relocation of thePLO’s headquarters from Lebanon to Tunisia in the 1980s, increased their importance

in a Middle East context. Morocco and Tunisia’s willingness to establish low-leveldiplomatic relations with Israel in the aftermath of the Oslo accords refocused Israeli

attention on North Africa. This renewed interest in Maghrebi affairs raised newquestions concerning North Africa’s involvement in Arab–Israeli affairs, and more

specifically, the Israeli–Maghrebi connection. Many questions concerning the natureof this connection, its background, and potential, remained unanswered. MichaelLaskier’s book on the history of Israel’s relations with Morocco, Tunisia, and Algeria

offers answers to many of these puzzles. His well-written book is a pioneer study ofpreviously unknown or untold events and developments surrounding Israeli–

Maghrebi ties. It will undoubtedly serve as a vital guide for future students, scholars,and readers interested in Israeli foreign policy, Arab–Israeli relations, and North

African diplomatic history.At the book’s outset, Laskier notes the anomalies surrounding Israeli–Maghrebi

relations. Although Israel was technically never in a state of war with Morocco,Tunisia, and Algeria, it never enjoyed a true peace with these countries either.The Maghreb countries, which were under foreign control when Israel gained

its independence in 1948, later depicted the Jewish state as a neocolonial entity during

372 Book Reviews

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

01:

46 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

the decolonization era, and were extremely critical of Israel’s existence. Israel’salliance with France, North Africa’s former colonizer, in the 1950s and 1960s,

reinforced this perception. It was this alliance that drove Israel to refrain fromsupporting North Africa’s quest for independence during those years, a position that

further alienated political forces in the Maghreb from pursuing any form of contactwith Israel.

In addition, many North Africans demonstrated a high degree of solidarity with theArab struggle against Israel. Young Maghrebis volunteered already in June 1948 to

fight for Middle Eastern countries against Israel. In later years, Morocco, Tunisia, andAlgeria strongly endorsed the Palestinian cause and continuously called for theestablishment of a Palestinian state and a solution to the Palestinian refugee problem.

Nevertheless, some North African leaders were also the first Arab statesmen to gentlyexplore the possibilities of Arab–Israeli rapprochement, in an era when most Arab

leaders repeatedly called for Israel’s destruction and refused to entertain any possibilityof recognizing its existence. These early calls for peace had little effect on Israeli–North

African ties, and were usually dismissed by Israeli leaders. This complex backdrop ofIsraeli–Maghrebi relations is expanded and discussed in Laskier’s book, which

acknowledges that there are no easy answers to the many contradictions anduncertainties that overshadow these ties.Laskier identifies four pivots, which underpin his study. Though not necessarily

intertwined, these topics are the foundation for any serious discussion of Israeli–North African relations. They include various encounters concerning the emigration

of North African Jews to Israel (perhaps the thorniest issue that overshadowed theseties in their early years), as well as more general contacts related to the Arab–Israeli

conflict and inter-Arab affairs. Other topics discussed in the book are Israel’sinvolvement in North African politics, and the above-mentioned pioneering role of

Maghrebi leaders in promoting Middle East peace. With the help of extensive archivalmaterial, Laskier sheds light on many events related to these questions, and carefully

analyzes them.A significant portion of the book presents a fascinating account of what Laskier calls

“the politics of emigration,” i.e. events and developments related to the emigration of

North African Jews to Israel (and other destinations in Western Europe and NorthAmerica). In addition to providing detailed information and analysis of the large-scale

departure of Maghrebi Jews, Laskier deftly weaves these events into the broaderframework of Israeli–North African relations. He notes that Tunisia generally

permitted its Jewish population to leave, while Morocco was far less approving.Indeed, no other issue aggravated Israel’s ties with Morocco in the 1950s and 1960s.

Jewish emigration from Morocco recorded exponential growth after 1948. The risingnumber of departing Jews was spurred by dismal postwar economic conditionsin Morocco and the desire of many Jews to settle in the newly proclaimed

Jewish state. France, which still ruled over Morocco, tacitly allowed an Israeliimmigration agency to work in Morocco and facilitate the departure of Israel-bound

Moroccan Jews.

The Journal of Israeli History 373

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

01:

46 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

The emigration question became far more complex after Morocco’s independence in1956. Many objections were raised in Morocco against the departure of its Jewish

citizens. Some critics resented the involvement of foreign elements, such as Israeliimmigration offices, in what they considered local affairs. Others warned against

providing the Israeli army with additional manpower that would be used againstArabs. Moreover, Moroccan Jews were viewed as an important, skilled element within

the local economy that the newly independent kingdom could not afford to lose.Morocco was therefore unwilling to allow continued emigration. Under these

circumstances, emigration to Israel resorted to clandestine practices, supervised bya Zionist underground operation. Laskier presents this complex aliyah network, andthe often-tragic results of these illegal and hazardous journeys.

The restrictions placed on Moroccan aliyah in the late 1950s forced Israel to enlistthe aid of third parties, primarily international Jewish organizations, in order to reach

an understanding with the Moroccan authorities over the freedom of Moroccan Jewsto emigrate. This led to a tacit agreement (in 1961) allowing their departure. The

Moroccan government was inclined to revise its policy on Jewish emigration mostlydue to international pressure. Morocco was interested in promoting pro-Western

policies and also sought Israeli assistance in stabilizing King Hasan’s regime. Theagreement between the two countries, which also included financial compensationpaid to the Moroccan government ($250 per emigrant), paved the way to other forms

of cooperation between Israel and Morocco, which continued over several decades. AsLaskier notes, these relations sustained a number of significant challenges in later

decades, against a backdrop of deteriorating Arab–Israeli relations.An additional feature of Israel’s relations with North Africa was early calls of

Maghrebi leaders on Arab states to recognize and negotiate with Israel. The mostprominent North African leader to publicly call for negotiations was Tunisia’s

president Habib Bourguiba. Bourguiba privately advocated the need for Arab–Israelinegotiations already in 1957, acknowledging that Israel’s existence was a permanent

fact. Concomitantly, he also recognized the injustice experienced by the Palestinians,which would need to be addressed. Bourguiba publicized his ideas during a visit toJordan in 1965, where he urged Arab states to recognize Israel in return for

negotiations based on the UN’s 1947 Palestine partition plan. Laskier analyzesBourguiba’s unique positions, arguing that they reflected his disagreements with

Egypt’s president Nasser over broader leadership issues in the Arab arena, and mayhave had less to do with Israel. Bourguiba’s major contribution in this context was to

reach openly to the Arab public. Laskier takes Bourguiba’s positions one step furtherby focusing on Israel’s reactions to them. Israel was initially skeptical and lukewarm

to the proposals, but did establish back-channel meetings with Bourguiba in order toexplore cooperation possibilities. These meetings, which did not yield tangible results,apparently ended after the 1967 war, when Bourguiba preferred to reduce his

involvement in Middle East affairs given the postwar circumstances. Nevertheless, theentire affair was yet another unique feature of Israeli–North African relations, in

which Maghrebi leaders pursued direct contacts with Israel during an era when the

374 Book Reviews

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

01:

46 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

possibility of such encounters by other Arab leaders was unthinkable. This pattern,however, did not apply to Algeria, which had no interest in pursuing ties with the

Jewish state and whose policies were more in line with other Arab states.These varying levels of direct ties were also the foundation for later developments

discussed in Laskier’s study. These were far more transparent than the contactsdescribed in the earlier part of the book, and included the establishment of diplomatic

relations between Israel, Morocco, and Tunisia. The book’s later focus on Israel’srelations with North African countries since the 1970s notes the changes and

fluctuations these ties have encountered. This section, in contrast to earlier chapters, isalso the book’s weaker part. This is primarily due to the lack of primary archivalsources for this period, unlike the earlier years. While this paucity of sources is

understandable and well known to researchers who study the contemporary Maghreb,Laskier could have made greater efforts to overcome the problem by incorporating a

wider array of sources in his account. For example, he notes how Tunisia endorsed theOslo accords between Israel and the PLO, partially out of an interest to rid itself of

hosting the PLO’s headquarters and leaders. But there is little discussion or analysis ofTunisia’s foreign policy and motives, and Laskier’s claims are based entirely on an

article in the Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot. This discussion could have benefitedfrom a more extensive perusal of Tunisian and other Maghrebi sources, situating it in amuch broader context. Another example is the description of the early efforts by

Morocco’s King Hasan to foster an Israeli–Palestinian dialogue, based on an accountdrawn from an interview with Israeli activist Uri Avnery.

Future scholars, who will hopefully benefit from released official documents andcontinue to study Israel’s relations with the Maghreb, will undoubtedly fill in these

lacunae. While doing so, their work will most certainly benefit from Laskier’s book, aswell as his general approach to the subject, which will point them in the right direction.

DANIEL ZISENWINE

Moshe Dayan Center for Middle Eastern and African Studies

Tel Aviv University

War in Palestine, 1948: Strategy and DiplomacyDAVID TALLondon and New York: Routledge, 2004xxii þ498 pp., maps, bibliography, index, ISBN: 0-7146-5275-X

The 58-year Arab–Israeli conflict is usually seen as five main wars: the 1948 war, the

Suez War of 1956, the Six Day War of 1967, the 1973 war (called the October War bythe Arabs and the Yom Kippur War by the Jews), the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in

1982 and the intifadas (the first from 1987 to 1993 and the second from 2000 topresent). The perspective of history, however, identifies a single continuity with two

The Journal of Israeli History 375

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

01:

46 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

major turning points: the wars of 1948 and 1967. But whereas our shelves collapseunder the heavy weight of books on the 1967 war, this is not the case with the 1948

war, where there is very little, particularly in the English language, covering the event.This is odd given its importance for both Israelis and Palestinians. For the Israelis it

was “The War of Independence,” or the “War of Liberation,” a decisive round thatensured the survival of the Jewish state and shaped Israel’s boundaries until the

outbreak of the 1967 war two decades later. For the Palestinians it was “al-Nakba”—the catastrophe, where Palestine was lost and they became destitute refugees in

neighboring countries.Against this background David Tal’s War in Palestine 1948 is a most important

contribution, filling a gap in the existing literature.

The 1948 war, as Tal explains, was a primitive war. For while in Europe in the periodbetween the two wars a mini-revolution had taken place where collective weapons

replaced personal arms, in the Middle East this had not happened. Thus, in 1948, theArab or Israeli soldier with his (or her) gun continued to dominate the battlefield.

Tanks and aeroplanes did participate in battles but not in great numbers. It isestimated that both sides combined had only about 80 old planes and only a few dozen

tanks. Still it was a cruel and difficult war with a relatively high number of casualties incomparison to future Arab–Israeli wars.The Jewish–Palestinian communal war from December 1947 to May 1948 was the

first gambit. But, as Tal shows, the Palestinians were doomed as the struggle in Palestinewas one between “two uneven contenders” (p. 470). While the Arab Palestinian society

was totally unprepared to confront the Jews, lacking good leadership, equipment andorganization, the Jewish society (the Yishuv) was well prepared, having effective

institutions, good leadership and above all motivation to fight and win.Tal analyzes the change from a Jewish defensive strategy into a more active and

aggressive one. What led to this transformation was the understanding that the ArabPalestinians would not, after all, accept partition and that neighboring Arab armies

would invade to support the Palestinians. The new strategy was formulated in the so-called Plan Dalet (Tokhnit Dalet), a program aimed at imposing Jewish control andrule over the lands allocated to them according to the UN 29 November 1947 Partition

Plan. And with the Jews going on the offensive the Palestinians stood no chance—theysimply lost garrison after garrison.

No less dramatic is Tal’s description of Arab preparations to invade Palestine. It isinteresting to note how influential the “Arab street” was in pushing its leaders to go to

war in Palestine. Indeed, a picture emerges of a hesitant Arab leadership pushed to warby the crowd. In Egypt, as Tal shows, shortly after the UN partition vote, the Muslim

Brotherhood and other groups took to the streets, and in one such display of strength100,000 Egyptians gathered in Cairo to call for the liberation of Palestine by force. InDamascus, student demonstrations closed the city for three days, the demonstrators

demanding the government to dispatch the army to assist the Palestinians. Similarsentiments were aired in Beirut and Baghdad, with King Abdullah of Jordan coming

under the heaviest pressure to enter Palestine. It is interesting to see from Tal’s

376 Book Reviews

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

01:

46 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

descriptions the extent to which the Arab public in neighboring countries was tuned toevents in Palestine and how such events as the Deir Yassin massacre, the Jewish

takeover of Tiberias and Haifa and the mass departure of Palestinians made it quiteimpossible for Arab politicians to hold back public pressure to go to war.

Tal takes us on a most exciting tour of the war fronts: from the Egyptian, throughthe Jordanian to the northern front. And after a pause to describe and analyze

diplomatic moves surrounding the First Truce, he then takes us on a second round ofthe fronts.

Tal claims that while the long-term Arab aim in invading was to prevent theestablishment of a Jewish state on the land of Palestine, their short-term goal was quitelimited. Thus, in reference to the Egyptian front Tal says: “The Egyptian movement

was to take place only along the borders designated for the Arab state, and the Egyptianforces were not supposed to take part in the actual invasion of the Jewish state . . .”

(p. 150, emphasis added). He adds that the Egyptians only wished “to prevent theJewish army from seizing the area designated for the Arab state” (p. 151). Only after

that phase, according to Tal, were the Arabs to assess the situation and, dependingupon their success or failure in attaining their short-term aims, to consider whether

they should embark on their long-term goal of thwarting the establishment of theJewish state. This is quite interesting particularly in light of claims—often made byIsraeli historians—that from the very start the aim of the Arabs was total: the

destruction of the Jewish state.War in Palestine is a thorough and most exciting study, combining good analysis of

military strategy and diplomacy in a war that is relatively forgotten in the existingliterature—a study which is highly recommended.

AHRON BREGMAN

Department of War Studies

King’s College London

Mi-‘sham’ le-‘kan’ be-guf rishon: Zikhronoteihem shel yotzei Germaniyah be-Yisrael(German Jews in Israel: Memories and Past Images)GUY MIRON

Jerusalem: Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2004351 pp., notes, bibliography, indices, ISBN: 965-493-196-6

The collective and personal narratives of German immigrants in Israel (the “yekes”)

has attracted a growing number of intellectuals in the last 15 years. Researchers andnovelists are fascinated by this closed though influential community. Yoav Gelber

published a comprehensive study regarding the fifth Aliyah in New Homeland; therecently published collection of articles Germany and the Land of Israel deals withvarious aspects of the German-Hebrew cultural encounter; in May 2004 the Mishkenot

Sha’ananim cultural center in Jerusalem organized a major conference that covered

The Journal of Israeli History 377

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

01:

46 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

every possible angle of “yeke” life in Israel; Uri Toeplitz has related the story of theGerman-oriented Israel Philharmonic Orchestra; fictitious musicians of German

descent are at the center of Nathan Shaham’s Rosendorf ’s Quartet; Yehudit Katzirportrayed an elderly yeke couple from Mt. Carmel in the short story “Schlafstunde”;

Ruvik Rosental focused on the Tel Aviv yeke community in Blumenstrasse 22; andAmos Oz depicted the Jerusalem community in A Tale of Love and Darkness.1

The separatism and individuality of the German-Israeli subculture has dictated acertain tone of writing. Most authors and researchers have not been able to resist the

three big S’s: Strudel, Schinken, and the sacred Schlafstunde (a hybrid term, most likelynot used in the homeland). Many have also mentioned the significant influence of theGerman-Jewish immigrants in numerous infrastructures and cultural fields: the law,

banking, welfare and medical systems; commercial enterprises such as the Ata textilecompany, the Kaete Dan hotel in Tel Aviv, the small Strauss dairy that became a

conglomerate, and the neighboring Soglowek meat producers; their prominence in thetheater and musical life; and their attachment to the rich literary repertoire in the

German language.Guy Miron’s German Jews in Israel: Memories and Past Images is almost free of the

many stereotypes associated with these immigrants. Although he mentions some ofthem—the significance of bookshelves and clocks in the German-Jewish home, thefondness for music, and the traditional Jewish symbols typically found in homes of

members of that community—these are pointed to only in the latter part of the bookas generalizations that did not impose themselves upon the research. The reason is

clear: already in the second paragraph of his book Miron states that he is not part ofthe German-Jewish community. To this I can add: Miron is a historian, and in this

book he has composed a detached anthropological study that enables him—andconsequently his readers—to understand the yekes as they really were: a diverse

community distinguished by a variety of traits and shaped by people from manydifferent professions. Miron is not angry at those who discovered their Jewishness

following the Nazi brutality in the streets. He does not demand a public apology fornot foreseeing the true danger of the Nazi regime. Even their tendency to keep apartfrom other Israelis is only one among many characteristics, and not something that

warrants severe judgment.Miron’s research is based on 40 autobiographies by German Jews who immigrated to

Israel. These are divided into three cohorts: those born before 1892; those bornbetween 1893 and 1903; and those born after 1904 who grew up in the frail Weimar

Republic. Another eight autobiographies were used as two control groups. One groupconsists of four autobiographies written by German Jews who immigrated to Palestine

and later moved back to Germany. The other four memoirs were composed byGerman Jews who found refuge in the United States. Since none of theautobiographies contain testimonies of Holocaust survivors, the National Socialist

period in Germany is dealt with from a variety of perspectives. The majority of theauthors are unknown to the average reader; some of them were well known within

their own communities.

378 Book Reviews

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

01:

46 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Miron’s interest in personal memories is part of a growing movement in academicresearch. Memory has been a key subject of many studies and seems to have become a

salient feature of academic endeavor. Our growing interest in the way memory is shapedcould be rooted in the rhythm of our time: swift, anxious, in search of a glance beyond

the horizon. Investigating memory is one of the ways of remembering the trajectory ofevents of our era. Moreover, an increasing life expectancy provides us with the

opportunity to examine our lives repeatedly anddigest our rapidly changing experiences.The written testimonies used in the current research are usually of elderly people

who regarded autobiographical writing not just as a means to address family andfriends but also as a socially prestigious occupation. Some of them offered a moregeneral message to the younger Israeli generations. Others looked back on a lifetime

that coincided with a turbulent period in human history. A few used theirautobiographies as a tool for coping with the traumatic past; in such cases writing

about the Nazi seizure of power and its outcome turned the horror into a plotline.Another guideline was the writers’ professional careers, though this characteristic is

less typical of the autobiographies as a whole.Being free of stereotypes, Miron lets the autobiographies speak for themselves, thus

circumventing the familiar problem of over-interpreting his sources. He examines thegenre of autobiography and the field of memory with relation to a particular ethnicgroup, and not vice versa. This perspective brings him to the conclusion that although

many authors longed for their mother tongue and missed their local lieux de memoire,at the same time they identified with Zionist pioneering. As revealed in many of the

memoirs, despite their adoption of a new identity, they were repulsed by the blunt andoften vulgar Israeli political discourse, dazzled by the Mediterranean light, astonished

by the local fashion of casual clothing, and amazed by the open relations between thesexes. It is important to note that all these prove a deep—though complex—bond with

the new society, and not necessarily an overall detachment, as is frequently attributedto the German-Jewish immigrants.

The autobiographies reflect a warm attachment to German culture until WorldWar I. The events of the Weimar Republic caused a deep breach between German Jewsand other Germans. This rupture invites explanation and analyses. Some authors

stated that since they had already adopted Zionism in their teens, they had analternative cultural refuge. Gershom Scholem’s From Berlin to Jerusalem, briefly

discussed in the book, is exemplary of this approach. Scholem had embraced Zionismas a youth, and therefore detached himself from Germany emotionally—though not

mentally or intellectually—before the catastrophe reached its peak.2 Yet, the morecommon experience is of those writers who discovered their national roots as a result

of external anti-Semitic definitions. Many of them can be defined as “Germans of theJewish faith,” whose homes kept some affinity to Judaism while being generallyassimilated in German society; or, as Asher Ben-Ari put it, eating kosher meat and

bread, and nibbling the Goyim’s sausages and rolls (p. 73).The empathetic attitude towards Judaism goes hand in hand with strong criticism of

the growing anti-Semitism in post–World War I Germany. Miron combines the two

The Journal of Israeli History 379

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

01:

46 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

without hesitation. According to him, many autobiographers—especially of theyounger generation—discovered their Jewishness only after reading/understanding

the full meaning of the writing on the wall. Some of them expressed this explicitly byweaving an Ariadne’s thread that leads directly to the Nazi inferno. Such narratives

allow many preliminary allusions to National Socialism. They also include many earlyreferences to Judaism, even in cases when such a bond was forced upon the writers

only later in their lives.On arriving in Palestine, they engaged with the new society. Some of them

complained about the linguistic barrier, others described their new home in a distantmanner. A few dared to express longings for the old country, yearning to wander in thedarkness of its forests with their old companions (as described by Fritz Grunfeld,

p. 86). The intimacy of such portrayals is often accompanied by a sense of mourningfor a country that no longer exists. Frequently this results in longing for a lost paradise.

It is a desire to go back to a utopia that never existed, a utopia that was born in theirpersonal site of memory. Moreover, their attraction to the beauty of their motherland

is frequently used as a justification for the blindness that characterized so manyGerman Jews. Finally, that desire was exploited as the contrast that displayed the full

horror of the Holocaust. Such manipulation of the suppressed desire complementedIsrael’s ideological needs. It provided the familiar rationalization that saw Zionism asthe solution to anti-Semitism. As Miron argues, most authors wanted to present an

explanation that would accord with the Israeli national narrative.Two unique aspects of the research call for special attention. One is the use of the

two small control groups: German Jews who emigrated to Palestine but returned toGermany and those who emigrated to the United States. Obviously, these groups

reflect on the Israeli narrative differently from the main group, since Israel did notfunction as their new home. Miron’s notion that Judaism played a small role in the

American group is more interesting. Was this a reaction to the destruction caused byanti-Semitism? Did they prefer to adopt their new American identity and obliterate

their ethnic origin in a way that was typical of American society until the 1970s? Such aconclusion suits contemporary research on American Jewry. However, I find the use ofsuch tiny control groups problematic, especially in light of the small size of the main

group that does not enable proper statistical processing. Therefore, the contribution ofthe control groups seems to be of minor importance.

The other interesting aspect is Miron’s attempt to detect common denominatorsamong the women writers. Evidently, most of them mention subjects such as sexual

relationships, giving birth and educating children. Nevertheless, Miron claims that inother respects the feminine narrative is similar to the masculine one and includes

discussions on the forced emigration from Germany, the adaptation to life in Israel,and the writers’ professional affiliation and activity. Miron does not address theprominence of women authors in all three groups: nearly a quarter of the writers

(11 out of 48) are women. Although I have no statistical data regarding the ratio ofwomen’s autobiographies of that generation, this number seems high. The fact that so

many women thought it was important to leave their legacies may indicate how deeply

380 Book Reviews

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

01:

46 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

the Bildung ideal was imprinted in them. For both sexes, writing an autobiography wasan act of a gebildet person, as many German Jews wanted to present themselves.

Furthermore, it might also be an indication of the German-Jewish need to purge theirfeelings of guilt due to their belated understanding of the Nazi danger.

The investigation ofGerman Jews in Israel is interesting since it allows the examinationof thememories of people whowish to erase a painful part of their collective history, and

yet need to explore the catastrophe repeatedly. This specific study is interesting because itavoids the standard emphasis onmany stereotypes and thus avoids judging the German

Jews. Miron’s fresh approach can be compared to that of a male researcher in womenstudies. He studies the topic out of a genuine interest and is free of a personal agenda thatis so typical of Israeli researchers of this subject. Thankfully, this is not another

conservative nostalgic study, but a frank examination of a painful episode.

NA’AMA SHEFFI

Department of CommunicationSapir College, Sderot

Notes

[1] Yoav Gelber, Moledet hadashah: Aliyat yehudei merkaz Eiropah u-klitatam, 1993–1948(New homeland: Immigration and absorption of Central European Jews, 1993–1948)(Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi/Leo Baeck Institute, 1990); Moshe Zimmermann, ed., Germaniyah ve-Eretz Yisrael: Mifgash tarbuyot (Germany and the Land of Israel: A cultural encounter)(Jerusalem: The Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2004); Moshe Zimmermann and YotamHotam, Zweimal Heimat: Die Jeckes zwischen Mitteleuropa und Nahost (Frankfurt am Main:Beerenverlag, 2005); Uri Toeplitz, Sipurah shel ha-tizmoret ha-filharmonit ha-yisraelit(The history of the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra) (Tel Aviv: Sifriyat Poalim, 1992); NathanShaham, The Rosendorf Quartet: A Novel, trans. Dalya Bilu (New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1991);Yehudit Katzir, Closing the Sea, trans. Barbara Harshav (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich,1992); Ruvik Rosenthal, Rehov ha-prahim 22 (Blumenstrasse 22) (Jerusalem: Keter, 2003); AmosOz, A Tale of Love and Darkness, trans. Nicolas de Lange (Orlando: Harcourt, 2004).

[2] Gershom Scholem, From Berlin to Jerusalem: Memories of My Youth (New York: Schocken Books,1980).

Coffins on Our Shoulders: The Experience of the Palestinian Citizens of IsraelDAN RABINOWITZ and KHAWLA ABU-BAKERBerkeley, Los Angeles and London: University of California Press, 2005xi þ221 pp., notes, references, index, ISBN: 0-520-24441-9

Standing tall I marchMy head held high.An olive branch held in my palm,A coffin on my shoulder,On I walk . . .

These poignant words of the Palestinian poet from the Galilee Samih al-Qasem gave

the book its somewhat irritating title. Three years ago the book was first published in

The Journal of Israeli History 381

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

01:

46 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Hebrew and Arabic under the name The Stand-Tall Generation—again taken from al-Qasem’s poetry. In both cases the authors refer to the young generation of the

Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel, a generation that went through the al-Aqsa intifadaof 2000 and was shaped by this experience. The book deals profoundly with the

characteristics of this generation and the gaps and differences between it and itsfathers’ and forefathers’ generations—the “worn-out” and “surviving” generations,

respectively. The term in Hebrew, ha-dor ha-zakuf, has immediately become acommon adjective for this group of Arab university and high-school students, a group

that is very much aware and proud of its national Palestinian identity and at the sametime is unhesitant and very forthright when it comes to its struggle to achieve full civilequality inside the Jewish state.

Rabinowitz and Abu-Baker base much of their analysis on interviews with classmatesof the late Asil ‘Aslah, a shahid (martyr) of the bloody events of October 2000 that

resulted in the killing of 13 young Arabs by the Israeli police. In between the surveyof political events and the reactions of their interviewees, theyweave the personal stories

of three generations of their own families with much sincerity and compassion.The accounts of the Abu-Baker and Rabinowitz families, who had lived in Haifa not

far from each other and yet in two separate cultural and mental worlds, give the book aunique flavor which combines anthropology, psychology, history, political study andautobiography in one volume. Moreover, Abu-Baker and Rabinowitz know how to tell

a story—and the result is an academic book that reads like a fascinating novel.The “stand-tall generation” was born around the time of the first Land Day of 1976

when protests against confiscation of Arab land in the Galilee for the construction ofJewish villages became violent, resulting in the deaths of six Arabs. They “came of

political age” in the shadow of the disillusionment and frustration of their parents’struggle for integration and equality in Israel and the rapid developments in the

Palestinian national movement in the 1990s. The 2000 tragedy became “an urgent,highly personal matter” for them (p. 111). ‘Asil’s class mates described his murder as a

turning point in their political consciousness that brought them to redefine themselvesas Palestinians. Khulud Badawi, a prominent student leader at the time, argues that theevents “triggered a widespread process of soul-searching and reevaluation on the part

of the Palestinian youngsters” (p. 136), thus, the authors themselves describe theeruption of the al-Aqsa intifada as “an event of historic proportion” (p. 99). Five years

have passed and on the surface it seems as though those 10 days in October havepassed and will not return. But the relative calm, a kind of “ceasefire” in the internal

relations between Arabs and Jews, should not deceive us into assuming that all is wellon this front. The authors warn that this is “a forced silence, one that conceals bitter

suffering and deep shock . . . the Palestinian citizens themselves . . . are frightened ofthe Israeli iron fist that so brutally crushed their protest” (p. 173). I would add thatreason overcame emotions and the fear of a complete split from the state and its

possible consequences also plays a role here.The book analyzes in depth the Israeli policy towards its Arab citizens prior to the

October events and the way it has excluded them and driven them to the margins.

382 Book Reviews

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

01:

46 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

The hope of the previous generation for integration and “coexistence” has failed andthe stand-tall generation is now demanding more from the state then their parents did.

They seek genuine equality, including recognition of their collective rights asPalestinians and rectification of past wrongs. They are also asking for an arrangement

that allows them a legitimate expression of solidarity with Palestine without giving uptheir Israeli citizenship, which they see as a natural right. Until this is achieved, “they

see the state as a mere provider of services, not a locus of true affiliation” (p. 137).Obviously, no generation is monolithic, nor is the generation under discussion.

Since October 2000 and its aftermath, young Arabs in Israel have taken different paths.Many have preferred individualism to national and public involvement, others areabsorbed in the world of consumerism like their Jewish and international

counterparts, or they merely wish “to get along and find safe havens in middleground” (ibid.). Some would argue that the stand-tall generation has disappeared and

that its influence has been limited, while the reality of the Palestinians inside andoutside Israel has become harsher. But the authors suggest that “the Mannheimian test

of generations is first and foremost their sense of unified experience, commonawareness and sameness of interpretation of reality as it unfolds around them, not

necessarily their ability to shape it, as Generation X of the 1980s amply illustrates”(p. 138). This is an interesting insight that may “comfort” the activists of thisgeneration, and legitimize their temporary (?) withdrawal from political militancy.

The authors place all responsibility for the hardships and alienation of thePalestinian citizens in Israel exclusively on the state and its Jewish majority, and

criticize in particular the liberal “peace camp” in Israel that “champions equalindividual rights [and] consistently refuses to recognize the Palestinian citizens of

Israel as holders of collective rights . . .” (p. 135). They include in Chapter 6 parts of the“emergency report by an inter-university research team” submitted in November 2000

to the then Prime Minister Ehud Barak immediately after the bloody events ofOctober. Rabinowitz was one of the initiators of that report and Abu-Baker took an

active part in writing it. The report addresses six topics that stand between the stateand its Palestinian citizens and suggests practical ways of coping with them. Theyspecify the urgent need for a deep change in the way the Arabs are seen as the enemy

and treated as a “security and demographic risk,” rather than as partners and fellowcitizens. The report presents different recommendations “for new directions for

government policy towards the Arab population in Israel.” Unfortunately, this reporthad been added to many similar documents that were written before and after,

including the important Orr Commission report on the October events, and was filedaway on the shelves of history.

The authors argue that the predicament of the Palestinian citizens cannot be solvedby looking only at the present and the future: “finding a genuine solution will requiretackling the injustices of the past” (p. 175) as in New Zealand and Australia.

Recognition of the Palestinian Nakba (catastrophe of 1948), changes in the land laws,the granting of autonomy in education and culture, recognition of their collective

rights as a national minority, as well as changes in the national symbols of the state, are

The Journal of Israeli History 383

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

01:

46 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

only a few of their demands. They themselves admit that “administratively andfinancially these primarily symbolic changes will be easy. Emotionally and politically,

however, none could be more costly and complicated for the Israeli mainstream”(p. 178).

It is not until the last paragraph of the book that Abu-Baker and Rabinowitz openlysay that “the practical conclusion of this book is categorically post-Zionist . . . if Israel

seeks a future of prosperity and peace, sooner or later it will have to replace theethnoterritorial dictum that engendered Zionism with an alternative inclusive

approach to history and destiny” (p. 184).I would argue that this is the weak point of this lucid and illuminating analysis.

Rabinowitz and Abu-Baker succeed in identifying, describing and analyzing the

present generation of Palestinians in Israel. The way they identify the process oftransmitting experience, frustration and learnt lessons from one generation to the next

is unique and innovative, as is the very structure of the book. Their personal storiesand narrations bring to life the theories and the history-telling and give the book its

strength and authenticity. But despite the deep asymmetry between the majority andminority I cannot agree with their categorical conclusion, that the solution lies

exclusively in the hands of the state authorities and the Jewish majority, and that it istheir ultimate responsibility to change. What they imply is that the Jews of Israel mustgive up their beliefs, their narratives of the past and their aspirations for the future in

order to satisfy the demands of the Palestinian citizens. This is a road that leads to adead end, and there are only a handful of people in today’s Jewish Israel who may

adopt these recommendations. It may work perhaps in an ideal post-national peacefulworld, but in the current reality of international and regional politics, the notion of

stripping the Israeli Jews of their national identity and right to self-determination,while asking them to recognize a national Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza

and a national Palestinian minority group inside the Green Line, is unrealistic.Assuming that a final just and satisfactory solution for all is not within sight in our

generation, alternative intermediate mechanisms should be created to ease thetensions and constantly improve the status and conditions of the Palestinian citizens ofIsrael. A sincere dialogue that does not blame only one side and tries to reach a

compromise should be established at the highest levels. It should look for a cleardefinition and understanding of the meaning and long-term implications of

“collective rights,” “a state of all its citizens,” and “autonomy.” It is certainly theresponsibility of the powerful side and the strong majority to initiate confidence-

building measures and start a sincere process of change, but an equal demand from theminority to respect and recognize the majority’s rights and aspirations is needed

as well.

SARAH OZACKY-LAZAR

Center for Strategy and Policy StudiesHebrew University, Jerusalem

384 Book Reviews

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tha

mm

asat

Uni

vers

ity L

ibra

ries

] at

01:

46 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014