Summary
Title: The Palestine-Israeli Conflict: A Beginner's Guide
Author: Dan Cohn-Sherbok, Dawoud El-Alami
Publisher: Oneworld Publications
ISBN: 1851683321
Pro:
• Presents both sides of the conflict
• Explains the history and grievances that all parties see
• Offers some ideas for future solutions
Con:
• None
Description:
• Explanation of the history of the region from two different perspectives
• Explanation of both Israeli and Palestinian grievances and goals
• Dialogue between the two authors over problems and solutions
Book Review
Partly because of the age of this conflict and partly because the news media shows little interest in providing depth to their news coverage, most are simply unaware of why people are fighting. To better comprehend this conflict, people need to do some research on their own - but where can they start? Fortunately Oneworld Publications offers an excellent introduction to the history and nature of the war between Israel and the Palestinians. A part of their "Beginner's Guide" series, this book offers something unusual and not found in many places: both sides of the conflict, told in the first person.
Yes, this book has two authors. The first is Dr. Dawoud El-Alami, a lawyer and academic who has held appointments at the University of Kent in Canterbury, the University of Oxford, Al Al-Bayt University in Jordan and the University of Wales, Lampeter. The second is Professor Dan Cohn-Sherbok, an American rabbi who was ordained at the Hebrew Union College Jewish Institute of Religion and has served Reform congregations in the United States, Australia, Britain and South Africa, and is currently Professor of Judaism at the University of Wales, Lampeter.
Together, they provide both sides of the story of Israel and Palestine, told by people who passionately believe in one side or the other. Although they disagree on much, they do agree on a few things. One is the fact that one of the fundamental disagreements is moral in nature. Each author argues that his case is the genuinely moral one, and both have a real point - this is what makes the debate so difficult, because there are shades of grey instead of obvious "good guys" and "bad guys."
For Cohn-Sherbok, the creation of the state of Israel was a moral necessity after centuries of anti-Semitism and oppression:
- "In attempting to persuade the British of the justice of their cause, Zionists recounted the terrible legacy of anti-Semitism as it evolved through the ages. The Jews had been oppressed simply because of their faith. They constituted a small, vulnerable minority in alien cultures. In the face of rising anti-Jewish agitation particularly in Eastern Europe, these Zionist pioneers championed a Jewish homeland to safeguard the lives of their co-religionists. Was this truly an immoral act?"
From El-Alami, however, we get an equally persuasive case that what was done to create Israel was indeed an immoral act:
- "...the history of Jewish Palestine ended effectively in 137 CE. Until the middle of the twentieth century, there had not been a Jewish majority in Palestine since that time over eighteen hundred years ago. In a kind of international aberration one of the most significant events of the twentieth century, involving the destruction and dispersal of a settled, indigenous population, has been based on a folk memory that, however vital to the cultural identity of the Jewish people, cannot possibly have entitled them to colonize an inhabited land at the very time when the rest of the world was turning against colonialism."
- "Traditions and beliefs may have lingered on, the yearning to "return" to a spiritual homeland may have remained through the centuries, but the hard reality of more than eighteen hundred years remains. It is inconceivable that in any other sphere of human existence an attempt might be made to turn back the clock almost two millennia."
Nevertheless, Israel does exist - so now what? Recriminations about the past serve only a limited purpose. El-Alami seems to accept that Israel exists and should be allowed to continue existing, although he does not quite state that outright. Calling the creation of Israel "immoral" does not offer a solution - especially since the accusation has to be aimed more at the British, which is something he recognizes:
- "On what basis did the British believe that they were entitled to promise to the Zionists a land that belonged to others? This question lies at the core of the Palestinian position. The British, uncertain of the outcome of the war [World War I], had made conflicting undertakings in an attempt to keep all potentially friendly elements on the side of the Allies."
