Call number
Collection
Publication
Description
A controversial examination of the internal Israeli debate over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from a best-selling Israeli author Since the Six-Day War, Israelis have been entrenched in a national debate over whether to keep the land they conquered or to return some, if not all, of the territories to Palestinians. In a balanced and insightful analysis, Micah Goodman deftly sheds light on the ideas that have shaped Israelis' thinking on both sides of the debate, and among secular and religious Jews about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Contrary to opinions that dominate the discussion, he shows that the paradox of Israeli political discourse is that both sides are right in what they affirm-and wrong in what they deny. Although he concludes that the conflict cannot be solved, Goodman is far from a pessimist and explores how instead it can be reduced in scope and danger through limited, practical steps. Through philosophical critique and political analysis, Goodman builds a creative, compelling case for pragmatism in a dispute where a comprehensive solution seems impossible.… (more)
User reviews
The issue is twofold: One, the book is very short. Two, Dr. Goodman's background is in Jewish thought and philosophy, not in politics or history, and this leads him to make generalizations that he fails to support.
He divides Israelis into two broad camps: the right and the left. Unfortunately, this means that different segments of each camp are either conflated, or one stream is focused on. The anti-Zionist left, which has been strengthening in recent years, is ignored (he dismisses the non-Zionists or post-Zionists explicitly). The left, as represented in the book, is the Zionist left. This means that some arguments--for example, that the demographic problem is a fundamentally racist question--are simply not raised. However, his portrayal of Israelis is more incomplete than inaccurate.
His characterization of the Palestinians, however, I found to be a problem. This is not to say there's no elements of truth to it, but he tends to characterize Palestinians as a single group that doesn't have diverse viewpoints and he makes widespread generalizations without evidence, such as saying that Palestinians are motivated by humiliation and that they simply don't accept Jewish rule. If you're going to make these kinds of sweeping statements, you need to build your argument better. I know this book was initially written for an Israeli audience that has greater familiarity with the history and the conflict than English speakers, but if you're not even distinguishing between secular nationalism and Islamism, I don't think that's the whole issue.
He also argues that the West Bank and Gaza is not occupied territory because it doesn't belong to anyone (although he says the Palestinians themselves are occupied). Many scholars would disagree with that.
The book isn't all bad: it tries to promote a pragmatic view to dealing with the conflict. However, he doesn't deal sufficiently with all present problems. It may not be possible to have an overarching peace agreement that deals with what happened in 1948. However, the rights of Palestinians today are another question, and how political equality can be achieved--either through independence/self government or through Israeli citizenship--isn't fleshed out. More self government might be a pragmatic choice for Israelis, but will it be accepted by the other side? His arguments only apply to what Israelis might find palatable, and not anything else.