Module 8: [Nov 8-10] Case study: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Nov 8 (M) & Nov 10 (W): 20 & 21. The roots of the conflict and patterns of collective action, through 1948-1949 and beyond.

- Ari Shavit, My Promised Land: The Triumph and Tragedy of Israel (New York: Spiegel & Grau, 2018), introduction, chs. 1-5, 18, Shavit, chs 1-5, 18.pdf

Resources we may use for class:

- Background slides for "My Promised Land," by Daniel Arnon: Session 20 & 21 Slides - Arnon.pdf / Session 20 & 21 Slides - Arnon.pptx
- Benny Morris, "In '48, Israel Did What It Had to Do," Los Angeles Times (Jan 26, 2004), Morris - 2004 - LAT.pdf
- Benny Morris, 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War (New Haven: Yale Univ Press, 2009), selections on Lydda, Morris 1948 Lydda.pdf
- Martin Kramer, "Lydda, 1948: They Were There," [blog] (Dec 2014), Kramer Dec 2014.pdf [deeply critical of Shavit from the pro-Israeli side]
- Matthew Berkman, "Book Review: My Promised Land," Cairo Review of Global Affairs (Spring 2015), Berkman.pdf [deeply critical of Shavit from the pro-Palestinian side]
- Map from 1948:

Lydda Sector Map July 1948.png

Further resources on antisemitism and criticisms of Israel:

- What kinds of criticism of Israel - the state, its policies, and the events of its formation which we are reading about - and, equally, of the Palestinian Arab groups and organizations we are also reading about - are legitimate, and which kinds are illegitimate by virtue of being antisemitic/racist/hate speech? That is a question that may occur to you while doing the reading or during our discussion. Here are some resources that might be useful in thinking through that question for yourself:
- The "IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism," as endorsed by the US Department of State in 2016 (see also this)
- Natan Sharansky, "Anti-Semitism in 3-D," Forward (Jan 21, 2005) [famous essay defining three criteria, or the '3 Ds,' for judging whether something is antisemitic]
- David M. Halbfinger et al., "Is BDS Anti-Semitic? A Closer Look," New York Times (Jul 27, 2019) [for analysis of a debate about one particular movement criticizing Israel - the BDS boycott movement - and which kinds of criticism of Israel in general are antisemitic and thus racist or hate speech, versus which are not]

Discussion: anytime until the start of the first class session in the next module, post in the Module 8 Discussion Thread if you have questions about the readings, want to highlight a current events example of a point that is related, or to react to another's student's post constructively. Or post your 'muddiest point' - something that confused you most from one of these class sessions. This is optional but will count towards your participation points for the whole semester as noted in the syllabus.

Recordings: Session 20 (Nov 8); Session 21 (Nov 10)

Your workflow for any upcoming session:

Look at the learning objectives and discussion questions for the next upcoming session
Do the readings for the upcoming session before it meets
Revisit the learning objectives & discussion questions - can you meet or answer them?
Check in on the module discussion thread: post questions, or comments - Module 8 Discussion
Attend class and participate
Check back in on the same module discussion thread: post about your 'muddiest point,' the issue or idea you were most confused about from the past session, or a follow-up comment you want to make in response to something that came up in discussion

In Session 20 & 21 We Will...

Describe the Zionist project, the formation of Israel, and analyze the role of leadership, collective action, ideology, and other influences on the Israel-Palestinian conflict over the decades
Critically evaluate the source material and its evidence
Analyze the central tension in the book: how to recognize and acknowledge historic travesties committed in "your name" while simultaneously contemplating their importance for your existence/welfare
Apply insights derived from that analysis to other cases (e.g., the United States)

Session 20 & 21 Discussion Questions

Step 1: preliminary discussion

What was the main theme of the book? What are the inner demons that Shavit is fighting with in the book?
Why does Shavit admire the early 20^th century Zionists?
What is the author’s viewpoint, main goal/agenda, biases? What else stood out for you in the book?

Step 2: a brief history of Zionism, Palestine, and Israel [Arnon's slides & discussion]

Step 3: main discussion

What was Zionism’s goal? Did it achieve that goal?
In examining the history of Zionism – how do you feel about the Zionist project? Is it something you admire? Oppose? Have mixed feeling about.
Shavit’s strategy in the book is to create a narrative that includes historical reconciliation with the past tragedies, while justifying them. How do you feel about this?
Why did Shavit’s great-grandfather not ‘see’ or recognize that Zionism would mean the dispossession of the Arabs there, that indeed there were Arabs there? (12+)
How does the security dilemma influence the choices Israelis and Palestinians can make and do make, throughout the conflict. Does the security dilemma justify the use of force? Necessitate it? if not, what are the alternatives? Is there any way out of this dilemma short of annihilation/expulsion of the other?
How do the Israelis and Palestinians resolve their collective action problems? Who overcomes it more successfully? Does this matter for how we judge the actions of Israelis and Palestinians?
“Kibbutz socialism,” Shavit says, ‘is now essential’ for Zionism to succeed (31+). “By 1921, it is clear that nonsocialist Zionism will not be able to colonize Palestine… They are based on liberal values, a middle-class way of life, and market forces that are not up to the task. Utopian communes… will not do, either. Liberty, intimacy, and individualism are incompatible with the mission… A need now for a well-organized, disciplined socialist structure.” (31) What did this entail, exactly? Why does he regard it as essential? Do you agree? Compare and contrast this collective action effort, and the means of organization and ideology that it entailed, with that of other collective action efforts we have studied – e.g., civil rights movement, soldiers, labor unionizing, etc.
What role did charismatic leaders, ideology (like the Masada trip), hierarchical structures, etc., play in shaping behavior and outcomes?
In the Chapter on Lydda, Shavit says that the expulsion and massacres of Palestinians was not only necessary, but crucial to the Zionist project. Not a bug, but a feature: “If Zionism was to be, Lydda could not be. If Lydda was to be, Zionism could not be.” (Shavit, 108).

- What do you think about this statement, or how do you feel about this statement?
- If you agree with Shavit that Lydda was necessary for Zionism to exist, how should Israeli Jews remember Lydda?
- Should it be memorialized as a somber memory of a wartime necessity, or should it be reflected on as an “original sin” of Zionism?
- Should it be ignored as a disgrace or celebrated as the necessary victory?
- Was it an avoidable tragedy, from the standpoint of the Jews, or not?
- How did this case compare and contrast with that of Forsyth County in 1912? Browning's 'Ordinary Men'? Our readings about US Civil War soldiers and rebel groups in Uganda and Mozambique? in terms of the factors (ideological commitment, leadership, small-group reciprocity dynamics, etc.) influencing individual engagement in violence directed against the other group, and in terms of the 'necessity' of such action from the standpoint of the perpetrators?

What should Israel teach in its civic classes? How should Israelis deal with their memory? How can you intertwine the “good” and the “bad.”

Step 4: 2nd day discussion

Which of the insights we’ve discussed about the US and Zionism apply to America? What are the similarities and differences in the birthing of these new nations?
How would you apply these insights to American identity, given the series of historic wrong-doings committed by the US throughout its history? Including the Genocide of Native Americans, slavery as an institution and its remnants in contemporary US domestic policies, denial of immigration to the US for non-whites, Japanese internment, US expansionist foreign policy during the Cold War and the bombing of civilian populations in war.
How do you reconcile with your nation’s past? Do you own up to it? do you amend it? do you just carry on? Does the US have a right to exist? Does its historical wrong-doings deny its right to exist, if not, how do we reconcile this. [NON-AMERICAN STUDENTS ARE ENCOURAGED TO COMMENT FROM THEIR NATIONALITY’S PERSPECTIVE]
Does Shavit’s reconciliation and narrative construction, in its brutal honesty, apply to the American context? To put it differently, do you agree with Shavit’s statement, paraphrased as follows?

“If Zionism was to be, Lydda could not be. If Lydda was to be, Zionism could not be.”

“If America was to be, The Cherokee could not be. If the Cherokee were to be, America could not be.”