Israel's Independence Research Articles

Turkish-Arab Relations in the Axis of the Question of Palestine and the Establishment of Israel State

The question of Palestine issue began when Jewish immigrants settled in Palestine from the 1880s and formed large colonies on the land they purchased, and it evolved into a chronic problem with the establishment of the State of Israel. 
 The recognition of Israel's independence by Türkiye induced intense reactions in the Arab Middle East and sabotaged the development process of Turkish-Arab relations. Following this act of recognition, Türkiye quickly became distanced to the region and despite all the moves attempted afterwards, Türkiye failed to erase its scars and the desired level of relations could not be achieved. Moreover, the impact of Türkiye's recognition of Israel was deeply felt in the Cyprus issue that emerged in the 1960s, and Türkiye was deprived of the support of the Arab States in this vital question. Considering this recognition and the question of Palestine as a whole, it is understood that Türkiye's abandonment of its stance in support of the Arabs is a concrete indicator of its inconsistency in its foreign policy. 
 In this article, the author aims to examine and clarify the question of Palestine and the impact of the foundation of Israel State on Turkish-Arab relations.

Israel's Moment: International Support for and Opposition to Establishing the Jewish State, 1945–1949 by Jeffrey Herf

<i>Israel's Moment: International Support for and Opposition to Establishing the Jewish State, 1945–1949</i> by Jeffrey Herf

Was Alterman an Orientalist?

For many years Natan Alterman, the main poetic voice of the Jewish community in Palestine before and after the establishment of the state of Israel, published a regular poetic column in major Hebrew dailies. His major body of journalistic verse—"Hatur hasheviʿi" ("The Seventh Column") published in Davar from the 1940s through the 1960s—enjoyed unprecedented popularity and influence and, in effect, earned him the title of national poet. In "Hatur hasheviʿi" Alterman provided a resonant poetic response to all the tragic and dramatic events in the history of the Jewish people in the twentieth century, culminating in World War II, the Holocaust, and the bitter struggle for Israel's independence. He continued this in the early years of the state. One of the challenges facing the new state was absorbing the massive waves of immigration streaming to its gates. This challenge was compounded when dealing with immigrants from Asian and North African countries (Mizrahi, or "Oriental"), whose cultural background was very different from that of the veteran absorbing population, which was mainly of European origin (Ashkenazi). In his journalistic poetry Alterman evinces a consistent pro-Mizrahi stance. He sides with them in all their struggles, empathizes with their pain and hardship, idolizes their toil and trouble. At the same time, his poems dealing with the Mizrahi aliyah (Jewish immigration to Israel) are strewn with extreme Orientalist images and motifs. This article exposes and analyzes Alterman's Orientalist discourse but also tries to provide a reading that might bridge the gap between this discourse and his political stance.

The Chief Rabbinate and Israel's Independence Day Religio‐National Rituals During the 1950s†

This article investigates the place of the Israeli Chief Rabbinate in the formation of Israel's national symbolic language during the country's first Independence Days. My main argument is that, like other state churches, the Rabbinate act as an important agent of memory that imparts collective myths and authenticate them. However, the Rabbinate was not willing to fully integrate the new national stance into the traditional ritual language and was therefore criticised accordingly. This criticism, and the alternative rituals it gave rise to, shows that certain circles of Israeli society were willing to go much further with the integration of national components into the traditional Jewish world. In addition, it demonstrates the necessity of the public's “approval” of the ritual, and therefore reveals the limits of memory agents. The first section of the article presents the background for the religious observance of the national holiday, the second section illustrates the nature of the first Independence Day synagogue services, the third section describes the criticism they had provoked, and the fourth section analyses the alternative rituals held on Mount Zion and the radical religious‐national integration they created. Finally, the conclusion seeks to place this case within the wider context of nation‐building and its religious aspects.

Die UdSSR und der Nahe Osten: Zionismus, ägyptischer Antikolonialismus und sowjetische Außenpolitik bis 1956. by Wiebke Bachmann, Munich: Oldenburg Verlag, 2011. 223 pp. €24.80.

On 10 April 1946, British Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin sent a note to Prime Minister Clement Attlee in which he gave his view of what the Soviet Union was up to: “The Russians have decided upon an aggressive policy based upon militant Communism and Russian chauvinism and seem determined to stick at nothing short of war, to obtain their objectives. At the present time Russia's aggressive policy is clearly directed to challenging this country everywhere” (The National Archives of the United Kingdom, FO 800/501/SU/46/15).One of those places was the Near East, especially Palestine, where since April 1922 Great Britain had ruled through a Mandate of the League of Nations. The Mandate obligated Britain to encourage the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people; that is, a Jewish state.In 1939, with war imminent, the British abandoned this policy, fearing that the Arab world might turn against them otherwise. Over the next five years Jewish immigration to Palestine was limited to 75,000; after that it depended on the permission of the Arabs. The Zionist dream of a Jewish state seemed to be over. The Zionist leader, David Ben-Gurion, called the British volte-face the worst betrayal the civilized world had ever seen.In the following years, the Zionists turned to the United States for help—which U.S. leaders agreed to provide. This willingness stemmed partly from domestic politics. In supporting the establishment of the state of Israel, U.S. politicians hoped to win the votes of Jewish Americans.Jewish lobbying in Washington was successful and well known. Not so well known is the Jewish lobbying that took place in Moscow, which was also very successful, as Wiebke Bachmann shows. Without Moscow's support, there would have been no Israel.What did the Soviet Union want in Palestine? The main objective, as Bevin had rightly discerned, was to weaken British influence in the Near East (p. 122). Soviet leaders hoped that the new Jewish state would lean toward socialism and become a partner of the Soviet Union. That is why the Soviet dictator Iosif Stalin let some 200,000 Jews move from Eastern Europe to Palestine in one of the most dramatic illegal operations against the British.In early 1947 Britain relinquished its role and handed back the Palestine Mandate to the United Nations (UN). In subsequent months, the Soviet Union surprised many by backing the Zionist cause in favor of the partition of Palestine. On 29 November 1947, the UN General Assembly approved partition.Although U.S. President Harry S. Truman recognized de facto the provisional government of Israel just eleven minutes after Israel's independence took effect at midnight local time on 14 May 1948, the Soviet Union was the first to recognize Israel de jure: on 17 May 1948. Moscow also provided the new state with infusions of weapons to fight the Arabs in the so-called war of independence.Drawing mostly on Soviet archival material, Bachmann shows how things changed later in the year after Israel demanded the release of Jews in the Soviet Union (p. 138). By mid-1950, after Israel took out a loan in the United States (p. 139) and supported the West in the Korean War, Israel had definitely become a lost cause for Stalin.After Stalin turned forcefully against Israel, Egypt steadily gained favor in the Soviet Union. In 1955, Egypt received large quantities of armaments from Moscow, the first Arab country to receive Soviet weapons. The book ends with the 1956 Soviet Communist Party Congress. So we learn nothing about the crucial months leading up to the Suez Crisis, to say nothing about Moscow's role before and during the Six-Day War in 1967.

Covenant Brothers: Evangelicals, Jews, and U.S.–Israeli Relations by Daniel G. Hummel, and: Israel in the American Mind: The Cultural Politics of U.S.–Israeli Relations, 1958–1988 by Shaul Mitelpunkt

Reviewed by: Covenant Brothers: Evangelicals, Jews, and U.S.–Israeli Relations by Daniel G. Hummel, and: Israel in the American Mind: The Cultural Politics of U.S.–Israeli Relations, 1958–1988 by Shaul Mitelpunkt Shalom Goldman (bio) Covenant Brothers: Evangelicals, Jews, and U.S.–Israeli Relations. By Daniel G. Hummel. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2019. 317 pp. Israel in the American Mind: The Cultural Politics of U.S.–Israeli Relations, 1958–1988. By Shaul Mitelpunkt. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018. xvii + 385 pp. While the academic study of US—Israel relations has a long history and a very long bibliography, most books on this topic are skewed to the study of one side of the relationship. And within that one-sided emphasis, these histories focus on its diplomatic, military, or religious aspects. Mitelpunkt's book focuses on what he terms the "cultural politics" of U.S.—Israel ties and the ways in which both Americans and Israelis "turned to the sphere of ideas and imagination in order to make sense of the relationship between their countries, influence one another, and constitute their countries place in the wider world" (19–20). Israel in the American Mind describes itself as "a truly transnational history of US—Israeli relations," a history that contextualizes those relations "within the changing domestic concerns in both countries." The scope of this valuable study is further defined by the historical period covered, 1958 to 1988. According to the author, it was in those three decades that "influential American commentators saw Israel first and foremost as a society of citizen-soldiers" (3). Israel thus functioned as an inspirational model for American policy makers and members of the cultural elite. What these Americans saw as Israel's "fighting spirit" was precisely what they saw was missing in the post-World War II US. From the mid-1960s to the mid-1970s, the era of the Vietnam War, the marked contrast between American dissension about that war and Israeli unity and enthusiasm for fighting its own wars troubled many influential Americans. Why couldn't the US be more like Israel, they asked. Mitelpunkt could have illustrated such "Israel envy" on the part of Americans by quoting any number of policy makers or pundits. Instead he artfully, opens his book with the story of novelist John Steinbeck's mid-1960s engagement with Israel. In 1966, Steinbeck and his wife [End Page 631] Elaine spent a few months in Israel, and in 1967 Steinbeck reported on the Six Day War for the New York newspaper Newsday. Early in his Israeli sojourn, Steinbeck wrote a letter to his friend Jack Valenti, a White House advisor in the Johnson administration, that "the Israelis are the toughest and most vital people I have seen in a long time … their army is superb" (1). Steinbeck, one of the few American literary figures who supported the Vietnam War, wondered aloud why the US couldn't be more Israeli. In his view anarchy reigned on US campuses and streets, while Israel was orderly and disciplined. The I.D.F. was not the only Israeli institution that attracted American attention and approval. Other Israeli institutions, chief among them the kibbutz, were widely admired by liberals. But, as Mitelpunkt notes, "the Kibbutz way of life contradicted a chief tenet of American modernization theories: the proscription of free market capitalism in developing countries" (89). Life Magazine's May 7, 1973 issue was dedicated to coverage of the twenty-fifth anniversary of Israel's independence. In his incisive analysis of the magazine's reporting Mitelpunkt notes that "Even as the Vietnam War wrecked the post-World War II American citizen-soldier model, the piece suggested … that the Israelis managed to maintain that model and execute it in full harmony" (119). In that same period, the early 1970s, the Israeli Army attracted American readers' attention for more primal reasons. In the American press Israel's female soldiers were admired for their "ever more shapely uniforms" and their "feminine charm" (156–7). Mitelpunkt also gives us the Israeli reactions to this American envy and admiration. He notes that American dissent and dissension about the Vietnam War had an effect on Israelis. "An image of...

Exporting Israel to the Diaspora: The Attempt to Make Israel's Independence Day into a Worldwide Jewish Holiday

Exporting Israel to the Diaspora: The Attempt to Make Israel's Independence Day into a Worldwide Jewish Holiday

Oriental Neighbors: Middle Eastern Jews and Arabs in Mandatory Palestine

Oriental Neighbors: Middle Eastern Jews and Arabs in Mandatory Palestine

Israel's Past at 70: The Twofold Attack on the Zionist Historical Narrative

Israel's Past at 70:The Twofold Attack on the Zionist Historical Narrative Eyal Naveh (bio) Seventy years have passed since Israel achieved its independence following about another 70 years since the initiation of the Zionist movement. During these 150 years, the emerging and evolving Hebrew society constructed a national historical narrative. The narrative told and invested meaning in the life experience of the Jewish people over time, leading to the creation of the Zionist movement and ultimately to the establishment and endurance of the state of Israel as the sovereign nation state for the Jewish people. I characterize the essence of this narrative and argue that after 70 years of Israel's existence such a narrative faces a twofold challenge from diametrically opposing directions: civic post-Zionism on one hand and religious redemptive-Zionism on the other. Though these challenges do not completely eradicate the meaning of the Zionist historical narrative—still used as catchphrase by politicians, journalists, social activists, educators, spokespersons, diplomats, and other Israelis—the cumulative effect of this twofold attack has severely eroded its significance and harmed its inspiring and motivating dimension. Thus, the Zionist historical narrative appeared to most Israelis as worn and overused—incapable of providing passion and bereft of its sublime value. THE ZIONIST NARRATIVE—RETURN FROM EXILE TO SOVEREIGNTY History is shown in the declaration of Israel's independence as multifaceted. Viewed as the point of departure and founding origin of the Jewish people in ancient time, it is also perceived as a tragic setting for rootless, persecuted Jews in the recent past. This awful situation provides historical [End Page 76] right and legitimation to the present existence of Israel; however, it also entails teleological lessons for the Zionist project by its progression toward future culmination and even redemption. History thus is viewed as a point of departure, tragic arena, source of present right, and fulcrum for future lessons and judgments. Within such a multidimensional historical consciousness the Zionist narrative was constructed as a tragic-heroic story of "returning from exile to sovereignty" wherein the Jewish collective performs and functions in history as victorious victim. The tension between the suffering object of history in exile and the triumphant subject and agent of history in a sovereign state, made such a narrative both moral and powerful. Within the paradigm of "returning from exile to sovereignty", the State of Israel constituted both the beginning of the process of national salvation and a formative educational tool that would ensure that process's continuation. Israel appeared both as the onset of modern Jewish national revival, as well as a historical expression of a primordial process of Jewish redemption. Such a paradigm based its historical outlook on the following incompatible grounds. On one hand, the Zionist historical narrative viewed Zionism as a revolutionary act and even as a breakthrough of Jewish history. It cultivated an archetypal "new Jew" who revolts against the fate that traditional Judaism imposed upon him, thereby transforming himself into an active agent of history and part of modern progress. Consequently, it interprets the sovereignty of the State of Israel as an indication of establishing normal relations between the Jews and the rest of the world. We can define this attitude as "Revolution toward universal Normalcy". On the other hand, the narrative emphasized the Jewish historical everlasting relationship with the old-new homeland known as the Land of Israel. It regarded Jewish tribulation in history as an inevitable stage that lent moral validity to Zionist actions against any anti-Jewish menacing forces of evil. It even looked at the course of Jewish history as an unfolding revealing process, tantamount to the vision of redemption. I term this attitude as "Evolution toward particular Anomaly". Such contradictory attitudes toward history perceived the return from exile to sovereignty and the creation of the state of Israel as a phenomenal shortcut to the future, which also entailed certain dimensions of renaissance of the past. This leap of time aimed to construct historical sequence by integrating primordial events, like the Biblical Kingdom of David, the Maccabean revolt against the Greek-Syrians, or the heroism of Masada, with modern heroic events such as the story of Tel Hai...

Is “Land for Peace” Legitimate?

Is “Land for Peace” Legitimate?

Israeli history curriculum and the conservative - liberal pendulum

At sixty-four Israel is still a comparatively young nation state, just passing from the 'developing' to the 'developed' phase. It has had five different history curricula for the Jewish 'Mamlakhti' (public non-religious) and the Arab sectors, which account for the majority of the students. For the first five decades the history curriculum did not ignite much controversy. The first curriculum was a rallying curriculum centered on the Jewish national movement and the establishment of Israel. In 1975 an 'academized' curriculum incorporated historical thinking goals – a move away from just an identification stance and towards an analytic stance. The mandatory baccalaureate examination, however, pushed for memorization and coverage. The fourth curriculum in 1993 integrated Jewish and world history with a slightly greater emphasis on world history, covered Israel's first three wars, and historical Jewish Diasporas and ethnicities. One textbook in the late nineties included cases of the deportation of Palestinian civilians during Israel's independence war. The decade since the turn of the millennia has been turbulent and inconsistent. New 'heritage' projects sponsored by right-wing Ministers of Education have alternated with curriculum emphasizing critical thinking, interpretation and multiple sources. The pendulum swung from expressive populist ethnocentricity to critical inquiry and diversity and back. New policies are haphazardly and partially enforced until a rival coalition reaches power and 'debates' curricula by publicizing the attempts to undo or alter them. Little attention was given to the ways teachers or students actually enacted and perceived the curriculum.

The Reluctant Soldiers of Israel's Settlement Project: The Ship to Village Plan in the mid-1950s

This article focuses on the policy of population dispersion and the plan that transferred new Jewish immigrants from North Africa to settlements in Israel's periphery during the mid-1950s. Populating the frontier was a national task. The lack of candidates among old-timers contributed to the idea of sending new immigrants to those areas. The first wave of immigrants, immediately after Israel's independence, came at such a speed that a direct connection to population dispersion was almost impossible. The transit camps, created as temporary accommodation for the immigrants in populated area of the country, became permanent. With the second wave of immigration, a policy of directing the immigrants to the frontier was adopted. This policy required tight control on the immigrants and very efficient processing. This second wave of immigrants included mostly North African Jews. However, this policy was abandoned when East European Jews immigrated to Israel. The population dispersion of the 1950s shaped Israel's spatial gaps, and had long-lasting influence on the creation of an ethnic gap in Israel.

Governmentality, new population and subjectivity

This article discusses the connection between governmentality, population and subjectivity. This association is based on the case study of the Boarding School for the Gifted Disadvantaged in Israel, a state-run organization that was founded in 1961 for ‘ethnic’ (or Oriental) citizens and is still in operation today. The case study shows how, in the first decade of Israel's independence, the new socio-political order created a new population of people termed ‘gifted disadvantaged’, thus creating a new subjectivity among the ethnic population. This population is shown to be located in a liminal life-space, as occupying the new sphere of ‘positive deviation’, and as characterized by ‘non-naturally’ giftedness. The discussion section describes how the construction of a new population also implies a specific hermeneutics of subjectivity, which in turn helps reinforce governmental rationality (governmentality).

Rights Beyond Borders: Everyday Politics of Citizenship in the Israeli Diaspora

This article examines the process by which Israeli migrants define, perceive and negotiate their diasporic citizenship rights and duties as regards their home state. Rights are a bundle of symbolic and material services conferred by the state upon citizens abroad and include among other things ceremonies marking national holidays, language enrichment classes for the 1.5 and second generations, and homeland art and literature fairs. Recognition of the entitlement of nationals residing abroad to these rights is accompanied by a demand for symmetry manifested by the fulfillment of cultural duties. I focus in this article on the case of the Israeli community in Los Angeles and its members' quest to be recognised as diasporic citizens. By analysing narratives of state officials and local activists in the context of Israel's Independence Day Festival, I show how a discourse of citizenship beyond borders is framed within different articulations of rights and duties.

The Talented Arab Girl: Between Tradition and Modernism

Since Israel's independence in 1948 Arab females were the main beneficiaries of the law of mandatory education. Arab women aged 65+ have, on average, less than one year of formal education. Their granddaughters, aged 18–24, have about 12.5 years of schooling – a number that increases each year. As in many Arab countries, Arab girls in Israel tend to enhance their education while observing the rules of tradition and acting within the socially accepted norms (David & Khalil, in preparation). Unlike in many Western societies, in Arab society in Israel – Muslim, Druze and certainly Christian – educational aspirations are not perceived as contradicting religion. Thus, a young educated Arab woman has no restrictions on her education per se. If she is judged by significant others it is only her behaviour that is criticized. As long as she does not behave against the strict laws of “family honour” she is encouraged to excel, even in co-educational programs. Her achievements, high intellectual abilities, good grades and higher degrees make her family proud (Abed-el-Kader Yichya, 1995; David, 2002, 2007). This paper examines a few areas where Arab girls excel, e.g., in school, in the professions and in social achievements. Also included is an analysis of their hardships and suggestions regarding potential ways to overcome or partially overcome these hardships.

The Silenced Outcry: A Feminist Perspective from the Israeli Checkpoints in Palestine

This paper discusses activities of Machsom Watch, a human rights organization of Israeli women who visit checkpoints in occupied West Bank daily to monitor army's operation of checkpoints and intervene when possible. The paper examines presence of Israeli women at checkpoints vis-a-vis both Israeli soldiers and Palestinian civilians, and it explores some gendered aspects of occupation, as manifested in checkpoints and in activities of Machsom Watch. The soldier barked at my mother give me your ID, and I saw her search- ing for it in her handbag. Then he grimaced and exclaimed half-jokingly, you are detained. The place was a checkpoint known as the container at end of Sawahra, a Palestinian village east of Jerusalem. This particu- lar checkpoint controls all movement of Palestinians from southern Bantustans of Bethlehem and Hebron to east (Jericho and Jordan) and northern Bantustans of Ramallah, Nablus, and Jenin. The time was shortly after assassination of Hamas leader sheikh Ahmed Yassin (March 2004), so out of fear of revenge, Israel put entire West Bank under a five-week closure until after Israel's independence day. Closure means movement is severely restricted, so there was very little traffic at checkpoint that day, and bored soldiers were having fun with us. There was nothing exceptional about this scene - which thousands of Palestinians experience daily - except for fact that we are not Palestin- ians but Israeli women. My mother belongs to an organization of Israeli women called Machsom Watch,1 an organization of women who go to checkpoints primarily to witness, document, and report what hap- pens there, but also to try and help ease passage for Palestinians. The checkpoints represent most immediate contact Palestinians have with Israeli soldiers, and as all Palestinian movement is restricted by Israeli army, they represent daily and often humiliating friction between Palestinian population and Israeli occupation machine. Members of Machsom Watch (MW) hold different political positions, but they all oppose Israeli occupation and see situation at checkpoints as a violation of basic human rights, and more pragmati- cally, as an incitement to hate on behalf of a collectively punished Pal- estinian population. MW started operating in Jerusalem in winter of

The celebration of civil Israeli religion in Italy

In this article, the attitudes of the Italian Jewish diaspora towards Israel, seen as a symbolic homeland, are analyzed. This analysis is based on the theoretical discourse on diaspora. Attitudes are explored through the participation of Italian Jews in the celebration of Yom ha'atzma'ut. Given the significance of Israel's Independence Day in the sequence of the three‐day civil religious commemoration in Israel – which constitutes a sort of national narrative – the entire sequence is also considered in the analysis of the Italian diaspora.

The Triumph of Military Zionism: Nationalism and The Origins of The Israeli Right (review)

Reviewed by: The Triumph Of Military Zionism: Nationalism And The Origins Of The Israeli Right Arye Naor (bio) Colin Shindler , The Triumph Of Military Zionism: Nationalism And The Origins Of The Israeli Right, Palgrave Macmillan, London and New York, 2006, 267 pages + index The Talmud tells that Moses asked God to show him how the Torah would be interpreted in future generations. God showed him Rabbi Akiva and his students discussing something and Moses could not understand what they meant. Moses was depressed, but then a student asked the rabbi how he had come to that conclusion, and the rabbi said, "Halakha [Jewish law] to Moses from Sinai," and Moses was calmed down.1 This beautiful midrash (talmudic literature containing legends based on biblical verses and a collection of Jewish laws with homiletic interpretations) explains briefly how the meaning an author attributes to her or his text is changed by future interpreters, who attribute to the text a meaning that may be essentially different from the one the author had in mind when he wrote it. This is exactly what Menachem Begin did with the teaching of Ze'ev Jabotinsky, according to the persuasive interpretation of Colin Shindler. The difference between Moses and Jabotinsky, in this regard, is that the latter had good reason to realize what Begin and the rest of the radical Revisionists might do with the ideology of which he was the main creator, since they had argued with him about that during his life time. It is agreed among Zionism historians that the original Jabotinsky was different from the image that Begin gave him for political reasons, mainly as a legitimizing source.2 Beyond philological analysis, Shindler has succeeded in portraying the dramatic ideological struggle between Jabotinsky and his radical followers, Begin among them, who later might have said like Rabbi Akiva in the Talmudic legend that this is "halakha to Moses from Sinai", i.e., this is what the Jabotinsky heritage really means. As Shindler mentions (p. 12) his book is not a biography of Jabotinsky, ". . . but it does document Jabotinsky's identity as an authoritarian, secular, national liberal, someone who looked to Garibaldi, Mazzini, and the early 19th century national revolutionary tradition—when nationalism was a [End Page 174] progressive force." This is the fundamental reason why he definitely refused the radicals' offers to adopt Fascism. Instead he ". . . inspired his followers to turn themselves into 'new Jews', no longer the downtrodden and despised of the Ghetto. He taught them to see themselves as the spiritual heirs of King David who would break with history, demolish the Ghetto walls and build the Jewish State." His ideology had universal aspects of individualism and liberalism, which the radicals—at least some of them—rejected. According to Shindler's interpretation, Begin also "preferred the Maximalist ideal of stripping Zionism of its universalist aspect" (p. 13). This interpretation of Begin is questionable, since he always used universal principles as the basis for his own ideology and rhetoric. As Shindler writes himself (p. 219) Begin invoked Masaryk, Lafayette, Jefferson, and Thomas Paine in his broadcast on the Irgun radio May 15, 1948, some 24 hours after the declaration of Israel's independence (Shindler's is a partial list; Begin mentioned also Washington, Cornwallis, and Lee, as well as Biblical verses on the proper relationship with minorities). From his earlier times in Poland to his premiership years in Israel, he made universal values sources for his concept of liberal nationalism. However, Begin, much more than Jabotinsky, used rituals and ideals of Jewish particularity. The impression that Jabotinsky made on his audiences was more universal than the impression Begin made. As Shindler mentions (p. 16) Jabotinsky's inner circle were Russian emigrants. They preferred speaking in Russian, and Jabotinsky himself wrote most of his literal works in that language, to which he also translated a selection of poems by Bialik. He was a European, secular intellectual like his great Zionist predecessors Herzl and Nordau, and like them his Weltanschauung and intellectual interests were cosmopolitan.3 From that perspective, Begin was very different: he was much more Jewish and less cosmopolitan than they had been. Jabotinsky, says Schindler, ". . . reflected his positivist philosophy in...

Ofira Seliktar. Divided We Stand: American Jews, Israel, and the Peace Process. Westport, CT: Praeger, 2002. xvi, 272 pp.

Israel, and before that the idea of a Jewish state in the traditional homeland, has long captured the imagination of many, if not always most, American Jews. The close connection between Jews in Israel and the United States intensified as the events of the last century unfolded, especially the Holocaust, the struggle for Israel's independence, and then the unending effort to safeguard that independence and ensure security. The 1967 Six-Day War, the run-up to which conjured up images of another calamity, had a profound effect in the Diaspora, driving home the reality of Israel's precarious security and the state's central importance in modern Jewish life. That watershed produced a relatively short-lived period when it seemed that American Jews were united in their support for Israel. But, since 1977, that “sacred unity” has been called into question as sharp divisions have appeared—exacerbated by controversial Israeli government decisions and the pressures of the peace process since 1991.

A brief history of Israel

A Brief History of Israel explores the past of this modern country and its lengthy Jewish history with an ernphasis on the period since Israel's independence in 1948. It is a complex story of a people and their modern state, established thousands of years after the destruction of the old one. The story of the independent nation of Israel is narrated against a backdrop of exile, anti-Semitism, Zionism, and the Holocaust - all of which have helped shape the nature of the current state. Telling the story from the time of Abraham and the period of the Israelite kingdoms to World War II and the United Nations Partition Plan, this volume also focuses on the independent country of Israel, exploring in great detail the fabric of the modern state. Sidebars, including major documents, photographs, and maps, as well as extensive appendixes enrich this comprehensive volume. Placing the political, economic, and cultural events of today into a broad historical context, A Brief History of Israel is a must-have resource for anyone interested in learning more about this deeply religious country.