----------------------- Message requiring your approval ----------------------
From: Bernard Katz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [ha-Safran]: Re: Three Wishes
Dear Safranim,
Please forgive yet another long posting from me.
I'm sorry to say that my colleague and friend
Anne Dublin's remarks about "Three Wishes" are
not correct; they reflect an incorrect and
inaccurate understanding of historical events. I
say this with respect and would not normally 'go
public', except that Anne, in all good conscience
posted her review to Hasafran, and also because
her review is on record as published in Jewish Book World (Spring 2005).
Anne says that Deborah Ellis is biased "not
simply in favor of the Palestinians, but her
skewing of historical events is at the cost of
truth. The bias is subtle and hard to catch." In
support of this significant charge, Anne offers
three examples. The first quotes a passage from
Ellis' introduction, noting that "the term
'Palestinians' was not used at that time [1947]
to describe the Arabs who opposed the newly-founded Jewish State."
While Anne likely is only repeating what she has
read, this is stated far too often by people who
wish to deny the 'peoplehood' or political
ethnicity of Arab Palestinians and it is, simply
stated, WRONG. My demonstration of this is a
little long, so please bear with me as this is important.
Under the Ottoman empire there was no single
geo-political, ie. a singularly administered,
area called Palestine - for one thing the
Ottomans did not want to have such a single
contiguous area that would cause them difficulty
in terms of their fight against a rising tide of
Arab nationalism wanting to break up their
empire. But the term Palestine was used widely
and extensively by many thousands of pilgrims,
diplomats and tourists (I have hundreds of books
from 1800 on to prove it), and by the inhabitants
themselves of all faiths. Further, Arab ethnic
nationalism increased after the 1908 Turkish
revolution and in Palestine resulted in the
establishment of newspapers (such as "Filastin"
in Jaffa), cultural, fraternal and semi-political organizations.
In addition, the Arab inhabitants of Palestine
thought of themselves and referred to themselves
as Palestinians, and from the time of the British
victory over the Turks in 1917-18 they acted more
openly about it. For example, in Jan., 1919 they
held the first "Palestinian Conference" at which
representatives of various outright political
societies that had been established near the end
of 1918 (once the Turks were ousted) got together
and passed various resolutions about "Palestine".
The second such conference was to be held in May,
1920, but was prevented by the British and took
place in Dec., 1920. One of its resolutions
called on the British to set up local government
in Palestine. All the facts I am stating can be
found in the extensive entry under Israel in Vol.
9 of the "Encyclopaedia Judaica". Tom Segev, in
"One Palestine Complete" notes that the 1920 Nebi
Musa riot (by an Arab mob), was one of the
catalysts of Palestinian Arab nationalism as well as one of its early results.
On a personal note, my paternal grandparents, my
father's sister and her husband and several of
his first cousins all made aliya from eastern
Galicia (where conditions were terrible after
WW1) to Palestine in 1920-21. Because of my
discussions with them during the 1960's to 1990's
and from their earlier letters (which I read
later) kept by my parents, I know that the term
"Palestinian" was applied to Arabs in Palestine
by Jews living there, though they also and
perhaps more often simply called them Arabs (aravim).
So Anne is incorrect in this example she gives to
demonstrate how she derives Ellis' "skewing of
historical events... at the cost of truth". What
else does she say to support her contention that
Ellis is biased "in favor of the Palestinians"
and that her "bias is subtle and hard to catch"?
Anne notes that "Israel declared its independence
after the U.N. vote was ratified by member
nations", suggesting that Ellis implies something
other than this when she says: "In 1947 the
United Nations created a plan to separate
Palestine into two states - one Jewish and one
Arab. The Palestinians and the neighboring Arab
countries rejected the plan, but in May 1948,
Israel declared its independence, and the
Israelis and Palestinians went to war" (p. 7-8).
As we all know, the UN vote took place Nov. 29,
1947 and five months later, as the last of the
British forces were leaving, Israel proclaimed
itself a state. I fail to understand Anne's
objection to what Ellis wrote. It is both true and accurate, and not skewed.
Anne's third and final example of Ellis' "subtle
and hard to catch" bias contains some truth.
Ellis says that "Israel went to war because the
Arab countries surrounding Israel refused to
accept the decision of the U.N. They attacked the
new country on all fronts. Israel was fighting
for its life." Anne's first sentence here has
almost the same sense to me as Ellis' "The
Palestinians and the neighboring Arab countries
rejected the plan, but in May 1948, Israel
declared its independence, and the Israelis and
Palestinians went to war". The difference is in
Anne's last sentences - Ellis does not state that
all of Israel's Arab neighbours (and some
non-neighbours) attacked, and that Israel was in
a very threatened and vulnerable position. Here I
agree that Ellis has tried to abbreviate and
simplify too much, at the expense of accuracy.
But what she says is still true, though
incomplete in an important way. I don't see this
as subtle bias or skewing, and especially not an
example of a systemic bias, because Ellis'
context and syntax make it clear that it was the rejection
of the UN's 1947 plan by "the Palestinians and the neighboring Arab
countries" that started the war. She ought to
have said: and the Israelis, Palestinians and
surrounding Arab countries went to war. However,
what she did say is certainly NOT indicative of any pro-Palestinian bias!
Anne then cites Harold Koplewicz, Gail Furman,
and Robin F. Goodman's 2000 book, "Turbulent
Times". But as far as I am aware, this book is
not relevant to the children for whom Ellis is
writing and presenting the feelings and opinions
of Jewish Israeli and Palestinian children about the conflict.
In fact apart from what I have reviewed above,
Anne is understanding and very cognisant of the
special values of "Three Wishes". However, she
says, "don't look to it for historical
objectivity". I have tried to understand that
last comment in light of actual examples in
Anne's review and am unable to relate them. I
need not go into the realm of what historiwans
themselves have written about "historical
objectivity" and whether such a creature actually
can exist. Instead I urge you to return to what
Linda Silver has said, both in her review and in
her March 6th comments on Hasafran. Allow me to remind you of the latter:
Three Wishes has been available and in library collections for
well over a year. In my review, I tried to capture both its
strengths and its weaknesses. Few books, no matter what their
subject, are without some flaws. Not every book concerning the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict is going to express only the Israeli
point of view. Nor should it. To be well informed and to be able to
make reasonable critical judgments, kids need to know more than one
side of an issue. Of course some of the Palestinian kids support
suicide bombings; to exclude or edit out all of those opinions is to
distort the issue and delude readers. The voices of the children
interviewed in the book express not facts but opinion and we know,
all too well, that in the opinion of many Palestinians, suicide
bombings are legitimate. Let's give the readers of this book some
credit for being able to separate the atrocious from the acceptable.
There is often a fine and fragile line between selecting books
about Israel and censoring those that depart from the Israeli
position or what we, as Jews, believe. Inaccuracies, bias, or skewed
interpretations are not acceptable to me as a reviewer but in the
case of subjective opinion, as expressed by the children interviewed
in Three Wishes, I would err on the side of inclusion, if that is the
alternative to censorship.
Finally (I'm sure you're all sighing with
relief), Anne recomends Ellis' book as
appropriate for ages 12 and above. Dare I ask -
why? My three children all would have been fine
with the book from age 10 and so would their
friends. In a Toronto Star newspaper story on
March 5, Tess Kalinowski (their education
reporter) interviews Evie Freedman, a 9 year old
grade 4 student in Burlington, Ontario who reads
voraciously and though aware of her own maturity
still "thinks lots of youngsters her age would
enjoy the book" (Kalinowski's words).
<www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1141513810505>
Surely this book would be fine from grade 5 up,
just as Linda recomended in her review.
B'shalom,
Bernard.
Messages and opinions expressed on Hasafran are those of the individual author
and are not necessarily endorsed by the AJL
===========================================================
Submissions for Ha-Safran, send to: Hasafran @ lists.acs.ohio-state.edu
SUBscribing, SIGNOFF commands send to: Listproc @ lists.acs.ohio-state.edu
Questions, problems, complaints, compliments;-) send to: galron.1 @ osu.edu
Ha-Safran Archives:
http://www.mail-archive.com/hasafran%40lists.acs.ohio-state.edu/maillist.html
AJL HomePage http://www.JewishLibraries.org
