The Siege: The Saga of Israel and Zionism

Rating:
Summary: Clear and informative
Review: Conor Cruise O'Brien represented Ireland at the UN in 1956. Representatives sat in the alphabetical order of their nations, so he sat between representatives of Iraq and Israel. After his first speech about the Middle East, an American newspaperwoman asked him how it had gone over. He replied that both the Iraqi and Israeli delegates had thanked him.

"Christ!" said the newspaperwoman. "Was it as bad as that?"

The author points out that we all ought to remember these words when we hear explanations about how the Arab and Israeli positions are to be reconciled.

This book does an excellent job of tracing the history of Zionism. We see the ideas of Herzl, who saw Zionism as the means to normalize the Jewish people. We see those who saw Zion as a refuge. And we see Balfour, who viewed Zion as a stimulus to Jewish creativity.

And we see how the British failed to govern the Mandate wisely. How they tried to please the Jews by letting them immigrate and buy land but placate the Arabs by letting their worst thug out of prison and making him the Mufti of Jerusalem. (How the latter can be called a "pro-Arab" act is beyond me, of course). And we see the British finally capitulate to Arab terror by producing the White Paper of 1939, which strongly limited immigration of Jews to Mandate territory.

O'Brien devotes a fair amount of time to a very good question. Namely, after World War Two, why did the British Labour government devote so much energy to keeping the White Paper in force? By that time, the United States was insisting that Britain accept 100,000 refugees into the Mandate territory at once. The Labour platform had insisted on dropping the White Paper and giving the Jews their state. Britain had a unique opportunity to make everyone happy: the Jews, the Americans, and the Arabs (by partitioning the Mandate and giving the Arabs some of it when they had originally promised them nothing). It was clearly in Britain's interest to do this. The author explains that the reason Britain did the opposite was because its Prime Minister, Attlee and its Foreign Minister, Bevin were obsessed with depriving the Jews of what the Jews wanted, no matter how much it hurt Britain and no matter how wrong it might be.

In short, these two were indeed so antisemitic that they thought it was worth it to damage their country and Empire just to hurt a few Jews! It's amazing, but I have to concede O'Brien's point.

Of course, such illogical behavior got the reward it deserved when Jews became even more convinced of the need for a state, and the Soviet Union decided to support Israeli independence just to get a free shot at the British. Meanwhile, America's recognition of Israel did not damage its relations with the Arabs, while Britain's opposition to Israel simply helped Britain make more Arab enemies.

I was intrigued by what O'Brien, a UN person, had to say about Folke Bernadotte. And I found it interesting that Bernadotte had complained about Jewish "arrogance and hostility" to, of all people, the gentle Israeli Foreign Minister, Moshe Sharett.

The book continues with a history of Israel's predicament as a nation under siege. While the author sympathizes with Israel's plight, he does refer to some of the times when Israel demanded its rights as examples of "hubris." I think that it is fair to call it that on the occasions when Israel managed to be opposed by both superpowers. After all, such demands could well have led to Israel's annihilation. And O'Brien does refuse to find fault with Israel's overall foreign policy, saying he can't see what other options Israel has had.

The author speculates that the Arabs may decide to live with Israel some day, and Israel may learn not to exhibit hubris. And there may be peace in the region eventually, although O'Brien is not as hopeful as most other writers about the region. I was left with a very different impression, namely that one day people may learn to demand their rights and get away with it.

I recommend this book.

Rating:
Summary: One of the best accounts of this subject I have ever read!!
Review: I loved this extremely easy (albeit long) to read book.
I marvel at O'brien's skill as a writer, researcher and author.
To me it read as a fascinating adventure story and was extremely meaningful. I wish it were still in print.

Rating:
Summary: Conor's Crystal Ball
Review: Irish Historian Conor Cruise O'Brien's seminal work on the saga of Zionism and the Jewish state remains a potent and important read nearly two decades after its original publication. O'Brien lays out the Jewish side of the conflict in an extraordinarily readable manner, as well as making the reader truly understand the Jewish perspective. It is a shame that there has been no such effort to tell the Arab side (although perhaps Rashid Khalidi comes the closest). O'Brien sets out to trace the rise of the Zionist movement in Europe, and finds Zionism as rooted in European anti-Semitism, which especially after 1881, became both pervasive and flexible: European anti-Semitism could based either on Christian dogma, or non-religious "scientific" racism, which viewed the Jews as a separate, and inferior people. This dreary situation led to the Jewish nationalist movement, and O'Brien tells its story lucidly and coherently, using many primary documents to bolster his case. O'Brien then shifts his focus from Europe to Palestine, where as a result of European anti-Semitism, Jews began large-scale immigration and land purchases which caused friction with the local Arabs, a conflict that continues until today. But the focus is not only the conflict, but the state of Israel, and the second half of the book deals with Sephardic Jewish immigration (The Second Israel), the Arab minority in Israel, as well as the continued battles with its Arab neighbors. Nor is O'Brien insensitive to the plight of the Palestinians, stating that "The Palestinian Arabs have every right to say that they are the indirect and innocent victims of what happened to the Jews in Europe."

So well has O'Brien's book held up that many of the predictions he made in 1985 have now come to pass. O'Brien explains why the siege exists, and why it will continue to: "Israel cannot be other than what it is...Israel is not free to be other than the Jewish State in Palestine, and that the Jewish State, once in possession of Jerusalem, is not capable of relinquishing that city. The Muslim world is also not free to be other than what it is, and is certainly incapable of acquiescing openly, fully, and voluntarily to a Jewish State in Palestine, with Arab subjects, and its capital in Jerusalem. It seems to follow that the siege will continue, in some form, into an indefinite future" (p. 656). How have these predictions been borne out? Shortly afterwards, it seemed that O'Brien may have been wrong. The Intifidah led to the Oslo Peace Process, and from 1993-1999, optimism ruled the day, with the end of the conflict seemingly in sight. But the two sides failed to reach an agreement at the final status negotiations at Camp David in July 2000, mainly over the issue of Jerusalem. The only reason for the success of the peace process until that time was the fact that they had not dealt with the main issues, agreeing on smaller items, while the major questions loomed overhead. Shortly afterwards, violence returned to the region and has continued to this day. And the prospects for a future accord? According to the author they are not be good. O'Brien sums up both the past and the future best when he says that: "The Jews had recovered Jerusalem, after nearly two thousand years, through a train of efforts and events so strange and unprecedented as to appear to some almost miraculous, and to others literally miraculous. To expect the Jews, having thus again come into possession of Jerusalem, to hand over the Old City, with the Wall of the Temple, to an Arab Power, or to an international authority, is to expect what cannot be." (p. 651). O'Brien concludes his text by stating that "what is not in sight is an end to the siege."
He might as well have been writing today.

Rating:
Summary: A brilliant analysis of the history of Israel
Review: It is unfortunate that a book like this is no more available on print.
It is probably the best history of Israel I have read until now.

There are many ways in which you can write history: a factual and maybe emotionally charged description of events (Martin Gilbert), a militant history (Furio Colombo, Fiamma Nierenstein), a somewhat limited critical analysis of previous studies (sometimes presented under the name of revisionism - like - for Israel - the one of Zeev Sternhell).

This kind of history is different: it is mainly focused on the analysis of forces, equilibriums and strategies, some working some not, with an eminently diplomatic approach.
Because of the approach, attention is mainly focused on three arguments: the signals given by the parties involved, their ability to "read" the situation and the correct feedback.
Almost an essay on the so called logic of failure.
But the analysis can command a very special viewpoint, since it is restricted to the so called "Siege situation" in which options are limited, pressures strong and forces easily identifiable.

The result is a truly balanced appraisal of the history of Israel, that is not hiding anything but trying to present the many facets of the so called Siege, which the new nation has been forced to cope with.
So like in a real siege we are presented with the many parties: besieged, besiegers, friends and foes, and with the peculiar psychological and social consequences.
O'Brien is not using the siege theme as a way to blame one or the other party: the main concern is to assess the forces that are at work and to get rid of all rhetorical and unnecessary (pseudo-moral) over-structure. We're not presented with the heroic efforts of the Second and Third Aliah (truly heroic from my point of view) and nether with the blooming of desert by kibbutzim or larger than life portraits of Ben Gurion, Moshe Dayan and Golda Meyr.
Far from this.

The best part of the book is no doubt the one dedicated to the Yom Kippur war: here O'Brien is at his best showing his consummate ability in unveiling the many forces at work and presenting a different but strongly built theory about how conflict was produced, a theory according to which both the Israeli and Egyptians were "played" by the machiavellian strategy of Kissinger in an unnecessary conflict.

One reason to read this book is obviously an interest for the history of Israel.
An other (at least for me), is the appreciation for the works and ideas of the author.
By O'Brien I had had the chance to read "The Long Affair - Thomas Jefferson and The French Revolution", a book in which, while not always agreeing with conclusions, I truly appreciated this method: not plain history, not pamphlet... but a carefully and detailed research (both in that and this book, it is amazing the amount of material and documents that have been taken into account), the constant analysis of options at hand (not just what happened but what could have happened if...) supported not by wishful thinking but by hard data - and not least appealing a certain tendency of the author to test his argument almost taking it to extreme consequences (in a sheer Popperian attitude).

Rating:
Summary: An incredible story
Review: One of the best books on Israel and Zionism, this volume by Irish author Conor Cruise O'Brien deals with a poisonous subject in an intelligent manner, without avoiding taking sides, but attempting, and mostly succeeding, to understand all sides. Make no mistake, this is a pro-Israel book, and that is what I like about it. It manages to favor the Israelis in their struggle, but the author is an Irishman, so, at least, we won't have to listen to those who accuse anyone that takes a pro-Israel stance of being a Zionist. O'Brien does not see the Arabs with much benevolence, but it is difficult to blame him, given his knowledge of both Israelis and Arabs. His argument is plain from the title: the State of Israel has been subjected to a "siege" ever since its founding day, and, actually, the siege has been in operation from before. To the argument, so many times repeated that some people give it the quality of gospel, that before the creation of the modern State of Israel Arabs and Jews lived in harmony and Arabs didn't resent or hate their Jewish neighbors, O'Brien answers, through argument and solid foundations, that the resentment and hatred were there before World War I, and found expression in some of the most violent outbursts of mob action against the Jews ever seen. Of course not every one hated every one else, but the very powerful seed of dislike of the stranger, the dhimmi (second class subject in a Moslem land, always a non-Muslim, and increasingly a Jew, since Christians had powerful patrons in the nations of Europe) were already there, and so was their bitter fruit. Those who do not like Jews will skip this book, since the author manages to be non-Jewish but very much pro-Israel. However, those who want to know about the conflict, but do not want to read what they fear might be "propaganda" from either side, will find much of value in "The Siege." It has a clear slant, but that does not invalidate its information and the conclusions of the author.

Rating:
Summary: An Excellent Study, Still So Relevant.
Review: This is an extremely well written, authoritative and impressive book that traces the history of Zionism from it's very origins to the establishment of the State of Israel and to the time that the book was written in 1986.

This secular work reveals the remarkable insight of a trained historian and a former diplomat/politician whose knowledge and experience pertaining to this subject radiates from the pages of this study.

Rarely has a book so eloquently documented how the State of Israel has been subjected to a "siege" ever since its founding day. Even the hostility of the UN towards the Jewish State is so vividly felt in the contents of this work. A book which begins with an autobiographical description of how the writer sat as the Irish delegate at the UN at a time when such delegates were positioned alphabetically... managing to find himself between the delegates of Israel and Iraq!

The amount of detail in this book is breathtaking and will provide any reader with a deeper understanding of modern day Israel and the true history & underlying context of the Middle East conflict. A context which reveals that the Arab violence and hatred of the Jews was present long before the re-birth of Israel in 1948 and that this hatred of the Jews does not originate with the taking of the "West Bank" (Judea and Samaria) and Gaza during the 1967 war.

Indeed, the Palestinian issue is among many of the subjects investigated in this excellent book, which unfortunately was published shortly before the recent Palestinian intifadas began in 1987 & therefore is lacking in any reference to the current situation. However, the relevance and importance of this book cannot be understated. It's historical accuracy is amazingly sound and very readable. It contains an enormous amount of detail which will destroy the cases of many "new historians".

The epilogue of this work evaluates the security of the Jewish state and declares that Israel is obliged, by the nature of it's predicament in the Middle East, to remain on it's guard and to be "the judge of it's own security". The book elaborating that those who would condemn Israel for adopting such an attitude or a "siege mentality" should reflect that this attitude is very much the creation of the nations who attacked & destroyed the Jews of Europe only a few years before the re-birth of Israel and even then from the nation's inception onwards.

The book finishes with the phrase that "what is not in sight is an end to the siege". A description which despite the passing of so many years, leaves the reader to ponder how much has really changed when the fundamental issues addressed in this work are referred to. An exceptional book.

Rating:
Summary: One of the best accounts of this subject I have ever read!!
Review: This is now a rather dated history of Israel as it was written in the 80?s before the Oslo accords and at the height of the invasion of Lebanon. The book is pro Israeli and rather unbalanced although that probably reflects the picture that most would have had in the early 80?s.

The central thesis of the book is that Israel is in conflict with the Arabs and that this conflict cannot be settled in a peaceful way. The reasons why it can?t be settled are complex but in part are due to the fact that Arabs in general have different values from that of the Israeli state which is a Westernised modern pluralistic democratic state. The Arabs in general live in authoritarian non democratic societies and they do not hold the same values. Thus a land for peace deal will not work and would in fact lead to the military weakening of Israel as he West Bank is an important military buffer in defence against its enemies. Rather than peace Israel should continue to occupy the West Bank and live in a state of Siege. The author thinks that whilst Arabs living on the West Bank cannot be given citizenship rights, over time they will come to an accommodation with the Israelis.

The recounting of Israeli history is not widely at variance from the accounts given by other similar histories such as Righteous Victims by Benny Morris. However there are changes in emphasis and interpretation. The flight of the refugees from Palestine in 1948 is that of the official propaganda line given out by Israel that the decision to leave was because of calls by the invading Arab armies to do so. Morris and others have shown that this is unlikely. The authors also down plays acts of terrorism by the Israelis in the setting up of their state.

However the major problem with this history is not the questions of bias, the basic problem is that so much has happened since it has been written which has changed the face of middle east politics. There are now a large number of more recent books from a range of diverse political approaches.