The Case Against Israel

by Michael Neumann

The Case Against Israel argues that Zionism was responsible for the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians and that Israel is responsible for its perpetuation. The argument rests on widely accepted factual claims and impeccable sources. It avoids rhetoric and gratuitous moralizing. There is no attempt to blacken Israel through association with colonialism, imperialism, or racism. Instead, Neumann’s argument emphasizes the fateful Zionist quest for Jewish sovereignty in Palestine. This quest—not the massacres or plans for transfer or other blots on Zionist history—made violence inevitable and compromise impossible. The prospect of Zionists gaining the power of life and death over all inhabitants of Palestine had to be seen by the Palestinians as a mortal threat. They responded accordingly. The tragic consequences of the quest for sovereignty did not follow all at once, but in two stages. The Zionists established a sovereign Jewish state in 1948. Had they been content with that, peace might have followed the 1967 war, when Israel could have backed the creation of a Palestinian state in the occupied territories. Instead, Zionists pushed to extend Jewish sovereignty, this time through the settler movement. The settlements were a renewed mortal threat to the Palestinians and once again necessitated a violent response. The only solution is for Israel to withdraw, unilaterally, to its 1948 borders. Michael Neumann was born in 1946, the son of German Jewish refugees. He graduated from Columbia University with degrees in European history and English literature, followed by a doctorate in philosophy from the University of Toronto. He teaches moral and political philosophy at a Canadian university. He has written What’s Left? , a critique of 1960s radicalism, and numerous articles relating to the Israel/Palestine conflict. His academic work includes The Rule of Politicizing Ethics as well as articles on utilitarianism, rationality, and rights.

Genres: Politics, Israel, Middle East, Nonfiction, History

200 pages, Paperback

First published February 1, 2005

Reviews

[Gary · Rating 1 out of 5]

OK, this is the bottom line. Many on the left (including a lot of Jews) feel great angst at the experiences of the Palestinians as a result of the conflict between Israel and the Arabs. This angst leads to rage against Israel which leads to burning pathological hatred against Israel, Israelis and Zionist, All logic and regard for truth is about the window : Israel is an Apartheid State', 'Zionism is Fascism'' ''Israelis are Nazis''. hating Israel even to the extent of advoctaing genopcide against Israelis is not anti-Semitism , Israel is committing a Holocaust against the Palestinians, all outright untruths but who cares if you burning with such rage.
they don't reserve any of their compassion for the hundreds of Jewish children murdered by Hamas et al, some stabbed to death in their own beds. "" But hey. tha's the struggle against Apartheid and Colonialism. so all good, all good'.
They are also not perturbed about real mass murder and genocide and cruel oppression in for example
Syria, Iran, Iraq, Congo, North Korea , China and others. That's just not fashioning so compassion is at best selective and logic and fair play go into the dustbin for our friends on the far left.
It's just not fashioning.,

[James · Rating 4 out of 5]

A huge issue in our times and our world has been the injustice of an the Palestinians and Israelis. It is not an easy issue, either, in America, where there is a large Jewish population. Many Jewish radicals come from families who whole-heartily support Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and are used to being named as self-hating Jews. They are often torn between their own experience of growing up in a predominantly Christian nation as well as being apart of a people who have been persecuted mightily throughout the world, and that experience being used by Israel to justify their imperialist activities in the Middle East. Indeed, American Jews have been known to unquestionably support the actions of the Israeli government even more than Israelis themselves, who are more torn into different viewpoints. This is the experience this book, "The Case Against Israel", was written from, as the author, Michael Neumann, is a Jewish professor, who in the introduction states he has never been incredibly pro-Palestinian, teaching Philosophy at Trent University in Ontario, Canada (close enough to America.)

It is also a touchy subject, because one certainly does not want to be accused of anti-Semitism as a non-Jew. I am not Jewish, making it difficult for me to get involved in this discussion without being shut-down as simply "not understanding the plight of the Jews" as has been said to me. The book, however, is a step-by step logical and moral counter to the arguments of Zionism and the government of Israel. It proceeds in a very calm but very encompassing style. The charge of anti-semitism is covered early in the book, noting that Israel does not represent all Jews and therefore it is not anti-semitic to criticize Israel, especially since the largest population of Jews lives in the United States and not in Israel.

The book is divided into two sections. The first is the argument against the ideology of Zionism, which is grounded in the pre-1947 founding of Israel. Neumann makes the point of stating the incredibly colonialist and imperialist nature of settling European Jews in any land, and arguing that the Zionist leadership saw the people of Palestine as non-existant or undeserving of the land, since Jews had lived there millennium before them (which is countered by stating that no one is really native of anywhere, since people existed in Palestine before even the ancient Israelites did.) He also makes the point that the Zionist movement leadership manipulated many poor Jews to move in the stead of more wealthy Jews. Following the horrific holocaust by Nazi Germany, the Zionist leadership actually placed fleeing Jews in even more danger by having them go to Palestine, where war was brewing between Palestinian people losing their land and the incoming settlers and refugees.

The second part of the book recognizes that after the 1967 war, Israel was in no more danger of being "driven into the sea", and therefore the shift of the Zionist ideology came to be supporting Israeli drives to take more land in Palestine. Many will argue that Israel must maintain its occupation to protect itself against Arab attack, and that is easily countered by stating the fact that Israel has not faced a united Arab world, which is itself sort of a fantasy, in a very long time. Indeed, the utter destitution that the Palestinians face as being permanent refugees in their own land leaves them with little choice but to resist, since it is the natural human need to resist attempts at bodily destruction of one's self and close ones. Logically, one cannot morally support the Jewish settlements which are funded by Israel and US tax aid.

There are many more arguments used by Israel's defenders which are refuted in a systematic rational manner within this book. A quick and enjoyable read, it is mainly based in Philosophy and sound arguments, and the author refuses to become emotionally overdrawn in any argument.

[Mya · Rating 4 out of 5]

really good primer of the history and great argumentative writing. a little outdated because (at least the first edition copy i read) was published almost 20 years ago. but still well written, enjoyable and precise, and well worth the read.

[Roxanne · Rating 4 out of 5]

This has a very good explanation of Israel and Palestine. If they would have stayed in their borders they were given in 1948 and given the Palestine their state at that time we would not be in the mess we are today. They cannot move more Jewish settlers into a land that is simply out of room and then they build where they do not have title to the land except by force.

[T S · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellently argued. Whether you agree or disagree. Neumann definitely makes strong logical arguments. A must read for both sides of the issue.