How can one not read this and roll their eyes? How can one not find this incredibly naive and therefore bleak?
Grossman's work cataloguing the frustrations of Arab-Israelis was written during the peak of Israeli optimism regarding a peaceful settlement. The peace process would then fail spectacularly, on every axis: limited, hated, ineffective corrupt Palestinian autonomy in scattered specs in the West Bank, civil war in Gaza, more brutal indiscriminate terrorist attacks than in any period of Israeli history, Rabin assassinated, Bill Clinton declaring "I am a failure and you have made me one" directed at Arafat, so much dissatisfaction with the PA that Palestinians in Hebron cheered Netanyahu being elected, deranged messianic settler Baruch Goldstein slaughtering 29 at the tomb of the Patriarchs etc. Worse than all that was vindication, bitter vindication, by Likudniks and Palestinian fundamentalists.
Knowing this does it invalidate Grossman's work? He's one of many liberal, well-intentioned Ashkenazim whose thesis is if we just learn to understand each other, if we pronounce Arab names correctly, if we go from village to village changing hearts and minds, we can live in a united, multicultural Israel.
The book focuses on the question of autonomy for the Arab population of the Galilee and the Arab Triangle, which is laughable if reading it today. To think that not just sovereignty for the territories was on the table but autonomy for Israel's Arab minority! In reality, the territories would end up getting a smidge of autonomy and Israel's Arab minority would continue being quietly subjugated. The Knesset choosing to not pass laws that hardened Israel's Jewish character in the 1980s were seen as a victory of the Israeli secular left, yet in 2018 the nation state law passed, undoing all this patting on the back.
Grossman is a talented writer and I have learned from his work, one that has its place merely because work on Arab-Israelis is often overshadowed by work on Palestinians under occupation.
But my point is this: if you read a book about a man who walks around smiling saying hey, I really don't think a piano will ever fall on my head. I mean there's this big piano shaped shadow around me, but you know what, I can reason with this shadow, I can sing gravity reversal songs, if I reach mutual understanding with the piano, then I think I'll be ok. And you know what? Even if the piano does fall, which it probably won't, I'll outrun it, I'll get out of the way in time.
There is then a note added for the revised, second edition of the book: the author of the book died from a tragic accident: a piano fell on his head.
Would you not find the book a little worthless, a little ridiculous?