Last week, I criticized a review by Prof. Stephen Howe of Shlomo Sand’s book, The Invention of the Jewish People. Given the somewhat personal nature of the criticism, I invited Prof. Howe to respond, which he does below:
Thanks for your courtesy in letting me know about your posting on Volokh, which I read with great interest (as I also did the ensuing comments from others).
Surely it’s clear that my remark about people with no discernible expertise refers to those who have launched wild and abusive attacks on Sand, not to every blogger who has commented on the book. The latter would indeed have been a wild, absurdly over-general charge – and in any case I have of course not read more than a fraction of the truly remarkable outpouring of commentary, in several languages, which continues to appear. I do not find abuse of that kind in your own criticism, so naturally did not have you among my implied targets. However, where you say you ‘haven’t seen anyone call Sand anti-Semitic’, I’m afraid I have come across many such instances. Just try Googling the relevant words!
As to my own knowledge or lack thereof, a more careful glance through my past publication list would reveal that I have written a fair bit over the years on Israeli history and politics, in both journalistic and more academic veins. I have been working for some while on a book on Israel’s ‘history wars’, and from both that and a more longstanding ‘layperson’s interest in Jewish history’ am I think fairly well acquainted with most of the very disparate controversies into which Sand ventures. Insofar as, in my view, the real point and purpose of Sand’s polemic is not about ancient history but present-day Israeli politics, I have followed these fairly closely for many years. Apart from anything else, I am closely connected to the country through what E.P. Thompson once called ‘the accident of marriage’.
Both you, and more than one of the respondents so far, apparently see both Sand’s book and my review as serving ‘an anti-Zionist agenda’. I leave it to Sand himself to say whether ‘anti-Zionist’ is an accurate label for his views (though he clearly signals his belief in Israel’s right to exist). I’ve long doubted whether a crude, simple division of people’s worldviews between Zionist and anti-Zionist is a helpful way of mapping the complexities either of Israeli politics or of attitudes to it. And ironically I have myself more than once in the past come under attack for supposedly engaging in ‘Zionist’ apologetics. So long as I continue thus occasionally to be assailed from both ends of the spectrum, I shall feel I’m getting something right.
P.S. I should have added that I in my turn agree entirely with the subsequent comment you posted, thus: “‘Totally agree. I’ve said before that I find these historical debates rather irrelevant to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Even if few Jews are descended from ancient Judeans, or even if most Palestinians’ ancestors didn’t live in Israel Palestine until rather recently, that wouldn’t in any way change the fact that Israeli Jews believe themselves to believe a national entity, as do Palestinian Arabs, and act on that basis. Either group’s national ‘rights’ must be based on their modern national identity, not their ancient ancestry.” Hear, hear!
[Having found some common ground between myself and Prof. Howe, and appreciating his gentlemanly response, I will leave it at that--DB]
Moda says:
Wow. DB got owned.
December 1, 2009, 10:17 amgreat unknown says:
I am bothered by what appears to be a tacit Euro-centric approach to the Kazhar issue. Even if a majority of Ashkenazi Jews are of Kazhar ancestry – which, from the religious approach to Jewish identity does not diminish their “Jewishness” in any manner – what about the Sefardi Jews? Does anybody claim that they arose somehow de novo in the diaspora?
At least 2 million of the Jewish inhabitants of Israel have at least one Sephardi parent. Their claim to the land, from a hereditary point of view, is not diluted by whatever the Kazhar claim purports to demonstrate.
In any case, as in many disputes of this nature (e.g., climategate), science is ignored, manipulated, or invoked as necessary to support desired goals. However, the connection of Jewish genotypes to middle-eastern gene pools appears to be significant. See, e.g., http://www.pnas.org/content/97/12/6769
December 1, 2009, 10:31 amAri8 says:
It’s a well-written response, but Howe doesn’t explain why he gives a mildly favorable review to Sand’s book when Howe acknowledges that “in intellectual and historical terms, Sand is rehashing some old arguments and even setting up straw men for too-easy demolition.” If so, what’s the value of the book for an academic like Howe, unless it’s that Howe, as he admits, agrees with Sand’s political agenda?
December 1, 2009, 10:32 ampireader says:
Both men acquit themselves rather well in this post.
Bernstein’s courtesy in inviting and publishing Howe’s rejoinder, the tone and content of Howe’s comments, and Bernstein’s closing note combine to set a standard for gentlemanly discussion.
More like this, please.
December 1, 2009, 10:33 amModa says:
Agreed. And if you read Bernstein’s original post, you will be even more impressed by Sand’s restraint when he is clearly in the right here. It seems that Bernstein is often unnecessarily combative.
December 1, 2009, 10:42 amCJColucci says:
Peace on earth, good will to men.
December 1, 2009, 10:56 amloki13 says:
It takes a gentleman to write a response with the restraint shown by Prof. Howe.
It also takes a gentleman to publish that response without comment. Good job, Prof. Bernstein.
December 1, 2009, 11:22 amGordo says:
Let this be an example for the rest of the blogosphere.
Unfortunately, I suspect it will remain an isolated case of civil discourse.
December 1, 2009, 12:28 pmGordo says:
Also unfortunately, it’s sad that the first comment on this thread went in the opposite direction of the spirit of this exchange. Shame on you, Moda!
December 1, 2009, 12:29 pmdiversity jurisdiction says:
More like Moda got owned.
December 1, 2009, 12:51 pmCenrand says:
Moda also apparantly could not be bothered to actually read the post, since it is Howe, not Sands, responding to DB’s criticism.
December 1, 2009, 6:12 pmneurodoc says:
OK, “anti-Zionism” isn’t one and the same thing as “antisemitism,” however many “anti-Zionists” are “antisemites” and vice versa. But now, if one merely “signals (a) belief in Israel’s right to exist,” they can’t be counted “anti-Zionist,” “anti-Zionist” always denying Israel’s right even to exist? Is a Zionist someone willing to say they not only belief in Israel’s right to exist, they are glad it exists?
December 1, 2009, 7:42 pmaltereggo says:
What a polite and well-spoken man. Credit for not
December 2, 2009, 12:05 amaltereggo says:
What a polite and well-spoken man. Credit for not putting a counter-counter-counter(?) rebuttal at the end.
December 2, 2009, 12:06 amMyrtle Beach Attorney says:
If you would like to find information about Colorado Springs Real Estate, visit the Real Estate Book, the web
December 2, 2009, 9:04 pm