1. Dakota Lee
My Promised Land by Ari Shavit – Book Review
HIST 399
Fall 2015

2. The 1948 war followed Israel’s founding. The author, Ari Shavit, explains that the
expulsion of the Palestinian remain a clear obstacle to peace because the Arab world insisted on
the return of the former refugees to return to their former homes in Israel. Shavit does state that
he thinks the removal of the Arabic’s was a necessary step they had to take to make sure there
was a viable Jewish state. Israel has had a doubting discourse for many years and sometimes it’s
very critical and other times not so much. The reality is, the Israel state is too often judged. Not
only is it judged for its viability but also its validity. There is some kind of fundamental
acceptance of its reality is pending upon the resolution of the many problems the Jewish state has
with itself and others. No questions asked, some of these issues that Israel faces are politics and
morality. But like many problems that could be easily or somewhat easily fixed are too often
combined and promoted to a bigger problem than it has to be; a problem which has a certain
effect on the Jewish state of its actuality and historical provisions. Basically, it is a permanent
controversy for the country.
In Israel’s earlier years it was thought of as an experiment for various ideals and hopes,
but all societies are experiments. But no living social or thriving society should be considered as
an experiment; it is not as if anybody has the true authority to declare the state as a failed
experiment. Israel is a country with people and culture, it is not a proposition, and it is one of the
greatest accomplishments the Jews have ever had, but the problems that they have always faced
and are still facing are not going away. I think this book was Ari Shavit’s greatest
accomplishments and wanted this powerful book to open many doors for different people to take
a look into the world of Israel.
My Promised Land startles in more ways than one, mainly showing the interesting
politics. Shavit grows a lot during the book, and fills his work with many complicated facts most

3. people would deem too complex to write about. He comes not to blame his country nor praise his
homeland; even though during the book he does do both. During the course of the book he does
come to observe and reflect on all he has learned about his promised land, Shavit is completely
immersed in all of the history of his country.
In April 1897, shortly after Herzl published the Jewish State and launched Zionist
movement, a delegation of upper-class British Jews have traveled to Palestine to investigate the
idea of settling the land with Jewish masses of Russia, Poland, and Belarus. We meet Shavit’s
grandfather in the book. He was a young farm boy who bought land off his neighbor in the 1920s
to grow Jaffa oranges, and these oranges slowly created Palestine’s successful economy. Zionism
was a Jewish nationalist movement that has had as its goal the creation and support of a Jewish
state in Palestine, which was the ancient homeland to the Jews. Shavit is devoted to Zionism and
the idea that pushes peace agreements to save Israel’s Jewish character in the face of non-Jewish
bodies. He is so devoted to Zionism he excuses ethnic cleansing, a war crime, just because it
enabled the Jewish state.
In chapter 5, Lydda 1948, was the most vulgar and honest of all the chapters in the book.
Shavit says, “Zionism obliterates the city of Lydda” and “cleanses the Galilee.” Shavit does not
reject Zionism, though he does not make excuses. He condemns the perpetrators of the crimes,
but does not condemn the war for survival in which the crimes were committed. He is one of the
most prominent Zionist writers in the world and he makes that clear when he states, “I know that
if it wasn’t for them, the State of Israel would not have been born. . . They did the dirty, filthy
work that enables my people, myself, my daughter and sons to live.” By ‘they,’ Shavit is talking
about the militias who did cleanse Lydda. He shares his political analysis—Zionism’s cold, hard
truths in the face and embraces them. To Shavit he has a clear choice: either ethnically cleanse

4. Palestine or never have a Jewish homeland. The acknowledgement of real ethical problems with
Zionism and the need to justify it can be found all through the book itself. Shavit writes that the
Zionist and Palestinian narrative cannot be reconciled, and this makes achieving peace much
harder. He does ignore Nakba’s ethos, such as creating a Jewish demographic majority with few
Arabs as possible, remains a core part of Israeli policy. Now what to do about the ethos, as
Zionism commands, is not a question to the author or other liberal Zionist. They all for the most
part do believe that it should just be left alone, that is the only way Israel and Jewish people will
survive.
In chapter 13 where Shavit interviews Mohammad Dahla, a Palestinian-Israeli attorney.
He allows him to talk about the contradictions of Shavit’s Jewish state. Dahla states, “We are not
like you, we are not strangers or wanderers or immigrants. No one can uproot us, no one can
separate us from the land, not even you.” In the beginning of the chapter Shavit thought they had
similar beliefs and values but throughout the chapter we learn just how different they are. Dahla
wants a democratic state with equal rights for all, Shavit does not. The next chapter shows
Shavit’s impoverished politics is his work on Israel’s settlement project. He is a bit rough and
calls it a “futile, anachronistic, colonialist project.” But during a conversation with Pinchas
Wallerstein, a leader of the settlement of Ofra, he says, “You endangered everything, you
contradicted Zionist logic and Zionist interests.” Logically, I think Shavit is suggesting that
settlers had went against what Israel proper wanted; he is saying that settlers have caused the
problems for everyone else in Israel. If the Palestinians cannot respectfully grasp when they are
regarded solely from the standpoint of the true Israelis, then the same would be found true of the
Israelis when they are regarded from the standpoint of the Palestinians.

5. The nature of the Zionist’s position is nowhere near new, but it has recently become more
pronounced. The decline in the peace movement in Israel has suggested a retreat. The
democratic-Jewish state clearly needs some change. In order to win the battle for the soul of
Israel, the Israelis must redefine much in the way like the American Democratic Party did years
ago. It also wouldn’t hurt to have a new peace movement outlined and made more modernized,
more legitimate and justified fears that most Israelis experience. Shavit understood that it is not
wise nor fair to continue a promised utopian peace that will never be reached, or continue to
ignore past traumas or present threats. But, above all, I agree with Shavit when he says a new
social contract that will address the intertribal chasm that is paralyzing Israeli society. Only a
liberal-democratic attitude that is absolutely realistic can liberate Israel from the grip of
nationalism and religiousness that make use of the continuing failure of the Israeli public trying
to darken the nation. The only smart way to deal with this danger is not to cause more hate, but
to embrace and sympathize with the people whose fears are exploited. There are plenty of people
who want peace in Israel, yet the peace movement is unable to reach its true purpose. Shavit
feels that it can be done; that the Israelis can resurrect the Israel that seems so lost, and he whole-
heartedly feels it is not too late to save the heart and soul of his country and beloved homeland.
The generation gap between older and younger Jews does somewhat weaken the real
issues, Palestinian issues and Iran and the existential nuclear threat it poses to Israel and even the
rest of the globe. Young Israelis don’t fear they will be beaten up for being Jewish—they fear
they will end up like the activist who immolated himself during the social protests. The first gap
involves the economic history of Israel. It was a world where normal people in society could
make an honest living. Workers were important to the economy and social safety was an
obligation that was never doubted. Another generation is one that considers Israel a welfare state

6. and more of a society of no hope, but also notices that society can rise up and socialism is an
ugly word. Unlike older generations who judge the state through the filter of the Zionist ethos,
the younger generations judge the state in objective terms. Older generations don’t have very
positive views on Israel—they view the country as one big depressing problem—while younger
generations do not understand why they are any different than anyone else in the world, but they
have never lived in the disasters older generations did. Younger Jewish Israelis hope for change
and evolution; a better world for them and their futures. Everyone in Israel has always wanted
better, and each generation gets closer and closer to achieving that goal in most ways.
“My Promised Land” has been given many awards and received acknowledgments from
an array of people for good reason. Even if one feels like they are educated on Israel and the
constant battles their people face, they need to read Shavit’s book. Social media is one source
where you can find great examples of people that believe they have completed a dissertation on
Israel. In all reality, they do not know much of anything (I was one of them before reading). It is
good to know that when I come across another person that acts this way, I can suggest the book
to enlighten them on the issues that have went on and are currently going on.
My personal beliefs of the fighting surrounding Israel is contradictory. Being a Christian,
I believe that the Jewish people should have their own state. However, it is completely ridiculous
that people ignore the fact that they decided to take land from people that were already living
there. I cannot help but side with the Palestinians. This would be just as crazy as a country
coming into the United States and trying to take it over. War would be inevitable. Therefore, the
Palestinians keeping up this war against the Israelis is understandable. Many cannot grasp that
the Palestinians are fighting for an actual reason. It is also understandable to label the

7. Palestinians as a bunch of “Arabs stirring up problems like they do everywhere.” This is
definitely not the case though.
There were few criticisms of the book. The one that is the most bothersome—yet should
not have to worry about—is the flow and length of the book. It was hard to keep up with what
was happening, who Shavit was talking about, and what year he was even talking about. It was
very educational, but if the flow was better, it would be even more educational because it would
have been easier to understand. I hate that I missed several key points in the book all because of
the writing style. Maybe if the flow was better, there would be no complaint on the length.
However, I wished that the book would end several times. That was disappointing, along with it
being vague at some points.
This writing was obviously very biased. There was not much sympathy to anyone besides
the Zionists, although he did criticize them numerous times. Shavit actually stated in the
beginning of his book that he did not wish to blame his country for anything or praise his
homeland. It was a good starting thinking point, but he did not go through with it. I was actually
relieved that he did not keep his word on this, however, because it showed how he really felt. He
also acknowledges Zionism’s ethical faults (which is great to hear from a Zionist) and addresses
that peace will never come if they do not stop using hate. Many Israelis, like mentioned in the
generation gap, cannot grasp that the techniques they are using for the peace movement are not
working. It is great that Shavit is trying to make a change in how they confront things. If only
everyone else realized that hate does not solve anything.
The initial thing that needs praised is the history that Shavit unfolded. It is literally
impossible to understand what travesties are going on in the Middle East without understanding

8. each country’s own history and where they come from. It was great to see Shavit reveal history
to himself throughout his writing.
Although there was more criticism than praise addressed by myself, I would still suggest
“My Promised Land” to everyone that has the littlest bit of interest in Israel. It is extremely
educational and I am glad that I was required to read it for a history class. The audience is more
than likely for anyone at the high school level and up. Also, the audience should be anyone that
is interested in history since it is required that one knows the history of Israel to understand what
it actually going on. Overall, I enjoyed Shavit’s book and only felt disinterested when it was hard
to convey messages and grasp onto the flow. It is understandable why Shavit has gotten praise
for the book, because no other source has told the story of Israel as well as he did.