I've heard it both severely criticized for its editorial selection, but also praised for candor and insights, by other new historians.

I've been confronted with quotes from the book, mostly the interpretations derived from his studies, and selections of events and data used.

Phil,
Have you read other histories of the period as well?

I recently read two histories of the modern history of Palestine, "A History of the Palestinian People" by Pappe, and "Palestinians, the Making of a People", by Baruch Kimmerling.

They are both dissenting historians, both very critical of Israeli policies, Pappe critical of Zionism at all, Kimmerling supportive of liberal Zionism.

They, and Bennie Morris, included some of the same selections of evidence, but also very different.

The pre-67 history in the three books was similar, identifying qualitatively destabalizing events effecting Palestinians from the late 19th century, profound destabalizations that culminated in modern Zionism, but did not originate in modern Zionism.

Moreso, modernity and western institutions associated with modernity, of which Zionism is a flavor.

I don't know if Deir Yassin was necessary. I doubt it. Interestingly, Bennie Morris reported that the massacre was functionally stopped by the intervention of orthodox neighbors.

To my mind, the more compelling Israeli actions are the series of laws passed in the early fifties:

1. prohibiting physical return from the prior war zone
2. granting title to abandoned land to the state of Israel, applicable over a very short statute of limitations

Immediately following the war, those actions seem understandable as a temporary measure. Now though, they should be repealed, and even this late, those that had even relative title should be able to assert their title rights, and seek amenable remedy.

An agreement on sovereignty though is a prerequisite to addressing those specific title claims.

The United States should be taking sides, both sides. It should stand behind Israel's defense as promised. And, it should stand behind Palestine's and Palestinians' rights.

The renunciation of responsibility there is the worst that it could do.

The shift to recognition would remove a large obstacle in the process of unraveling the oppressive elements of the construction.

Its as if they still think that Zionism is temporary, that Israel is temporary, and will soon disappear as a state, and as a residence of 6 million Jews now (same approximate number as estimated killed on racial grounds in the holocaust).

I think they should call Israel's bluff, and move on.

In that article, Weiss mentions that in 2004, I had attempted to have a musical work about Corrie performed, only to have it cancelled twice in the United States. We performed it in London, finally, on November 1, 2005.

Today, I have finally posted the entire London performance on the web for the first time. Additionally, I've posted the speech about the work, which I gave at the University of Alaska Anchorage on April 8, 2004.

If you click on my name or the url link, it will take you to the links.

"… whether I am now an Anti-Zionist, as opposed to a Post-Zionist … is a very good question, and one I admit I'm confused on."

I would humbly suggest that the post-zionist era will begin when the West Bank Wall is gone, just as Germany's post-communist era commenced when the Berlin Wall fell.

Phil's honesty about his doubts and confusion and changing attitudes is disarming and remarkable. Everyone else has an armor-protected, packaged position. Phil exhibits his thought process to all. Truly refreshing, in our jaded world of bombastic bullshit.

The further expansion to the 1967 borders (78% of the mandated territory) was also contrary to international law (the Stimson doctrine, later adopted by the League of Nations, implies non-recognition of the extension of a state's borders effected by force).

Neighboring states thus only follow this (US originated) doctrine when they do not recognise these 1967 borders.

Yet they, as anybody else, can see that Israel is now a 'fact on the ground'.

What about the matter of recognition: Witty argues that the lack of this by neighboring states implies the continuation of a state of deferred war with these countries.

I don't see why.

In the following piece Uri Avnery comes up with some sensible statements as far as recognition by Hamas is concerned. They apply, mutatis mutandis, also to the neighboring states:

"But how can one reach a settlement with an organization that declares that it will never recognize Israel and whose charter calls for the destruction of the Jewish state?

All this matter of "recognition" is nonsense, a pretext for avoiding a dialogue. We do not need "recognition" from anybody. When the United States started a dialogue with Vietnam, it did not demand to be recognized as an Anglo-Saxon, Christian, and capitalist state.

If A signs an agreement with B, it means that A recognizes B. All the rest is hogwash.
And in the same matter: The fuss over the Hamas charter is reminiscent of the ruckus about the PLO charter, in its time. That was a quite unimportant document, which was used by our representatives for years as an excuse to refuse to talk with the PLO. Heaven and earth were moved to compel the PLO to annul it. Who remembers that today?".

Arie Brand

A good question.

Have you read my questions to you on clarifying what you mean by "post-Zionism"?

There are two parts of Zionism:

1. A haven from persecution
2. Self-governance of the Jewish people (the nation)

Are either needed, are either worthy of fighting for?

For me, I've only experienced incidental anti-semitism, nothing threatening that I remember. But, I grew up in a Jewish "ghetto" in suburban New York.

My mother-in-law's experienced slave labor camps (her nuclear family survived). Her husband's family didn't. She was abused when she returned to her family's home town. Some other family had occupied their house, and they weren't giving it up, and threatening those Jews that did return.

Israel was a haven for her. But, after my wife was born in 1956 in Jaffa, they left at their first opportunity. Constant war and poverty.

She tells us of repeated incidents of "petty" anti-semitism in London. A small software executive that I know told me similarly about France.

Other survivors that I've met told me of the status of Jews in the 50's and 60's in Europe and the US, still experiencing quotas. They stated that they attribute their modern status as equals TO the presence of Israel, not just the guilt or sympathy from holocaust, and not just as the evolution of the host countries' political attitudes. (The US has progressed. There are not lynchings now and voting and civil rights of minorities are protected by law, women are nearly full participants in public affairs. There are no quotas excluding Jews from professions.)

Its hard to know the cause of Jews' acceptance in the west.

The bad signs are in the left/right, that I see. There is now a lot of contempt hurled at Jews in many of the old repeated paranoias. You yourself repeat many of the conspiracy elements (but don't go so far as to accuse, but pretty damn close), dominance of finance, dominance of media, dual-loyalty. They are the elements of fascist page design.

There is no way that the elements even get mentioned except by the selected interpretation of the inferences. Who cares what percentage of Jews are in Wall Street investment firms, unless there is collusion to exclude others, which I doubt.

Even the inference of stating your observation of successful Jews in the meritocracy (as a pejorative), and then implying that in the "democracy" of the blogosphere, that someone rise to defend it against imagined inferences, is very McCarthyesque.

Self-governance is very related to issue of need for haven.

People desire self-governance rather than to be governed by others. For those that don't prominently self-identify as a Jew, its not an issue.

Most of the Jewish residents of Israel have experienced persecution in their lives. European survivors, exiles from Arab countries, exiles from Soviet Russia, exiles from communist Ethiopia. Sabras have experienced four all-out wars (1948, 56, 67, 73) and recently two intifadas, and MANY terror incidents.

There is little confidence that individual Jews and communities will be permitted liberty in an Arab dominated millieu.

I prefer post-Zionism. But, it is not a fantasy. It only occurs if Zionism is not necessary. To the extent that the seeds of persecution are fed, and then acted on, it becomes necessary.

Have you read Pappe really? One of his contentions is that he is NOT a realist historian. He is NOT attempting to discover what really happened, all in all, but to present a perspective.

If you acknowledge that Zionism was likely necessary after WW2, then the events of 1948 are a quandry. An internal psychological drama of the scale of the Mahabharata or Shakespeare, NOT trivializable by the simplistic "Zionism is racism".

I don't think justice can be arrived at by excluding the Palestinian perspective, nor do I believe that it can be arrived at by simply adopting it.

That was that Hanna (a Palestinian) was amazingly compromising in a very positive sense, existentially so. At the same time, Gershon expressed about the same as I, appreciating the Palestinian experience (more enlightened than the xenophobic), but somewhat vainly assuming that Zionism was a given.

Although I disagree with objective parallels between Palestine and the holocaust, for Palestinians, the all-encompassing character of Israeli domination of occupation is similar qualitatively.