Reviewed: Sharing the Land of Canaan

Qumsiyeh, Mazin B., Sharing the Land of Canaan, Pluto Press, 2004

Reviewed by Peter Harley

Apart from his informative treatment of such subjects as the genetics of peoples in Palestine and Israel, their languages, their modern and ancient history, including Zionism, international law and contemporary political discourse, the sustainability of communities in view of geography and modern developments, Qumsiyeh gives anyone open to receiving it a lesson in generosity and practicality. As the title of the book suggests, he wants a one-state solution, because basically there is now no other.

The terrible problems of war, terrorism, occupation and apartheid do not have to exist. The way out has been eloquently stated in numerous documents, modern and old: a maximum of comfort and security for all can be achieved by adhering to international law and principles of human rights.

But to deal with some of the topics alluded to in the first paragraph: according to Qumsiyeh, who is himself a geneticist, not all Jews are genetically close kin. Sephardim and Mizrachi are closer to Palestinians and other Arabs than either group is to Ashkenazim, East European Jews. The latter group is closer to Turks. The evidence for this is said to be both linguistic and genetic, consisting in DNA analysis and the fact that genetic diseases common among Ashkenazim are virtually unknown in other Jewish populations, plus the fact that Yiddish shows Slavic influence but no Aramaic (an ancient Semitic tongue). The Ashkenazim are thought to have descended from a people who converted to Judaism in Khazaria, an area around the Black Sea.

Why embark on a discussion of ethnicity in any circumstance? The claim of a "Jewish right of return" to the ancient land of Israel has been made on ethnic grounds. "Ancestral rights," as they are called by proponents, ostensibly make the entire land of Palestine the property of Israel because God gave it to the ancient Israelites. Such rights would seem somewhat undermined if Ashkenazi Jews, the founders of Zionism, did not come from that land in the first place. If they are of Kahzar/Turkic origin, as Qumsiyeh claims, and if this precludes their being of Palestinian/Israeli origin, it would seem that European Jews are not even Semites, and, one cannot help reflecting, even a lot of "anti-semitism" has been misnamed.

Not surprisingly, there is controversy surrounding this topic. I have not attempted to assess the evidence (indeed, knew nothing about it before reading this book) but Qumsiyeh cites sources that qualified persons might presumably evaluate. The question may require prolonged evaluation by scholars expert in the areas involved but, needless to say, we will probably be hearing more of it in years to come.

There are several historical niceties to be learned from this book. For example, while the Palestinians are often criticized for rejecting UN General Assembly Resolution 181, which created Israel, the Israelis too rejected parts of it they didn't like: the proposed borders, the internationalization of Jerusalem, economic union, and most importantly, the prohibition on removing native people.

There are historical deficiencies in the book too, as, for example, its glossing over the inglorious expulsion of the PLO from Jordan in the early 1970s. But Sharing The Land Of Canaan is not primarily a history; it sketches the history of the region in order to contemplate it with respect to the contemporary quandary.

Qumsiyeh believes that the main lesson to be taken from History is that things can and do change, frequently for the better. He points to the long history of enmity between England and France, including a 100-years war, pointing out that physical conflict between the two now is unthinkable. Of course he is right, and this is the kind of understanding people need in order to progress to some sort of workable arrangement better than mere standoff. To be able to work within laws and treaties and get along with one another requires a grain of hope and the skeleton of a plan. Qumsiyeh provides both.

His draft framework of an agreement is, in substance, an admirable document. It is also inadequate, partly because it reverts to mentioning old quarrels and injustices: "The people of this land are those who resided in this area naturally, including Palestinian refugees and their descendents. While native rights supercede any privilege or land given to immigrants who came under the banner of Zionism by the unjust Israeli 'law of [Jewish] return,' the new immigrants who arrived as such and (are) willing to coexist as equal will be recognized and treated equally under the laws." All this is true, but not all of it needs to be said. The draft document is probably also inadequate because it does not offer enough incentive and security, which, I think, might consist in complete freedom of movement, work and habitation within a system of federalism that guarantees areas of Israeli and Palestinian governance. The document goes on to call for equality of citizens before the law, the irrelevance of religion, separation of religion and state, and so on.

The basic point to appreciate, though, is that there is no other reasonable choice: Palestinians and Israelis are now interspersed in the same area in great numbers and must continue to live together. The other, unreasonable choice is what we see today or worse: apartheid, ghettos, a grotesque wall, blocked roads, Israeli-only roads, terrorism, national guilt, campaigns of vilification and a clash of uncivilizations.

The tone of this book is, for the most part, dispassionate and deliberate, but its effect can certainly be emotional. Reading the section on Human Rights, I felt my heart racing in anxiety over the state of Humanity in general. How is it possible that govern-ments sign covenants like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (quoted in its entirety in the book) and then violate it to such an extreme? The reason may lie in the futility of words. It seems to me that one lesson that emerges from this juxtaposition of lofty ambition and dismal failure is that nothing written can save us. No laws, treaties, promises or religious decrees can guarantee the decent treatment of people without power. The only hope is that people with power recognize that these laws and decrees are worth obeying, especially for their own safety.

Qumsiyeh does not directly address this difficulty (perhaps no one can) but the world can, and routinely does. Noble declarations come after disasters, and perhaps the best case in point is the UN Charter itself. No one with an ear to hear and knowledge of what went before can read the opening lines of the Charter without appreciating the sorrow and grimness in that hope "to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war." Because words could not guarantee safety, countries at once embarked on an arms race and, in so doing, began once again to threaten each other. Israel has both legalistic and militaristic beginnings, but few would deny that the military overshadowed the legal, and continue to do so today.

The point of these observations is only to say that until people with great military and financial power bring themselves to appreciate Qumsiyeh's basic insight (that we have to adhere to international law and human rights declarations), situations of habitual enmity can only vary between bad and worse. Yet people do make progress, and we must not forget it. The example of South Africa shines as piece of good news that almost boggles imagination; similarly, the dismantling of the Soviet Union.

I first thought my main criticism of this book would be leveled at the Forward by Dr. Sitta, which is a litany of allegations against Israel, some of which are demonstrated, but all of which are, together, out of tune with the dispassionate and conciliatory message of the book itself. However, there are problems with the book too, the worst of which is that it is not well edited. Numerous sentences have to be reread to discern the author's probable intent, and some would seem to state the exact opposite of intent. "The claims of a single Jewish origin are not challenged by a substantiated variety of incredibly rich data." (p. 28) One assumes that "not" was printed instead of "now," and one recognizes that it was a bad sentence to begin with. Or consider: "The resources are foolishly perceived as finite" (p. 211). Apart from poor copy editing, things are said which are ill-considered or simply not true: "Third, Israel, established to provide a safe haven for Jews, is ironically the only place where Jews are under threat and subjected to violence." (p. 204). This statement seems based in important observation and trying to speak an important truth, but is so carelessly worded as to be false.

There is an enormous amount of work in this book, including references for almost every major assertion, a list of recommended reading at the end of each chapter, a glossary and an index. It will serve as a useful resource for anyone interested in a broad and personal treatment of the problems plaguing Israel and Palestine, and it will teach almost anyone something about the situation. What the author and publisher need to do, in light of the virtues and failings indicated above, is to re-issue the book. This could be done periodically, not only for the sake of correcting deficiencies, but in the interest of keeping it current. The world is changing and there will be more to learn about it by reading editions 2, 3, or 4 of this valuable piece of work.