Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, March 2005, page
74
Book Review
Sharing the Land of Canaan: Human Rights and the
Israeli-Palestinian Struggle
By Mazin B. Qumsiyeh, Pluto Press, 2004, 236 pp. List: $22.95,
AET: $17
Reviewed by Sara Powell
“WHAT RIGHT brings in Russian Jews and what kind of
peace deprives Palestinian refugees of the right to return
home?” asks former Yale professor Mazin Qumsiyeh in his latest
book. The author’s answers to these and other questions constitute
the essence of Sharing the Land of Canaan—and makes
it part handy reference for virtually every possible question with
regard to Israel and Palestine, and part Middle East peace proposal.
Qumsiyeh argues that, since Russian or other Ashkenazi Jews have
very little in common genetically with Sephardic or “Oriental” Jews,
or with Arabs—indeed with any of the Semites who originally
settled the land of Canaan—they therefore are not entitled
to “return” to a place from which they never came.
Noting that Jews and those of other religions have lived peaceably
in the Holy Land forever, Qumsiyeh believes that they can do so
again. Indeed, he insists, they must, given that time cannot be
turned back and Israeli “facts on the ground” are so
entwined with Palestine that the situation is irreversible.
According to Qumsiyeh, a “peace” that deprives Palestinians
of their right to return home is no peace at all. This should not
come as a surprise, since he is a co-founder of Al-Awda, the Palestinian
Right of Return Coalition. However, Qumsiyeh backs up his argument
with history (genetic tracing, documentary, and archaeological)
as well as with the documents of international law—the Fourth
Geneva Convention, numerous United Nations resolutions, its charter,
and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, among the most important.
A geneticist, Qumsiyeh discusses in the early part of the book
the ancient peoples and cultures who occupied the land now so fiercely
contested. This study in “biology and ideology,” though
fascinating, will likely alienate many readers, for, despite its
careful documentation, the topic is highly controversial, as the
author notes. However, he does not use genetic data to argue that
those Askenazi Jews resident in Israel or occupied Palestine should
leave. Rather, he urges all who inhabit the land, as well as those
in the diaspora, to share the land as one democratic secular nation.
In fact, each section of the book is meant to lead to this conclusion—that,
given human rights and international law, economics and environmental
practicalities, the “Sharing of the Land of Canaan” is
an inevitability.
Given that Qumsiyeh is himself a Palestinian denied the right
to return to his homeland, his fierce condemnation of Zionism as
a racist and apartheid system is not surprising. Yet he also deplores
narrow nationalism in an increasingly global world. Indeed, calling
the land Canaan—a name based on an ancient shared history—is
an interesting and perhaps valuable contribution. It allows for
both Palestinians and Israelis to save face by creating a third,
united nation. In response to the many who have argued that, if
Israelis want a democratic state, they must be willing to give
up their Jewish state, Qumsiyeh points out that, demographically,
Israelis will not always have a choice. He also points out, however,
that neither will Palestinians have a choice about sharing their
land, given that there is now a distinct, Hebrew-speaking, Israeli
nation which cannot be dispossessed—any more than it was
or is right to dispossess their Palestinian brethren.
The idea of a single secular nation on that tiny piece of land
between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River (although Qumsiyeh
also tosses out the idea of possibly incorporating Jordan—with
its huge Palestinian population—into this one state) is not
new. The late Edward Said was one of its most eloquent proponents.
Moreover, Qumsiyeh points out, it was not until 1988, when statehood
was declared, that Palestinians supported a possible two-state
solution.
Qumsiyeh cautions, however, that although such a state is inevitable,
it is by no means imminent. He concludes on an optimistic note,
however: “We Canaanites, who invented the alphabet, domesticated
animals and developed agriculture, and made this arid land into
a land of milk and honey, surely can do this….We can either
remain locked in our old mythological and tribal ways, or we can
envision a better future and work for it. The choice is obvious.”
Qumsiyeh has provided a valuable tool for implementing that choice.
|