In the latest issue:

Real Men Go to Tehran

Adam Shatz

What Trump doesn’t know about Iran

Patrick Cockburn

Kaiser Karl V

Thomas Penn

The Hostile Environment

Catherine Hall

Social Mobilities

Adam Swift

Short Cuts: So much for England

Tariq Ali

What the jihadis left behind

Nelly Lahoud

Ray Strachey

Francesca Wade

C.J. Sansom

Malcolm Gaskill

At the British Museum: ‘Troy: Myth and Reality’

James Davidson

Poem: ‘The Lion Tree’

Jamie McKendrick


Jenny Turner

Boys in Motion

Nicholas Penny

Jia Tolentino

Lauren Oyler

Diary: What really happened in Yancheng?

Long Ling

Short Cuts: Harry Goes Rogue

Jonathan Parry

Who shall we blame it on?Yitzhak Laor

Terms and Conditions

These terms and conditions of use refer to the London Review of Books and the London Review Bookshop website ( — hereafter ‘LRB Website’). These terms and conditions apply to all users of the LRB Website ("you"), including individual subscribers to the print edition of the LRB who wish to take advantage of our free 'subscriber only' access to archived material ("individual users") and users who are authorised to access the LRB Website by subscribing institutions ("institutional users").

Each time you use the LRB Website you signify your acceptance of these terms and conditions. If you do not agree, or are not comfortable with any part of this document, your only remedy is not to use the LRB Website.

  1. By registering for access to the LRB Website and/or entering the LRB Website by whatever route of access, you agree to be bound by the terms and conditions currently prevailing.
  2. The London Review of Books ("LRB") reserves the right to change these terms and conditions at any time and you should check for any alterations regularly. Continued usage of the LRB Website subsequent to a change in the terms and conditions constitutes acceptance of the current terms and conditions.
  3. The terms and conditions of any subscription agreements which educational and other institutions have entered into with the LRB apply in addition to these terms and conditions.
  4. You undertake to indemnify the LRB fully for all losses damages and costs incurred as a result of your breaching these terms and conditions.
  5. The information you supply on registration to the LRB Website shall be accurate and complete. You will notify the LRB promptly of any changes of relevant details by emailing the registrar. You will not assist a non-registered person to gain access to the LRB Website by supplying them with your password. In the event that the LRB considers that you have breached the requirements governing registration, that you are in breach of these terms and conditions or that your or your institution's subscription to the LRB lapses, your registration to the LRB Website will be terminated.
  6. Each individual subscriber to the LRB (whether a person or organisation) is entitled to the registration of one person to use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site. This user is an 'individual user'.
  7. The London Review of Books operates a ‘no questions asked’ cancellation policy in accordance with UK legislation. Please contact us to cancel your subscription and receive a full refund for the cost of all unposted issues.
  8. Use of the 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is strictly for the personal use of each individual user who may read the content on the screen, download, store or print single copies for their own personal private non-commercial use only, and is not to be made available to or used by any other person for any purpose.
  9. Each institution which subscribes to the LRB is entitled to grant access to persons to register on and use the 'subscriber only' content on the web site under the terms and conditions of its subscription agreement with the LRB. These users are 'institutional users'.
  10. Each institutional user of the LRB may access and search the LRB database and view its entire contents, and may also reproduce insubstantial extracts from individual articles or other works in the database to which their institution's subscription provides access, including in academic assignments and theses, online and/or in print. All quotations must be credited to the author and the LRB. Institutional users are not permitted to reproduce any entire article or other work, or to make any commercial use of any LRB material (including sale, licensing or publication) without the LRB's prior written permission. Institutions may notify institutional users of any additional or different conditions of use which they have agreed with the LRB.
  11. Users may use any one computer to access the LRB web site 'subscriber only' content at any time, so long as that connection does not allow any other computer, networked or otherwise connected, to access 'subscriber only' content.
  12. The LRB Website and its contents are protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights. You acknowledge that all intellectual property rights including copyright in the LRB Website and its contents belong to or have been licensed to the LRB or are otherwise used by the LRB as permitted by applicable law.
  13. All intellectual property rights in articles, reviews and essays originally published in the print edition of the LRB and subsequently included on the LRB Website belong to or have been licensed to the LRB. This material is made available to you for use as set out in paragraph 8 (if you are an individual user) or paragraph 10 (if you are an institutional user) only. Save for such permitted use, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt such material in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department.
  14. All intellectual property rights in images on the LRB Website are owned by the LRB except where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited. Save for such material taken for permitted use set out above, you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, post, reproduce, translate or adapt LRB’s images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the LRB. To obtain such permission and the terms and conditions applying, contact the Rights and Permissions department. Where another copyright holder is specifically attributed or credited you may not download, store, disseminate, republish, reproduce or translate such images in whole or in part in any form without the prior written permission of the copyright holder. The LRB will not undertake to supply contact details of any attributed or credited copyright holder.
  15. The LRB Website is provided on an 'as is' basis and the LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website will be accessible by any particular browser, operating system or device.
  16. The LRB makes no express or implied representation and gives no warranty of any kind in relation to any content available on the LRB Website including as to the accuracy or reliability of any information either in its articles, essays and reviews or in the letters printed in its letter page or material supplied by third parties. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) arising from the publication of any materials on the LRB Website or incurred as a consequence of using or relying on such materials.
  17. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability of any kind (including liability for any losses, damages or costs) for any legal or other consequences (including infringement of third party rights) of any links made to the LRB Website.
  18. The LRB is not responsible for the content of any material you encounter after leaving the LRB Website site via a link in it or otherwise. The LRB gives no warranty as to the accuracy or reliability of any such material and to the fullest extent permitted by law excludes all liability that may arise in respect of or as a consequence of using or relying on such material.
  19. This site may be used only for lawful purposes and in a manner which does not infringe the rights of, or restrict the use and enjoyment of the site by, any third party. In the event of a chat room, message board, forum and/or news group being set up on the LRB Website, the LRB will not undertake to monitor any material supplied and will give no warranty as to its accuracy, reliability, originality or decency. By posting any material you agree that you are solely responsible for ensuring that it is accurate and not obscene, defamatory, plagiarised or in breach of copyright, confidentiality or any other right of any person, and you undertake to indemnify the LRB against all claims, losses, damages and costs incurred in consequence of your posting of such material. The LRB will reserve the right to remove any such material posted at any time and without notice or explanation. The LRB will reserve the right to disclose the provenance of such material, republish it in any form it deems fit or edit or censor it. The LRB will reserve the right to terminate the registration of any person it considers to abuse access to any chat room, message board, forum or news group provided by the LRB.
  20. Any e-mail services supplied via the LRB Website are subject to these terms and conditions.
  21. You will not knowingly transmit any virus, malware, trojan or other harmful matter to the LRB Website. The LRB gives no warranty that the LRB Website is free from contaminating matter, viruses or other malicious software and to the fullest extent permitted by law disclaims all liability of any kind including liability for any damages, losses or costs resulting from damage to your computer or other property arising from access to the LRB Website, use of it or downloading material from it.
  22. The LRB does not warrant that the use of the LRB Website will be uninterrupted, and disclaims all liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred as a result of access to the LRB Website being interrupted, modified or discontinued.
  23. The LRB Website contains advertisements and promotional links to websites and other resources operated by third parties. While we would never knowingly link to a site which we believed to be trading in bad faith, the LRB makes no express or implied representations or warranties of any kind in respect of any third party websites or resources or their contents, and we take no responsibility for the content, privacy practices, goods or services offered by these websites and resources. The LRB excludes to the fullest extent permitted by law all liability for any damages or losses arising from access to such websites and resources. Any transaction effected with such a third party contacted via the LRB Website are subject to the terms and conditions imposed by the third party involved and the LRB accepts no responsibility or liability resulting from such transactions.
  24. The LRB disclaims liability to the fullest extent permitted by law for any damages, losses or costs incurred for unauthorised access or alterations of transmissions or data by third parties as consequence of visit to the LRB Website.
  25. While 'subscriber only' content on the LRB Website is currently provided free to subscribers to the print edition of the LRB, the LRB reserves the right to impose a charge for access to some or all areas of the LRB Website without notice.
  26. These terms and conditions are governed by and will be interpreted in accordance with English law and any disputes relating to these terms and conditions will be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales.
  27. The various provisions of these terms and conditions are severable and if any provision is held to be invalid or unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction then such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the remaining provisions.
  28. If these terms and conditions are not accepted in full, use of the LRB Website must be terminated immediately.
Vol. 25 No. 4 · 20 February 2003

Who shall we blame it on?

Yitzhak Laor reports from Tel Aviv

Two days before the general election at the end of January, Israel again imposed a full closure on the Occupied Territories. It was done in the name of normality, which in itself has become a national value (‘terror shall not prevail’), and in the name of democracy (‘we are an integral part of the West’). Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were sealed off in their villages and towns, so that their masters – that is us, the Israelis – would enjoy the freedom to choose.

One day we’ll think about how many noisy soldiers it took to secure one quiet ballot station. How many arrests, grabs, shoves, slaps, humiliations, curfews, closed schools, blocked streets, emptied clinics, ruined children’s playgrounds gave us the satisfaction and pride that ‘terror has not prevailed’? How much darkness is needed over there to light our shopping malls (and our cafés, theatres, cinemas, concert halls, wedding halls)? How stringent a military dictatorship does our democracy have to impose on the Palestinians in order to give us the freedom to decide on their fate, while all the time boasting that we are the only democracy in this part of world?

This wish for normality is the other side of indifference. Is it possible to vote for parties that offer only military solutions? No, the average reader would reply, yet here normality means indifference and indifference is a shield through which information does not penetrate. Thousands of Israelis have participated in the Occupation, thousands have done their bit to implement the Oslo Accords, have measured out their checkpoint geography. Thousands of Israelis were acquainted with one or two at least of the Palestinians who used to work here as cheap labourers and who have now disappeared into the oblivion of the sealed territories. Yet during the election campaign not one Jewish party dared to speak about Palestinian suffering.

Ten settlers were elected to serve in the new Knesset. The Palestinian Authority no longer exists, except as an easy target for all kinds of accusation and sanction. The Occupation seems far away: the settlements seem very near. When the radio reports that ‘Israeli citizens were killed near Qiryat Arba’ (a big settlement near Hebron), it is reporting on terrorism inside our country, but when the IDF operates within a Palestinian town, it is out there, far away, as if in a distant land across the sea. Or at least that is how the Right has been speaking of it for some time – but so too has the Zionist Left, which for more than two years now has accepted this redesignation of the imaginary borders.

The IDF is of course above suspicion. Not only do former generals play a major role on both sides of the political map, but all Jewish parties, including Meretz, the party of the intellectual Left, and the Labour Party, condemn the Refuseniks. Courage to Refuse, the movement of combat soldiers who have declared ‘war on the war’ and refuse to continue serving in the Occupied Territories, was shocked to discover that Meretz wanted nothing to do with it. Israel is in a state of ideological stasis; the Left has capitulated and the last coalition government was the institutional expression of that fact. Even when the hands were the hands of Esau, i.e. the IDF, the voice was Jacob’s voice, i.e. the voice of the Likud. The Zionist Left – Meretz, Labour, Peace Now – should no longer be part of this game, but, alas, nothing will persuade it to distance itself from the military, even when this proximity sends the electorate straight into the arms of the Likud. After all, why should the voters settle for a fake when they can get the real thing?

Labour was an active member of Sharon’s previous Government. But Meretz, too, accepted the basic narrative according to which ‘former Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians everything at Camp David, but they wanted even more.’ So where did the handful of members of the radical Left go? They voted for the Democratic Front (the Communist Party and others), or for Balad, Dr Azmi Bishara’s Arab nationalist party. Most remained secluded inside the universities, waiting for future historians to unravel the mysteries of Barak’s one success: dismantling the Peace Movement.

Lots of accusations were made during the campaign, as in every election campaign. The Right blamed the Left for the ‘Oslo Victims’, i.e. the Jews killed in guerrilla and terrorist attacks since the festival of Purim in February 1994 when Baruch Goldstein, a settler from Qiryat Arba, massacred innocent Muslims praying in Hebron’s Cave of the Patriarchs. That this was the beginning of the suicide bombings is now forgotten; maybe it’s not that important. Why did the Israelis forget Goldstein’s crime? Why every year at Purim do they worry about retaliation without giving the massacre any thought? And more important: why did Labour forget the role Sharon played in Lebanon? Because they sat with him in his Government for 20 months, as if the Lebanon War had never taken place. How could they start talking about Sabra and Shatila in the old way when Sabra and Shatila are only ever perceived as instruments of anti-Israeli propaganda?

Labour blamed Sharon for the suicide bombings inside Israel, but, apart from his alleged corruption, that was all they blamed him for – and the reason they blamed him at all was that he was reluctant to build a ‘separation fence’ along the old border between Israel and Palestine. The Right’s reluctance to build the fence is due to its reluctance to mark a border there. The Left supports the idea of demarcation, but wants to include many of the settlements on our side of the fence. In fact the fence is actually being built and is swallowing up yet more chunks of a shrinking Palestine. Markets are being ruined, villages are sliced in two, peasants lose access to their olive orchards, impoverished day labourers lose their vague hope of finding work inside Israel.

To be a moderate in Israel, to be on the ‘sane Left’ (as the Zionist Left calls itself, ” to distinguish itself from the radical Left which identifies with the Palestinian struggle), means to be in favour of the separation fence. But if one travels to see those parts of Palestine already ‘separated’ by the fence (the town of Qalqilya), one can see how it separates Palestinian towns and villages not only from Israel but from the rest of Palestine as well. And of course the separation is one-sided. Israelis have the right to enter the Palestinian side, but Palestinians cannot enter our country. The same logic works everywhere here. The ‘separation roads’ have always meant separation not between Israel and Palestine but between Palestinian and Israeli destinations. And now, as the process of apartheid becomes more entrenched, Palestinians cannot drive on those roads or indeed on many other roads in the West Bank. It is crucial to understand the non-existence of the Palestinians in the Israeli consciousness. They are a danger. Thus, they have to be excluded from our territory. I am not talking of Foucauldian heteronomies. The ‘separation roads’ create a real continuity between Jewish settlements, while simultaneously destroying any form of Palestinian territorial continuity. The checkpoints are only an accessory to that process.

All settlers vote in their settlements: they are citizens of Israel, and their settlements are part of the Israeli democratic state. They voted en masse for the Right, of course, mainly for the parties that solicit ‘transfer’, which is the term for the expulsion of the Palestinians. Meretz lost almost half its voters and became a small party with six seats in the Knesset. Labour remained the second largest party in the Knesset, but with only 19 seats (compared with the Likud’s 38). Among voters under 30, among the million new immigrants from the former USSR, among the poor, the Labour Party has few supporters. What Sharon needed from Labour was legitimation in the international community. They gave it to him. Why? In Israeli jargon it is called ‘a Volvo and a chauffeur’, which means they love being in power. The truth is even sadder: they do not know how to resist the temptation of power.

Terror did prevail. In recent years it has erased more and more political differences in favour of a ‘new Israeliness’, that fragile subjectivity which feels itself strong only on days of national mourning. There is no other common denominator, not even language (most of the Jewish parties used Russian subtitles in their TV election broadcasts); sometimes there isn’t even a common religion (some 20 per cent of the new Russian immigrants are not Jewish). Hatred of the Palestinians has played a major part in the new Israeliness (though it didn’t originate with the current wave of terrorism). Israelis, in general, are deaf to Palestinian suffering – this isn’t just a ‘tactic’ and a ‘strategy’, but a way of life. Mainstream Israeli literature was never militarist or chauvinist, but except for a few rare cases it never dealt with the Palestinian tragedy.

Hatred played a major role in the election campaign. That part of the Left which called for an end to the Occupation failed: compassion didn’t seem to fit. If there was any compassion to be felt it was for Sharon. The people, the masses, the poor, were called on to defend him from ‘leftist incitement’. Huge banners along the roads proclaimed in blue and white letters: ‘The People Elect Sharon’, and ‘The People Elect Likud against the Incitement of the Left’. (Other banners offered the same Sharon to the same people for other reasons.)

At one point during the campaign it seemed that the Likud would suffer as a result of widespread allegations of corruption among its candidates in the Party’s primary elections. All this is far from over, and even Sharon might end up under police interrogation, if not worse. However, the turning point of the campaign was the moment when his team managed to sell the fat, old, pork-eating, hedonist general – the richest premier Israel has ever had – to the public as a victim of the ‘leftist media and judicial system’. His alleged corruption, his connection with a certain English millionaire, his claims that he ‘didn’t know’ about a $1.5 million deposit given to him so that he could pay back illegal donations he had used in his former campaign, the alleged connections between his son Omri (now also a member of the Knesset) and criminals – all these became Sharon’s ‘strong points’. From the moment his press conference was silenced during a live broadcast on Israel’s three TV channels by the head of the Central Election Committee, Justice Mishael Cheshin, for blatant violation of the Election Propaganda Law, Sharon’s popularity just soared and soared.

Labour supporters in the Israeli press keep complaining that Sephardic Jews forget that Labour has not been running the country for many years now. That is true – though the Labour Party tends to forget it, too. Since 1967, Sharon, and before him Binyamin Netanyahu, and before him Menachem Begin, have been offering the ‘new Israelis’ a simple way of identifying with the state: by hating the Arabs. This requires a brief explanation. The East-West divide is deeply traumatic for us. There is no part of Israeli life where this tension does not threaten to erupt. Jews from Iraq, or Egypt, or Yemen, or Morocco, in order to be Israelis, must first become ‘Eastern Jews’ – that is, have a common ‘Eastern’ identity which did not exist prior to their being Israelis. Then they have to become ‘Israelis’ – i.e. having become ‘Easterners’, they immediately escape this definition. The hatred that the state – and even more so the Right – offers them has always been the hatred of one minority for another. Any intelligent reading of the novels of A.B. Yehoshua, the most famous Sephardic writer in Israel, can detect the desire to erase the East-West difference ‘within us’, and move it further away.

How is it, however, that the Sephardic Jews never succeeded in organising themselves for themselves instead of voting for right-wing Ashkenazi leaders? This is a subject of discussion inside and outside academia, but one thing is clear: political ethnicity used to be unacceptable. For years, any attempt to form a party on an ethnic platform met with harsh condemnation. However, during the 1980s Shas was formed. Led by ultra-orthodox Sephardic Jews, the party appealed to Jews of Middle Eastern descent with a double objective: to ‘bring the Sephardic masses back into the world of the Torah’ and to defend Sephardic Jews against discrimination. The Party’s success was meteoric. In ten years it became the third largest party in the country. It supported Rabin’s Government during the Oslo years, and thus was not a typical right-wing party. It represented a growing number of Sephardic Jews – in whose community the clear distinction between being religious and being secular is less rigid than among Ashkenazis – and used their participation in a variety of governments to enlarge its own education system, synagogues, social institutions. However, the last thing on earth it really wanted was to change the political or social system. In the last election it gained 11 seats.

What was frightening about Shas as far as the Ashkenazi parties were concerned was that it found a new route to political power for Sephardic Jews: all it cared about – so it seemed – was to enlarge its religious-ethnic infrastructure, and though that was OK when it was done by the settlers, or by other movements in the history of Zionism, it was intolerable when done by Shas. During the Oslo years it was Meretz that orchestrated this new dance of hate, while gambling on an irreparable rift between the Sephardic and the Ashkenazi Left. Meretz knew that its constituency hated ‘them’ and so everything that was bad in Israel was connected to ‘them’. We pay too much in taxation? Blame it on the Orthodox Jews. Why? They have too many children, like the Arabs, and we don’t want to finance their multiplication. Meretz wouldn’t spell that out, but that was the spirit it was riding on. We have to spend too much time in the Army, as conscripts and reserve soldiers? Blame it on the Orthodox Jews. Why? Because they do not go to the Army, at least the Ashkenazis among them don’t.

In this latest election campaign Meretz had to compete with another party, which in effect took its place: Shinui, a party of ‘rednecks’, a growing class in a state where organised labour has been almost entirely eliminated. Although Shinui has only one Sephardic member, it represents something new in Israeli politics: it is a party with no inhibitions, not even in the way it presents its case. What does it think of the Palestinians? There is no chance for peace anyway, so why bother? Its leader, Yossef (Tommy) Lapid, a former TV star, outdoes Haider and Le Pen. He isn’t embarrassed by anything, because he has the Holocaust on his side. But forget the Holocaust: Tommy sees himself as the true representative of European culture. Born to a Hungarian family in Yugoslavia, he believes he knows all about Europe. His CV includes writing guidebooks, and some third-rate comedies, in one of which I acted as a high-school student, playing the role of an African president visiting Israel, who turns out to be a Polish Jew who has found his way to one of ‘those new states’. As I suggested before, Israeli discourse is obsessed with fighting to ‘preserve European values’.

Let me be clear: there is a real need to encourage secularism in Israel. This is a state where no one can marry outside the religious establishment. But will Shinui bring about a change in the legislation? Of course not. Most laws have a political, even racist, objective: to define Israel as a Jewish state, and to define Judaism in religious terms. Not one Jewish party supports a real democracy, where the state is the state of all its citizens.

What Shinui with its 15 seats has proved yet again is that hate speech is very successful in Israel. Parties that could not find an object to hate lost. But Shinui has also taught Meretz something the Labour Party had better be quick to learn: if you embark on a competition of ‘who will screw “them” more?’ there will always be a party to your right, which has fewer inhibitions. Just as Meretz has gone back to being a small dovish party because Shinui was more successful in its hate message against the Sephardic and ultra-Orthodox, so the Labour Party lost its place as a central force because of its support for the Occupation. Anything Labour had to say about the Palestinians would have found a more comfortable home in the discourse of the Right.

Does anybody think that Israel is capable of getting itself out of this mess without outside help?

Send Letters To:

The Editor
London Review of Books,
28 Little Russell Street
London, WC1A 2HN

Please include name, address, and a telephone number.

Read anywhere with the London Review of Books app, available now from the App Store for Apple devices, Google Play for Android devices and Amazon for your Kindle Fire.

Sign up to our newsletter

For highlights from the latest issue, our archive and the blog, as well as news, events and exclusive promotions.