Hillel Cohen’s book, “Year Zero of Arab-Israeli Conflict” is a conscious effort to provide a balanced perspective on the 1929 Jerusalem riots. Cohen explores the riots using both the Jewish and Arab perspectives. Cohen is an Israeli professor, who has extensive knowledge about Arab and Israeli relations. The way he sees 1929 as the defining moment in the Arab-Israeli war is what makes this book different from his other works (Cohen, 2009). The timeframe of the Arab/Israeli conflict was examined in ‘Good Arabs’.
This intricate and detailed account of the riots can be hard to understand. Cohen’s book is more than what it says. Cohen intentionally tells a story about the riots that does not have any clear victims or perpetrators. This storytelling style is difficult for an individual like myself who has embedded views on the conflict. The 1929 riots were ultimately responsible for a new level of conflict between Arab and Israeli. It should be noted that the riots did not cause the Arab-Israeli war, as the title suggests. Anyone who doesn’t know the history of this conflict may be confused. However, it left a mark on the lives of both Jews and Palestinians. It also revealed how each group views and interacts with one another. Jumping between periods and back to the present, the book discusses important events from the riots. It was also possible to use small subchapters to talk about different stories. This can be distracting for the reader. Cohen says that although this is intentional, it can interrupt the flow of a book.
Cohen examines the differing views of the same event by Jewish and Palestinian sources. This is clearly a strength of the book. However, there is no right or wrong way to resolve the conflict.
Cohen emphasizes the main theme of Cohen’s statement that although both groups are different and have produced several stories about 1929, there were many pictures. Jews considered it a’monstrous massacre’ of innocent people looking for refuge in their God given homeland. It is striking that the image depicting ‘Arabs want to drink Jewish blood’ is so prominent. They are inherently savage. Palestinians saw their own colonization and imperialism as their victims. Another attempt by Zionists and Europeans to depossess them of the land they had cultivated and lived on for hundreds of years was the 1929 riots. They reacted rationally to the decades of violence they had endured. Cohen is right to highlight the differences in both narratives regarding the riots. Cohen also discusses how contradictory or unverified they are. Cohen also shows that both stories have similar beginnings. Both saw only the deaths of their people, not those of others. Both refused to accept criticism that might have made them look guilty. The most important aspect of both groups’ actions is their self-defence. They felt pride in their homeland, their devotion to the Wailing Wall, and protection.
It is a good thing to appreciate the contradictions in the book’s narratives, but it can also be disadvantageous. Cohen would sometimes ask Cohen questions he was unable to answer. Cohen was unable, for instance, to explain why Arabs killed Jews when he discussed Safed and Hebron. Instead, contradictory explanations were offered. First, there is no explanation for why. This, as we already know, contradicts the Jewish belief that Arabs are innately violent. Second, he said that the Arabs believed the Jews were trying rob their land and identity to justify their actions. It is unclear for the reader who is the victim or perpetrator.
Cohen states that “studies in mass psychology have shown that we can commit deeds when we are part of a group action”. Cohen doesn’t discuss them in detail and these particular studies aren’t mentioned anywhere in the book.
The book’s central feature, the Cohen-Memory link, is worth mentioning. Forgery is used by sources to recreate this event and their historical representations. This information has relevance for today’s Arab/Israeli crisis. Cohen uses both primary as well as secondary sources, both in Arabic and Hebrew, to discuss the topic. This is why it is so surprising that this book does not attempt to assess the contribution of these sources to the creation of the memories. Cohen suggests that Jews as well as Arabs recall the riots with their national lenses. “People’s fundamental and overarching view determines how people perceive historical details.” Cohen claims that massacres are not “imprinted automatically on the national mind”. This statement prompts us to wonder who or what has imprinted these memories on the national memory.
Cohen was not only criticized for his non-biased view, but he also wanted to offer a multiplex view. Cohen succeeded in his objective of giving a multi-dimensional account of the riots both from the Palestinian as well as Jewish perspectives. Although there are obvious flaws and contradictions in the book, it illustrates how complex this event was and is today. Cohen uses his skills to examine both primary sources and secondary information to unravel the ever-complex web of the 1929 riots.
Bibliography
Cohen, H. (2009). The Israeli security services and the Israeli Arabs, 1948-1967. University of California Press published in Berkeley and Los Angeles.
Cohen, H. (2015). Year Zero of The Arab-Israeli Conflict 1929. Brandeis University Press
Waltham,MA. (2016).https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ajs-review/article/hillel-cohen-1929-year-zero-of-the-arabisraeli-conflict-waltham-ma-brandeis-university-press-2015-312-pp/CB9DD922C400230722C7495F8D82AAC5/core-reader, viewed 13 October 2019.
The University of Jerusalem, which is Hebrew, (2012) http://pluto.huji.ac.il/~hilcoh/, Viewed 11 November 2019.