Ant sampled

Anyone curious about Antony Loewenstein’s book, My Israel Question, but who hasn’t been able to get hold of a copy, can download a sample chapter – Chapter 3, “Journey into Israel” – from the publisher’s promotional page (see right panel).

Loewenstein has received some grief for his deeply critical views of Israel from right-wing and pro-Zionist sources since even before the book’s release. One of the points of contention has been Loewenstein’s assertion of “Jewish-only roads” that purportedly contribute to an apartheid-like gulf between Israelis and Palestinians in the occupied territories.

In Chapter 3, Loewenstein does indeed make reference to “Jewish-only roads” (pp. 51 & 57). But further into the chapter, Loewenstein interviews Gideon Levy, a “maverick journalist” for Haaretz, quoting him (p. 60) as saying:

When you drive a road in the West Bank which is a road for only Jews, what is it if not apartheid? When you cross a checkpoint which is only open for Jews, what is it if not apartheid? If you are an Israeli citizen of Palestinian origin who tries to find in this liberal neighbourhood an apartment to rent and you have terrible difficulties doing so because you are Palestinian, what is it if not apartheid?

Thus it appears that Loewenstein’s assertion regarding ‘Jewish-only roads’, and the overarching ‘apartheid’ theme, is not solely his own construction, but has been influenced significantly by his contact with Levy, and presumably others.

Another criticism of Loewenstein is that he has been perfidious with regard to relatives whose hospitality he enjoyed during his visit to Israel. After being “welcomed ... into their home” (p. 64), he portrays them, particularly his male host and cousin Ronald Green, as extremely chauvinistic and even racist towards Palestinians. Thus, Loewenstein has attracted criticism of bad faith towards, even ‘betrayal’ of, his ‘family’.

Describing his stay with his cousin, Loewenstein notes that: “His passion was violent and astounding. I tried to stop the conversation numerous times, but he refused, determined to convince me how wrong I was...” (my emphasis)

Interesting. Whatever one may make of Loewenstein’s apparent failure to secure his relatives’ consent to being held to public scrutiny in this way, it’s also apparent from Loewenstein’s account that they actively sought to influence the content and overall direction of Loewenstein’s book.

This could arguably somewhat mitigate Loewenstein’s alleged perfidy. Of course, it’s also arguable that Loewenstein ought nonetheless to have fictionalised the names – if only for his own sake.