Reading Between the Lines of the Khirbet Khizeh
by: A. Carroll on October 16th, 2012 | 1 Comment »
Soon afterthe War of 1948, Jewish writer Yizhar Smilansky, under the penname S. Yizhar, published a novella entitled Khirbet Khizeh. The story has since become a fixture within the cannon of Israeli literature, largely due to Yizhar’s beautiful command of the Hebrew language and his mastery of the short story.
Perhaps more important than the elevated prose of the book is the tale told within the Khirbet Khizeh. At a time when the nascent nation was still scrambling to secure itself and its power, Yizhar boldly puts forth the story of one Israeli soldier’s struggle to justify his role within the Palestinian Nakba.
Decades before the conception of the “New Historian” movement, Yizhar’s narrator within the Khirbet Khizeh openly challenges the morality of the exodus and questions the validity of the army’s operations as he helps clear out the Arab village of Khirbet Khizeh.
From the outset, the narrator of Khirbet Khizeh has an extreme awareness of the fact that what he is doing is “wrong” in some way. Yizhar does an astounding job conveying the difficulty of communicating such a visceral feeling. It is not simply that the narrator sees the new Israeli army as categorically unethical, or that leaving Arabs alone is necessarily a possible solution. Rather, he is able to express in a deeper sense that what happened in 1948 was the irreversible beginning of a new era of struggle within the region. Though it is difficult for the narrator to point out exactly when and where he went wrong, it is clear that he grapples with a constant feeling of guilt over his actions. Though he tries to focus purely on his army orders, when faced with weeping, fragile, and very human Arab villagers, he is constantly overcome with pangs of conscience.
More importantly, for the narrator of Khirbet Khizeh this conscience is not something that can be ignored. Yizhar eloquently notes that, “Even if there was nothing easier than to disregard it, simply deny it, it mattered to me that it was beginning.” After perpetually trying to put his feelings into words and express his reservations to those around him, the novel climaxes with the narrator realizing what specifically is going on. Exile. Exile of a people. Exile, he realizes, is what he sees in the faces of the Arab villagers, in the tears of a proud mother, and in the gait of an old man as he leaves his home behind.
And to be a perpetrator of such a thing, to be responsible for such an exile: this he knows is not his right. For the young soldier realizes that no matter how much they can change Khirbet Khizeh – no matter who moves into the vacant houses, no matter how many synagogues are built, no matter how many new political parties are formed – the walls of this place will scream with the fact that this is not the only story. The place is not theirs. It is not their right to live within the walls of Khirbet Khizeh.
But is this realization enough? The novella closes on a note of helplessness after the narrator’s revelation. He speaks to his commander and is brushed aside. He does not refuse his orders or seriously challenge authority, but instead notes with sadness that, “nothing would come of it.” It is a shame, he says, “such a crying shame.” His rage will fade, history will move forward, and his actions alone are small and insignificant.
Despite seemingly leaving us with such a futile message, what Yizhar presents in the Khirbet Khizeh is not at all to be disregarded as such. Written amid a flurry of state-building propaganda and burgeoning patriotism, Yizhar is able to impart with extreme grace the importance of remaining aware. Through this tale he reminds us – even today – of the vital necessity of thinking beyond orders, beyond the views of your neighbors, and beyond your written history. He reminds us to force ourselves to confront things that are difficult to see. We must choose to look at these things, to question these things, and ultimately to recognize these things for what they are.
David Shulman, a professor at Hebrew University, articulately captures this idea in his afterword to Yizhar’s book, as he says:
The choice has something to do with extricating oneself from the thick envelope of one’s tribe… and the words that fill all the open spaces, so as to touch, at least in passing, that elusive, unsentimental freedom that defines the human being. It is from this point that one can act.
At a defining moment in history, Yizhar sought to challenge, disturb, and question. What emerged from his fight was a breathtaking novella that reveals the importance of examining our inner struggles. Though at times it may feel fruitless and exhausting, through the confusion and chaos exist transient moments of revelation and truth. It is imperative that we continue seeking these moments.
Nakhba, the most overplayed whine fest, lead by the Palestinians, supported by the Arab League and cheered by Western Palestinian activists everywhere. How unfortunate. There have been many instances of people being displaced as a result of war, Many of this refugee issues have been resolved.
- We no longer hear about Europeans displaced by WW 2, even as borders were shifted.
- Millions of refugees fled east and west when India was partitioned in 1947. We no longer hear about those refugees. All have resettled.
- I guessthe displaced Azeris wil never get a voice in pop culture
- The UN finally recognized Jews from Arab who were forced from their homes. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of them, All of those Arab countries participated to varying degrees in the invasion of the new state of Israel in 1948. They were not displaced as a result of war, they were just expelled.
Now we get to Nakhba. There is little disputing the fact that the Palestinians and the Arab league rejected partition of British mandated Palestine. In fact, both a former Black September terrorist who participated in the Munich olympic massacre and Mahmoud Abbas acknowledged that the rejection of partition was wrong. They acknowledged they they should never have demanded all of British Mandated Palestine. This is well documented and leaves little room for debate. Most if the so called Palestinians refugee fled, some were expelled. yes, here were murdered by Irgun terrorists But It was the result of war. While decades past since the War of Independence. these refugees remain caged all over the Arab world. They cannot leave the camps accept for work and are often the targets of attacks by local militias as happened in the Lebanese Civil War.
Palestinians are being held hostage by Palestinian and Arab league intransigence. Arafat did not back down from his demand for the right of return. Yes, the so called Palestinians “peace activists back this demand, which secure their position of wishing the disappearance of the only Jewish state in the world. I won’t say what this suggests, because it will only be met with angry denial. But this support of right of return smells of .. well you know what. In the mean time, the Palestinians and Arab league nations have little interest in resolving what constitutes and effective thorn in the conflict.
Lost in fog of the war were Jews who were also expelled from their homes and massacred. Gush Etzion and Mt Scopus were al the targets if massacres and expulsion in the 1947/48 period. Jews we’re expelled from the walled city of Jerusalem. But they cannot be part of the pop culture narrative of the conflict.
But I guess Nakhba has entrenched itself in a pop culture cause. Of course there would be l no price to pay by western activists if Israel were forced to accept the right of return But here’s message for you, two wrongs do not make a right. 64 years has passed since Nakhba. Enough is enough.
But if you still want to cry about Nakhba and demand the right of return, prepare to return your homes to native Americans or what are called 1st nations in Canada. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.