Khirbet Khizeh by S. Yizhar, I

Khirbet Khizeh by S. Yizhar, in particular the 28 Ibis edition, concludes with intended irony. In particular it is seen through Shulman's afterword through relation to the 1949 novel to modern peace activism within the Palestinian/Israeli region as seen on page 131: Through the carrying of signs both in Arabic and Hebrew, for the benefit of soldiers and villagers alike, including the press, 'No More Khirbet Khizehs' (Yizhar, De Lange & Dweck, 2008). What was intended through this was that no longer would there be events like the one that happened in Khirbet. However because Khirbet Khizeh is not an actual region or historical event, the irony lies in the fact that this fictitious event could never be replicated because it never truly happened. Shulman then creates a confusion of reality and fiction through his unintentionally ironic message. In essence the novel is an example of political critique and literature.

The novel and its apparent transparency is so due to its straightforward structure and narrative. It's ability to showcase struggle as well as a nation makes it a fundamental part of Israeli themed literature and to the founding of Israel. The way in which the story transpires and the use of Hebrew as wellas depiction of Arab language is in a way a means of establishing the country of Israel. A good example of the way the Arab language was perceived can be found on page 97, they could not comprehend much of what the Arab was saying, as the harsh guttural consonants of the Arab's pronounciation appeared exaggerated and odd, like sounds in and of themselves (Yizhar, De Lange & Dweck, 2008).

Conflict is also descibed within the novel, however it is not conflict in a traditional sense of conflict of interest or conflict between characters. More so it is conflict essential regarding semantics. It is clearly shown on page 22 as stated by one of the soldiers: "This here, this isn't a war, it's a children's game" (Yizhar, De Lange & Dweck, 2008, p. 22). The events of the so called "war" do not, in the minds of the soliders, appear like a war, they appear more like a game. This conflict is also represented in the narrator. The narrator in a sense, is constantly questioning, a questioning stemming from the first voice.

To better explain the conflict or questioning of the narrator is more like a split within the conciousness of the narrator instead of, of the conciousness of the narrator. Simply put, it signifies a monologue in the guise of a dialogue. Ulimately what was originally considered a child's game, is then brought back to its reality, a war as shown on page 88, "This war."

The narrative centers on the routine evacuation of an Arab town/village with the voice of the narrator experiencing more and more emotional turmoil and stress concerning the "war." Until page 104, the narrator has a kind of epiphany over the word "exile." "Something struck me like lightning. All at once everything seemed to mean something different, more precisely: exile. This was exile. This was what exile was like. This is what exile looked like" (Yizhar, De Lange & Dweck, 2008, p. 104). Looking at the context surrounding when the novel was written, the author used exile as a means of epiphany for the narrator because Israel came to exist based on the negation of exile.

In essense negation of exile gave the right to have war, to push back the Arab people and to exist as a nation and as a people. For two thousand years, the Jews experienced exile. As explained on page 109, the Jews were the refugees and to take back home, or to give back the name of refugees is to negate any negative feelings or guilt about war and the kind of actions needed to facilitate negation of exile. So in essence, to rectify the exile of the Jews, there is additional exile of the Arabs. The Arabs were once the masters, but now, now the Jews became the masters.

The book also covers other topics such as ambiguity in miltary command. Page 8 it shows that "anything was possible" even if things were planned and foreseen. Through higlighting of the interruptive repetition of "it said" the author makes a clear fracture in the structure of the novel. It shows the reader what is planned, what is foreseen cannot be. This is a great example of Yizhar's use of semantics as well as his use of word structure. He does this throughout the novel and is important to make note of.