I read this book as part of a personal Jewish Alternate History Reading project. I think I'd like to start this review by sifting through what I think Semel was trying to accomplish here. According to her jacket copy and various reviews, she was probing the idea of identity, persecution and prejudice in a world without Israel. I may be in the minority opinion (along with Kirkus Books, with whom I have an up and down relationship :P) but I don't think she succeeded.
The narrative is divided into three parts. The whole time I was picturing Doc Brown by his blackboard in "Back to the Future Part 2" explaining about how the past timeline skeeeeeewed into this alternate reality. :P No, the DeLorean doesn't make an appearance in the novel, but Semel uses the same set up as the movie--we start in real September 2001, we move into real September 1825, and then jump into alternative September 2001.
In our September 2001, we follow Detective Simon Lenox in a close third person noir narration, while he attempts to find a disappeared Israeli in New York. Along the way we're privy to his cynical thoughts about his own life, and his cynical-to-antisemitic thoughts about Jews and Israelis. He takes up with a Jewish colleague, which I chalked up to Plot Reasons. (Themes repeat.) Anywho, he ultimately catches up with his guy on Grand Island, New York. Turns out said guy, Liam Emanuel, is the descendant of the real life Mordecai Manuel Noah, who bought Grand Island in 1825 as a haven for world Jewry.
The second, and strongest, part is a lyrical accounting told by the daughter of a Native American chief who takes Noah to the island (where we skeeeeew from real history, it seems. :P He never actually set foot there, if wikipedia is to be believed. She also ends up having children with Noah.) I really love how our unnamed narrator/former Grand Island inhabitant interpreted Noah's stories of Jewish history and heritage into a Lakota cultural re-telling. She was the servant to a white family, the Lenoxes, and so got to deal with their prejudices against her people, against African slaves as personified through their "boy" Simon, and then with the Jews when Noah came to them. I love how she sifted through this marginalization and Otherness.
Then, the alternative history deals with the "what if" Grand Island became Isra-Isle, America's safe haven for the Jews. I think this was the weakest part, so cynically I perhaps understand why Semel obfuscated it with a confusing second person narrative choice. Because logically, very little of this made sense. She had this throw-away line about how Isra-Isle's existence served as a refuge in the 1930s and therefore no Holocaust--wait, what? You're missing a fair few steps in there. Also: what about other post-1835 Jewish persecutions, like the Russian pogroms? Two major waves of Jewish immigration to America happened during and after the latter 19th century. Then the Iranian Revolution encouraged the immigration of Persian Jews. What happened to them? And what happened to the Jews, like Noah's Sephardic kin, who already lived in America? So many ripple effects, and I'm just focusing on the Tribe here!
But most obviously, having a Jewish refuge state would probably go against the First Amendment--no establishment of religion. I mean, my own state, Maryland, was founded to be a refuge for Catholics, but that was before Independence, but by the time they were brought into the United States, it was more diverse. Now I'm really curious as to how THE YIDDISH POLICEMEN'S UNION will handle the "Jewish refuge in America" issue and if I'll find it more believable.
I do like how Semel incorporated Lakota and Jewish customs in Isra-Isle. At first I found it off-putting, but surely real Jewish practice and culture has been affected by the places where we've lived in the people with whom we've interacted. Though I'm still a little iffy about how thoroughly the bar mitzvah ceremony was threaded into Lakota ceremonies. Is this how Israelis like Semel see American Jewish practice, as basically one step removed from American Christian practice? Am I over-thinking things? :P
So, a plus--this novel gave me a lot to think about. I also enjoyed the puzzle-solving aspect of threading similar names and themes throughout the three storylines, but that does not a compelling narrative make. Certainly not a cohesive one. Most prominently, perhaps I'm curious about why she included 9/11 in both timelines--maybe as a reminder that you can't subvert all disaster. Though she kind of contradicts an earlier point that her character makes about a peaceful Middle East.
The characters are the real turn off for me, alas. None of them were compelling or three dimensional--the whole style over substance argument. It worked for me in the second installment. Not so much in the other two. But props to the writing and Jessica Cohen's translation. Each part felt unique.