|
The Israel-Palestine Conflict: One Hundred Years of War | 
 enlarge | Author: James L. Gelvin
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Category: Book
List Price: $24.99
Buy New: $12.98
You Save: $12.01 (48%)
New (26) Used (18) from $12.98
Rating:  4 reviews
Sales Rank: 404391
Media: Paperback
Edition: 2
Pages: 312
Number Of Items: 1
Shipping Weight (lbs): 1
Dimensions (in): 8.9 x 6 x 0.9
ISBN: 0521716527
Dewey Decimal Number: 956.94054
EAN: 9780521716529
ASIN: 0521716527
Publication Date: September 3, 2007
Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
Shipping: Expedited shipping available
Shipping: International shipping available
| |
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
|
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description
The conflict between Israelis and Palestinians has lasted over a century. James L. Gelvin's account of that conflict, from the first glimmerings of national consciousness among Jews and Ottoman Palestinians to the present, offers a compelling, accessible and up-to-the-moment introduction for students and general readers. The book makes no attempt to be encyclopedic in coverage. It is rather an interpretive, thematically composed essay, set within the framework of global history. Now in a revised edition, Gelvin's award-winning book takes the reader through the 2006 Summer War and its aftermath.
Book Description
James Gelvin's account of the Israel-Palestine conflict, from the first glimmerings of national consciousness among Jews and Ottoman Palestinians to the present, offers a compelling and up-to-the-moment introduction for students and general readers. It is written as an interpretive, thematically composed essay, set within the framework of global history.
|
| Customer Reviews:
 BRILLIANT and ENGAGING September 8, 2005
C. M. Stephens (Chicago, Illinois)
26 out of 28 found this review helpful
I've read many books on the Israel/Palestine conflict (Smith, Tessler, Bickerton/Klausner, etc.) but this one is by FAR the best. First, it's actually fun to read. Gelvin writes as if he is there in the room having a conversation. The book is peppered with jokes and wry observations, and although Gelvin obviously knows his way around the academic world, there is none of the usual academic jargon. Second, most historians present history as one disconnected thing after another. Gelvin states a theme at the beginning of the book and sticks to it. For Gelvin, the conflict has had three phases: the first involved the initial encounter between two peoples (Jewish settlers and Arabs); the second began in 1948 when it was defined as an interstate "Arab-Israeli conflict" and the Palestinian question dropped off the map for most of the world (except the PLO); the third began in 1993 when Israelis and Palestinians recognized each other and brought the conflict full circle. This should be obvious, yet no one else I've read has said this directly. Also, the author keeps reminding the reader of the global context for the conflict, from the emergence of nationalism in Europe and its impact on Jews and Arabs in the nineteenth century to the impact of the end of the Cold War.
This is definitely a five star book, but I can see how it will drive some people nuts (i.e. those who can't bring themselves to use the words "Palestine" or "Palestinian" in their reviews). Zionists claim their nationalism is special, but Gelvin points out that it is pretty much a typical 19th century nationalism: it reconstructs Jewish history in its image, it insists that Jews have a right to establish a sovereign state on a piece of land they ruled thousands of years ago, etc. But all nationalisms do the same thing. What will really drive people nuts is that Gelvin shows how much Zionism and Palestinian nationalism resemble each other: both invent traditions, both claim to fulfill their peoples' national destinies, both have used terror to accomplish their goals. Gelvin doesn't let the Zionists off the hook, but he doesn't let the Palestinians off the hook either. Just read his analysis of the PLO doctrine of armed struggle or his profile of Arafat. His argument here is simple: while both national movements have a lot to answer for, if you accept the right of Jews or Palestinians to self-determination, you really can't ignore the right of the other side to self-determination either.
One small criticism: I read another book by this author (The Modern Middle East) in which he added inserts with anecdotes and stories that were related to points raised in the main text. They were a really good read, and I wish he did the same in this book.
Outstanding analysis of the roots of the Israel-Palestine question January 13, 2006
tarihci202
17 out of 19 found this review helpful
Like Gelvin's other general readership work, The Modern Middle East (Oxford University Press, 2005), this is more an analytical essay than traditional textbook. In a field of study that is almost impossibly broad, this work aims to center on central themes and problems rather than a step-by-step narrative of events. More than anything else, reading this work is like sitting down with a very smart, very knowledgeable person for many cups of coffee: you learn a lot, but a lot gets breezed by as well. And the time passes quickly.
This emphasis on the "big picture" is both the book's greatest strength and its most significant weakness. Although aimed at undergraduates and a general audience, without recourse to other works, the reader may not feel that they have a sufficient grasp of chronology or of major actors. For this reason, readers may well find a basic textbook like those by Charles Smith or Mark Tessler to be of value. At the same time, what this work offers - far more than any other work that I know of - is an understanding of the Arab-Israeli conflict as rooted in the very modern problem of nationalism. In a field that often gets caught up in the details or polemics, this broad approach is both engaging and intellectually provocative, offering the reader a means of seeing the Arab-Israeli conflict in a broader context than is generally offered.
Gelvin's breezy style is, at times, too dismissive and, while he argues that both Zionism and Palestinian nationalism are both modern constructions, his fundamental sympathy for the Palestinian cause is clear. This "imbalance" will, no doubt, engage some readers and annoy others. Regardless of political inclinations, however, there are few readers, either novice or specialist, who would not benefit from a careful reading of this engaging and important survey.
A Historian's Historian; A Reader's Writer December 17, 2005
Avidreader (Miami, FL)
16 out of 18 found this review helpful
As an amateur historian, I appreciate it when I read a book that takes an over-exposed subject and makes it fresh. Gelvin is a superb historian and writer as well as a polymath who is entirely comfortable writing about politics, literature, international exhibitions, poetry, and world history. He uses a short story by the Jewish-Austrian writer Joseph Roth to investigate how and why European Jews turned to nationalism, archaeological evidence to describe how nationalisms like Zionism remake national histories, Palestinian poetry to elaborate the experience of exile, and biographical sketches (Theodor Herzl, Ariel Sharon, Yasir Arafat, Mahmoud Darwish) to make history come alive. His writing is fluent, witty, and never pedantic. I almost felt guilty reading a book this enjoyable about such a bloody and endless conflict.
 Misleading August 20, 2005
Jill Malter (jillmalter@aol.com)
12 out of 57 found this review helpful
Gelvin is a professor who knows plenty of facts. But that does not stop him from misleading his readers in this piece of propaganda.
This book does have some really interesting material in it. Some of it is about Masada. Here, the author complains that the traditional Masada story is pretty far off. I tend to agree with much of what Gelvin says here. But I also feel that Gelvin is wrong to imply that Masada is being used as an excuse by Jews for the policies of Israel. I think Israeli policies are typically driven by a desire of Israel to protect the rights of its citizens.
The author discusses Golda Meir's comments about the Levantine Arab nation not having existed prior to 1967. Gelvin and I disagree here: he says that Meir's claim was absurd, while I say it was accurate. As a matter of fact, I think the Levantine Arabs still do not behave like a nation. They do not ask for rights for themselves. They do not ask for land. They ask only for less rights for Jews. They are more like the Sudeten Germans, who did not ask for independence, but merely for an end to Czech independence. Or the Ku Klux Klan, which does not ask for freedom for Whites, but an end to freedom for Blacks.
Gelvin spends some time discussing the Levantine Pavilion at the 1939 New York World's Fair. This exhibit looked like an idealized Jewish "tower and stockade" construction. And I found the whole section quite interesting. But I was shocked that Gelvin did not appear to take a strong stand against the way the British were treating the Jews at the time. As I see it, the British White Paper of 1939 was one of the most obviously evil acts of a rather wicked twentieth century. I can't imagine why anyone would want to appear to be neutral about it. But Gelvin implies that the Jews should have been more moderate, at a time when we can all see that moderation was totally unsuccessful in preventing a truly huge disaster in which millions of Jews were murdered. That's quite a view to take.
Just to make sure that we readers can be sure where Gelvin stands, he then whitewashes the "poetry" of racist thugs such as Mahmoud Darwish. And he casually mentions that the Jews took land that belonged to the Arabs. But wait a second. Does all land belong to the Arabs? Even land that wasn't Arab before, or was sold by the Arabs to others? Gelvin is misleading his readers quite badly here by implying that all of the Levant was (and is) rightfully Arab land. And he has to know better than that.
In my opinion, if the Arabs want peace, they can have it in five minutes, just by calling off their war and abiding Jewish rights in the region. I suspect the Jews truly want peace, even one that may not be totally fair to them. But it doesn't matter: the Jews would have no choice but to accept such a peace, since they need peace to survive and prosper.
I think we need some scholarly works on the Arab war against Israel, rather than all the propaganda we see. And I think that Gelvin knew enough material to write such a book. Unfortunately, he did not write that book. He wrote this one.
|
|
|
|
| |
