Israel: A History

by Martin Gilbert

“The most comprehensive account of Israeli history yet published.”   —  The Sunday Telegraph “An epic history . . . a picture of an Israel that persevered and prevailed, that was determined to survive and was unwilling to trust its independence to others but sought peace whenever possible.” — Foreign Affairs Israel is a small and relatively young country, but since the day of its creation more than half a century ago, its turbulent history has placed it squarely at the center of the world stage. For two millennia the Jews, dispersed all over the world, prayed for a return to Zion. Until the nineteenth century, that dream seemed a fantasy, but then a secular Zionist movement was born and soon the initial trickle of Jewish immigrants to Palestine turned into a flood as Jews fled persecution in Europe. From these beginnings, preeminent historian Martin Gilbert traces the events and personalities that would lead to the sudden, dramatic declaration of Statehood in May 1948. From that point on, Israel’s history has been dominated by Suez, the Six Day War, the Yom Kippur War, the Lebanon and the Intifada. Using contemporary documents and eyewitness accounts, and drawing on his own intimate knowledge of the country and its people, Martin Gilbert weaves together a riveting, page-turning history of a powerful and proud nation, from the struggles of its pioneers in the nineteenth century up to the present day.

Genres: History, Israel, Nonfiction, Middle East, Politics, Jewish, Judaism

576 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1998

About the author

The official biographer of Winston Churchill and a leading historian on the Twentieth Century, Sir Martin Gilbert was a scholar and an historian who, though his 88 books, has shown there is such a thing as “true history”

Born in London in 1936, Martin Gilbert was educated at Highgate School, and Magdalen College, Oxford, graduating with First Class Honours. He was a Research Scholar at St Anthony's College, and became a Fellow of Merton College, Oxford in 1962, and an Honorary Fellow in 1994. After working as a researcher for Randolph Churchill, Gilbert was chosen to take over the writing of the Churchill biography upon Randolph's death in 1968, writing six of the eight volumes of biography and editing twelve volumes of documents. In addition, Gilbert has written pioneering and classic works on the First and Second World Wars, the Twentieth Century, the Holocaust, and Jewish history.
Gilbert drove every aspect of his books, from finding archives to corresponding with eyewitnesses and participants that gave his work veracity and meaning, to finding and choosing illustrations, drawing maps that mention each place in the text, and compiling the indexes. He travelled widely lecturing and researching, advised political figures and filmmakers, and gave a voice and a name “to those who fought and those who fell.”

https://twitter.com/sirmartin36

https://www.facebook.com/sirmartingil...

Reviews

[Matt · Rating 4 out of 5]

“At five o’clock on the afternoon of 14 May 1948, in the main hall of the Tel Aviv Museum, a ceremony took place that inaugurated the State of Israel. The ceremony began with the singing of the Jewish anthem ‘Hatikvah.’ A few moments later David Ben-Gurion, as Prime Minister and Minister of Defense of the newly created provisional government, put his signature to Israel’s Declaration of Independence. As the other signatories completed their work, ‘Hatikvah’ was played again, by the Palestine Symphony Orchestra. Palestine was no more…”
- Martin Gilbert, Israel: A History

There are few topics as emotionally fraught today as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It’s not hard to understand why, with graphic images beamed out across the world every day. If you go online, you can easily find videos from the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel by Hamas, which killed over a thousand people. Likewise, there is voluminous footage of Israel’s invasion of the Gaza Strip, which killed many thousands more. The horror is everywhere, every deadly act prompting a lethal response.

It is hard to watch someone die on a screen and not feel an overwhelmingly visceral response. As a result, any discussion about this corner of the globe tends to devolve – perhaps justifiably – into impassioned appeals to emotion, with both sides claiming that the stakes involve existence itself.

Given this environment, Martin Gilbert’s Israel: A History feels like an ancient relic. It is an old-fashioned work of history that, like many of Gilbert’s books, is the size of a small brick. Obviously, it is not without its biases – which will be touched upon below – but its style is semi-plodding and dryly factual, bringing it close to emotional neutrality.

***

Gilbert uses a standard chronological format in Israel, beginning in the late 19th century, with the birth of Zionism, and ending in the first decade of the 21st century, with peace between Israelis and Palestinians still elusive. His affinity for the timeline is such that most of the chapters are date-stamped, and the year is printed at the top of every page. Whatever else can be said, Israel is methodical in its presentation.

In terms of content, Gilbert’s focus is chiefly on war and politics, with extensive coverage of the British Mandate, the Arab-Israeli War of 1948, the Sinai campaign of 1956, the Six Day War of 1967, the Yom Kippur War of 1973, and the invasion of Lebanon in 1982. Every once in a while, Gilbert will cut away from the politicians and the soldiers to acknowledge other aspects of Israel. However, these digressions are random, rushed, and serve only to illustrate his overall disinterest in such things. For example, there is a strange, roughly one-page interlude covering Placido Domingo’s contract to sing with the Hebrew National Opera. At another point, Gilbert dedicates three pages to a hurried discussion of Israel’s novelists, national parks, road deaths, and climate.

Toward the end of the book, Gilbert bemoans the fact that Israel is known for her “wars, her political and social divisions, [and] conflict with her neighbors and with the Palestinians,” rather than for her “achievements, which are considerable.” Of course, he adds to this situation, rather than ameliorates it.

***

Any book like this is naturally going to be overtaken by events. With discrete historical events, you have a start date and an end date; with a still-living country, time marches on. Israel was originally published in 1998, and was revised and expanded in 2008 to coincide with the sixtieth anniversary of the nation’s founding. Despite the update, a lot has happened since Gilbert wrapped this project. It is therefore not useful with regard to current events, except to the extent that memories of a disputed past shape the actions of today.

***

Gilbert was an extremely prolific and popular historian. Having read several of his doorstoppers, I will confess to respecting his work more than loving it. I think he does a marvelous job of marshaling information, and forging a coherent path through incredibly complicated events. He’s good at the big picture. Nevertheless, I find his abilities as a storyteller to be lacking.

To me, Gilbert’s prose is rather flat, and he seems more intent on piling fact upon fact than in using that raw material to craft a vivid scene. Moreover, in a book full of memorable characters, he entirely ignores any characterizations. I hasten to add, though, that “good” writing, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, and that there are plenty of people who have found Gilbert’s style lively and engaging.

***

Now let’s talk about objectivity.

In short, Israel is not objective. This is not surprising, because I’m not sure objectivity is possible here, with every reality subject to differing interpretations.

By way of example, the arrival of Jewish men and women on the shores of Palestine is established. It happened, and no one doubts this. The meaning of their arrival, though, is controversial. To Gilbert, they were refugees and immigrants, fleeing from prejudice, persecution, and outright murder. To a different writer – such as Rashid Khalidi in The Hundred Years’ War on Palestine – those same people were “settler colonists,” with all the negative connotations associated with imperialism. Both Gilbert and Khalidi are looking at the same thing, and deriving vastly different conclusions.

Anyway, Israel is about – well, you probably guessed – Israel. It is written from the perspective of Israel and Israelis. While it obviously touches upon the plight of Palestinians, there are a dearth of Palestinian or Arab voices in these pages. I don’t really think this is the result of an agenda, but the consequence of unexamined assumptions, as well as the scope of the book.

***

Ultimately, honesty is more important to me than objectivity, however that’s defined. I can accept that an author – at least one who is human, rather than a species of artificial intelligence – is going to bring to their work their own experiences, relationships, and worldview. What I can’t accept is an author who lets those things affect what they put in, and what they leave out, especially when that’s done to push a narrative.

Regardless of his sympathy for Israel, Gilbert does not ignore the dark side of nation building. He does not pretend that Palestine was an empty land; he acknowledges Jewish terror attacks during the Mandate period; he describes the expulsion of Palestinians and how Israel used military victories to expand their territory; and notes atrocities such as the Sabra and Shatila massacre, which was abetted by the Israel Defense Force.

***

The value in Israel comes not from its literary merits or polemical force, neither of which it has in abundance. Rather, it is useful as a framework. It shows you, step-by-step, how Israel came into being. In an ongoing war partly fueled by the grievances of the past, this is no small thing.

[Samantha · Rating 4 out of 5]

I picked up this book after being verbally assaulted by a number of co-workers in a rather heated discussion on the Middle East. (Are there any other kinds?) Although I felt I had a reasonable sense of the historical context of Israel, well it seemed the prudent thing to do get us much information as possible. I could have bought any number of books but as Mr Gilbert seemed to have a soft spot for Churchill (as do I ) this seemed like a good choice, despite its size! It's well written and well researched and I like his ability to put forth the facts without overwhelming them with passionate rhetoric. This book is not here to convince you of anything, but rather to tell you the story of a nation's emergence and the good and the bad that arose out of it. This was an easy read (believe it or not) and has subsequently served me well as a reference tome as well. In fact I wrote to Mr Gilbert and he was kind enough to send me an updated copy of the map of Israel and its changing outline over the years. I think this is an excellent unbiased introduction into the history of the Israeli state. Well worth your time.

[Gary · Rating 5 out of 5]

Martin Gilbert, in this comprehensive volume, chronicles the history of the Land of Israel (Eretz Yisrael), from 1862 to 1997.
He describes the ancient attachment of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel, through the millenia. Since the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans in CE 70, the Jews who were dispersed all over the Roman Empire, had prayed for a return to Zion.
'Next year' in Jerusalem, has always been the hope expressed at the end of every Passover meal, commemorating the exodus from Egypt.
During the 1700s movements of Hasidic Jews took place to Eretz Yisrael, from Eastern Europe.
By mid-19th century there were around 10 000 Jews living in Eretz Yisrael.
More than 8000 of them lived in Jerusalem. A few hundred lived in the ancient holy city of Safed in the north, in Tiberius, Acre and Jaffa, and there was a community in Peki'in, where there has been a continuous presence of Jews since the destruction of the Second Temple.
He describes the origins of the modern Zionist movement born out of Jewish national aspirations and the ages old attachment to Israel: Moses Hess, George Eliot, Bilu and Hovevei Zion, the return to the land, the actualization of the Zionist programme by Theodore Herzl, and the rebuilding of the blighted and empty Palestine.
By 1914 there were 90 000 Jews living in the Land of Israel, of whom 75 000 were immigrants.
Gilbert reviews the Arab attacks on Jewish communities, in 1920-21, 1929 and 1936-1939, in which Jewish communities were attacked and thousands of Jewish men, women and children murdered.
The answers today to the problems posed by the opponents of Zionism, were already evident before the State of Israel was re-established.
Islamic radicals and the international extreme left demmand that Israel be dismantled and be replaced by a unitary Arab 'Palestine' in which the Jews would survive at the tolerance of Hamas and the PLO.
Zionist leader Arthur Ruppin wrote in 1931 that there was no hope for the Jews to rely, for their survival on Arab goodwill:
"At most the Arabs would agree to grant national rights to the Jews in an Arab state, on the pattern of national rights in Eastern Europe. But we know only too well from conditions in Eastern Europe how little a majority with executive power can be moved to grant real and complete real and national equality to a minority. The fate of of the Jewish minority in Palestine would always be dependent upon the goodwill of the Arab majority which would steer the state."
With Hamas in the ascendancy today, among the Palestinians, with it's aim to clear 'Palestine' of all Jews, and it's murderous apparatus, we all know that a 1 State Solution would lead to a second holocaust of Jews.
Israel was created so that Jews could rely on themselves for their own security and welfare, afetr two thousand years of being subjected to tyrants and murderous rabble.
This remains the case, more than ever today, and always will.
Gilbert covers the massive immigration to Israel, from Germany in the 1930's of hundreds of thousands of Jews fleeing form Hitler's Nazi Reich, and how Britain later shut the doors to Jewish immigration into Israel, while allowing massive immigration from neighbouring Arab regions.
Millions of Jews, who could have fled, to Israel, were instead consumed in the Nazi infernos, in part due to Arab-British connivance.
We read of the in depth anti-Semitic and Nazi-influenced culture, inculcated among Arabs , since the time of Hitler's arch-ally and leader of the Palestinian Arabs, Mufti Haj Amin el Husseini.
Later, for example, we read of how Egyptian troops captured by Israeli soldiers, during the Suez War of 1956, carried on them Arabic translations of Hitler's Meim Kampf.
We read of the survival of the Jews in Palestine during World War II, and how it miraculously survived being overwhelmed by the Axis powers in neighbouring Syria, Lebanon and Egypt.
Finally we read of the struggles of the state internally and externally.
The growth of a society of refugees, and their descendants, refugees either from Nazi-occupied Europe, and holocaust survivors, and of the 800 000 Jews brutally driven out of Arab countries, after 1948.
Of the wars for survival, and of the countless terror attacks, across the borders from the 1950's.
The continuous provocation and murder from Israel's Arab neighbours , and we discover how every war, contrary to Islamic and radical left propaganda, was initiated by the Arabs and their allies.
Unfortunately, the last few chapters of the book, seems to have a bias towards the left of the Israeli political spectrum, and the demand that Israel gives countless concessions to the 'Palestinians', with nothing in return.
The last word, for me, however go's to the former Chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv, Chaim David HaLevi who in response to one of the countless Arab atrocities against Israeli women and children, said at the funeral of a an elderly holocaust survivor, who died in a Hamas suicide bombing, in 1997:"These deaths are more painful than all of the losses of the Jewish people suffered while in exile. Here they are trying to flush us out of our homeland. But we will stay in this land, despite everything".
G-D Bless the Jews of the Land of Israel, forever!

[Rick · Rating 2 out of 5]

Gilbert, a prolific historian, authorized biographer of Winston Churchill, and historical map fan, wrote Israel, A History, for Israel’s 50th anniversary as a state, which says all you need to know about its purpose. Still, if you need an additional clue, there is the phrase at the top of the revised edition’s Israeli-flag motif cover, “Celebrating Israel’s 60th Anniversary.” For the occasion the book got a couple-three new chapters to bring it up to date (approximately to 2007) and throughout its various edition’s the author works hard to live up to the spirit of celebration.

In addition to being patently pro-Israel, Gilbert’s political bias is liberal-center. Ben Gurion and the early Israeli governments led by Labour are well defended, I think to a point of denial at times; the right, including the Revisionists in the decades prior to Israel’s founding are marginalized and, particularly early, under-covered. Given that, it is perhaps unnecessary to say that Palestinian Arabs and Israel’s Arab neighbors exist marginally too, in opposition to Zionists and then to Israel. Oh, and perhaps because he is British, little critical is made of Great Britain’s role in the chaos that became the modern Middle East. The Balfour Declaration and other actions that support Israel’s narrative are covered, but the Arab Revolt and the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence, which complicates that narrative, go unmentioned. At its best, British foreign policy in the Mideast during and after the Great War could be viewed as undisciplined and contradictory, at worse, cynical and duplicitous. Essentially it seemed to have three departmentalized goals: support the Zionist pursuit of a homeland in Palestine, support the Arabs in their pursuit of independence, including Palestine, and conspire with France to divide up the former Ottoman Empire into colonies or client states. In the end, as the expiration of the internationally sanctioned British Mandate approached, Great Britain threw up its hands and walked away as if they had no responsibility for the war(s) to follow. Not the Empire’s finest moment (but, alas, probably not its darkest either) but given the topic and Gilbert’s knowledge of the 20th century British and world history, a puzzling choice of a topic to leave unexplored.

Israel, A History, is not as reliable or thorough as Howard Sachar’s History of Israel from the Rise of Zionism to Our Time, which is also pro-Israel, because Sachar at least gives you sufficient detail to have a contrary opinion on events. If you read Gilbert without some knowledge you may or may not notice that stuff is missing.

Gilbert is a graceful writer and marshals the details that support his perspective cogently, when not being negligent. (That’s a big caveat, however.) He can brilliantly seed a narrative with a potent anecdote; but also just drop some anecdotes as abruptly as a non-sequitur into a narrative thread that they have no relation to; and, worse, other anecdotes come as fat emotional thumbs put on the scale to trigger outrage at some Arab outrage or other that are not paralleled when reporting on outrages committed by Zionists or Israelis. Instead, the formula is to talk about the soul-searching that Israel undergoes (without an identified outcome to that soul-searching). This isn’t just questionable historical practice but ethically questionable.

That Gilbert has a gift for storytelling is clear. As he comes to the time of the Oslo Accords and Rabin and Peres, his affection is obvious and his alignment with their pushes for a two-state solution results in a powerful string of chapters on the need for a peaceful solution, the rising danger of right-wing extremism and the rhetoric of violence that preceded Rabin’s assassination. The revised text ends with Sharon’s death and the still ongoing efforts to secure a peace in an explosive, easily triggered climate of grievance and suspicion with a propensity for violent retaliation. That peace efforts were still ongoing at the time of the writing allowed Gilbert to cling to an uneasy optimism that events since—the long reign of Netanyahu and the continued settlements in occupied territories, none of which Gilbert viewed positively—has strongly contradicted. The Iron Wall by Avi Shlaim remains, in my limited reading, the most useful critical analysis of Israel’s history. It strives for objectivity, is fair to Palestinian Arabs. It sorts complexity, attends to nuance. It is not comprehensive, however, but focused solely on political history. Sachar and Gilbert, given the conflict-cursed and unsettled nature of Israel’s brief history, are also almost entirely political histories as well, but they do have economic, social and cultural coverage to varying degrees, which Shlaim does not. Of the two, I’d recommend Sachar over Gilbert, just don’t limit your reading to either.

[Nick Borrelli · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was okay but unfortunately not what I was looking for. It spent too much time on meaningless minutiae and not enough on the events that I really wanted to find out about. I guess I will have to look elsewhere if I want to find a more satisfying history of Israel. This one didn't scratch my itch sadly.

[Johnny Gourami · Rating 3 out of 5]

Like all Martin Gilberts book i found Israel:a history crammed full of historical documentary evidence without a bias or a salespitch. It is difficult to find a book on Israel which doesnt either try to justify the racism and brutality of Zionism and Israel war crime violations or spend the entire chapters of the book chronicleing only war crimes and UN violations. This book list some war crimes, false flag operations and immoral arms dealing as any factual book on Israel should.
Gilbert is no Dershowitz or Chomsky he is a knighted phD historian and it shows.

[Andy Bryant · Rating 4 out of 5]

Enjoyed that but at times a bit tough going, especially the constant diversions in the first part of the book to document every single settlement as it's founded. I enjoyed the last 30% of the book the most, but suspect this was due to the fact it covered events (Lebanon War, the PLO, peace process) I remember from the news when growing up. One thing about the book is you need to have a pretty good understanding of the geography of Israel/Sinai, as much of the narrative deals with the ever fluctuating borders between the state and its neighbours. The book contains maps but in the Kindle version they're lumped in at the end, whereas I would have preferred the maps to have been presented in the context of the narrative. possibly just a Kindle thing, this.

[Michael Sump · Rating 5 out of 5]

I started reading this book while visiting Israel, and it was a tremendous help to enrich my understanding and enjoyment of this amazing country. By coincidence, I was there for both Israel’s “Memorial Day” and their “Day of Independence.”

The first is a day of mourning for the entire country, for everyone has incurred the loss of loved ones in the many wars and conflicts of the past 67 years. The following day, though, is a day of great joy as this Jewish nation celebrates the birth of their homeland and the culmination of 2000 years of exile following the destruction of their temple in Jerusalem and their expulsion from Israel at the hands of the Romans.

This is a tremendous book and it tells the complete story of the first 55 years of Israel’s existence and of the 75 years or so that proceeded the founding of Israel, as the idea of it was born with the Zionist movement and as steps were taken that led to its creation. It was thoroughly researched and well written. Mr. Gilbert does not sugarcoat the struggle, avoid the massive pain inflicted on them, nor deny the morally complicated steps that were sometimes necessary to make a new nation within an Arab sea.

The story begins with the rise of the Zionism and the effort to begin populating the moribund land of Palestine with Jews from around the diaspora. We learn of their efforts to create sustainable settlements out of quite marginal land. In time, the Arab population began to hate the settlers who now shared their land and frequently outperformed them economically. This led to jealousy, to political scapegoating, and to violent reactions, at times, and these continue to this day.

Thus, the story of Israel is also the story of Palestine and of the Palestinians (a term coined in the years since WWII), as well as of all the neighboring Arab countries, each one born in the years following WWI.

As I said, it is a morally complicated story. It is my view that the Arabs have consistently missed opportunities to make a good deal for their people but have stuck with the rather insane notion that Israel can be wiped off the face of the earth. They have continually worked themselves into poor negotiating positions and have failed, in my view, to act honorably with the Arab refugees from the conflict. That is, the Palestinians have continually been used as a pawn by their Arab neighbors and supposed brothers.

In this regard, Israel has done better than their neighbors, as they’ve worked to incorporate their refugees into the larger society. They have, at times, acted graciously with the Arabs living within their borders. The Arab population of Israel is among the most prosperous and the most free in the world. However, the Israeli body politic is a complicated one, and there are forces within Israel that have acted as cruelly as their historical tormentors.

Israel is a nation, unique on the planet. It is fiercely democratic and a land governed by people of great passion. They have suffered centuries of pogroms, culminating is the industrialized murder of the Holocaust. It is fair to say that they have many enemies but that they will not go quietly if their existence is threatened in the future.

Israel is a democracy, and they are largely a Jewish nation. However, they are made up of Jews from all over the world and they come from many cultures and with many different world views. It makes for a complicated political makeup and has created fierce divisions within their society. Only the threat of extinction keeps them together. This nation has not known peace, and they will not know it in the near term.

[Jonathan · Rating 4 out of 5]

I doubt any book on Israel will ever will be considered to be objective. Better than total ignorance is an informed confusion, which this books lends itself to generating. Filled with detail from a time before major Jewish settlement of Palestine and the formation of the state of Israel, this book pulls few punches and makes for uneasy reading if you're British. My final assessment was one of sad bewilderment at rights and wrongs so entangled by repeated struggle that makes the Gordian knot look like a child's shoe lace. Fascinating and disturbing.

[Simcha York · Rating 5 out of 5]

Martin Gilbert's Israel: A History offers a comprehensive account of the development and rise of the State of Israel from the development of political Zionism in the mid-1800s to the aftermath of the peace process following the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin in 1995. This 2008 edition also includes new chapters covering the period from 2000 to 2007 which, while they fall outside the book's primary historical arc, are still interesting and informative.

Gilbert takes something of a "Great Man" approach to Israeli history - focusing primarily on the men - and women - who forged the fate of Israel. In Gilbert's accounts, these figures often loom larger than life, but not so much so that Gilbert can't bring their essential shared humanity back to the fore with a well-timed anecdote or detail.

Gilbert has a real talent for finding the narrative impetus in the historical moment and there are a number of occasions in which this book grip's the reader with the same force of a well-plotted novel, including the fearful lead-up to the 1967 war and the final weeks of Rabin's life as his assassin gets ever closer and closer to achieving his terrible task.

This is primarily a history of the leaders and conflicts that have shaped the Israeli state. While such issues as tensions between the Sephardic and Ashkenazic Jews are discussed, or the rise of the religious parties, the actual cultural and social context for these developments does not really fall within the scope of this particular account of Israeli history. However, given the size of the current volume and the comprehensiveness with which it does cover the material concerning it, such absences simply feel like material for another historian to take on rather than a flaw in the work at hand.

Gilbert appears to have had much more access to documentation and individuals working behind the scenes on the Israeli side of the Israeli-Arab and Israeli-Palestinian conflicts, so that in that sense the book can feel a bit one-sided at times. Yet, Gilbert is thorough in putting Israel's actions into record and will as readily present it's less noble moments as he will it's crowning achievements. All but the most dogmatic opponents of the State of Israel should find this a nuanced and balanced account of the rise of the 20th century Israeli state.

[Alice · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this book to try and get another perspective on the Israel-Palestine conflict.

It’s a history of Israel starting with the movement of Zionism in the 1890s. I found it informative but pretty dull.

The section of the book that goes through every new “settlement” one by one and why they were named is boring and tedious.

I was interested to see the Jewish immigrants referred to as “pioneers” instead of invaders. Reminded me of the way Europeans who invaded Australia used to be referred to.

The book is basically the recounting of war after war and conflict after conflict all through Israel’s history. I wonder why that could be.

The most interesting part was the period around the late 1990s I think it was, with all the political machinations happening around the “peace process”. Sounds like things could have been quite different if Rabin hadn’t been assassinated.

There was some acknowledgement in this book of the damage to Palestinians, and it was heartening to see there were some Israelis who cared and spoke up and campaigned on their behalf. I’m sure these kind of people still exist, and I hope they can escape to somewhere sane.

It’s a pity Israel has become a genocidal murderous regime as it will never become a respected state. Now we just wait for it to implode.

[Land Murphy · Rating 3 out of 5]

This history of Israel only takes the reader up to 1998. The first hundred pages is fairly dense prose, full of people and place names, which could cause one to put the book down. However, the history is compelling and readable for the next three or four hundred pages, taking the reader through the founding of the state of Israel and its wars. Unfortunately, the last one hundred pages demonstrates Gilbert's clear biases, reading more like a polemic than history. Gilbert is unable to be objective about the debates within Israel from the invasion of Lebanon to 1998. He lionizes one side and caricatures the other. The book suffers for it.

[Paul Jacobson · Rating 4 out of 5]

I wanted to learn more about the history of Israel and better understand my new home. Gilbert's book is a wonderful introduction to this land and its dynamics. Glad I read it.

[Manuel Sérgio · Rating 5 out of 5]

A História de Israel é uma História que habita a tensão e que é construída sempre a partir dela. Tensão com o mundo, com os seus vizinhos, mas também entre os próprios israelitas. Se é verdade que conta a História de um povo oprimido e perseguido, rodeado de ameaças e tantas vezes apanhado no fogo cruzado de potências regionais e internacionais, que não vêem a sua própria existência com "bons olhos", é também a História de um povo que vai aprendendo, como uma criança, a assumir a responsabilidade própria de uma nação soberana, sendo deparado com a escolha do isolamento e da vitimização ou da reconciliação e da paz, entre medos, conflitos e esperanças num mundo melhor.
Acima de tudo, creio que a mensagem que Martin Gilbert nos quer deixar é que há um sonho concreto para a Palestina, sonho esse que ainda reside nos corações de milhões de judeus e árabes, um sonho de coexistência, de camaradagem e cumplicidade entre dois povos que não escolheram habitar juntos a pequena faixa de terra entre o Mediterrâneo e o Jordão, mas que no seu íntimo entendem que os seus destinos estão intrinsecamente ligados.
A História de Israel é, por isso, uma Historia de esperança, a que podemos e temos necessariamente de nos agarrar, essa esperança que cada vez brilha com menos chama - no dia em que escrevo Israel acaba de anunciar uma intensificação nas hostilidades na Faixa de Gaza - e que precisava de ser renovada, para que algum dia possa haver verdadeira paz no Médio Oriente.

[Samantha · Rating 4 out of 5]

So glad I read this - a big commitment but well worth it. The book provides a comprehensive history of Israel from the late 19th century to the late 1990s written by an Israeli historian. The writing is largely factual (often at times a little too factual with many chapters often detailing the building of individual settlements year by year which added little value to me) and rarely opinionated. Gilbert presents no historical argument which is good if you are just after the facts and an understanding of Zionism and how Israel got to where it is today. Having said this however, I found the Palestinian primary and secondary sources limited which reduced my overall rating of the book. Chronologically ordered military history is presented in an easily accessible format with a moderate level of detail whilst also giving a social and political perspective to each conflict. Very detailed maps are contained in the appendices. The political and economic history of Israel was also well covered in each chapter. At times I felt explanations were lacking into some important events impacting upon Israel such as UN resolutions whereby the results of the vote were just stated and no geo-political discussion provided which would have helped the flow of the Israeli/international story better. It was a shame that the book ended at the first Oslo Accord as much water has passed under the bridge since.

[Todd Stockslager · Rating 1 out of 5]

First, let me say that the history of the nation of Israel is a fascinating story, but its hard to tell it from this journalistic scrap book cut and paste job telling of events with no attempt to integrate or explain.

From what I can tell (Gilbert doesn't help with this) the unsettled situation in Israel that has descended from occasional national wars to continual regional terrorism stems from some primary facts about Israel:

1. In 1948, after the nation was declared, there was a massive exchange of refugees--Palestinians moving out, Jews moving in. Israel quickly integrated its refugees economically, politically, socially, and spiritually. The Palestinians were kept intentionally isolated as refugees in their new countries, even up to today.

2. The continued occupation of Gaza and the West Bank after the 1967 war for security reasons brought a large Palestinian population under Israeli political leadership, setting the stage for an ongoing Arab problem (and was opposed by many Israeli leaders at the time)

3. The secularization of Israeli life and society has led to conflicts with a government increasingly isolated from its population because of . . .

4. . . . the gradual increase of religious influence in Israeli politics. Increasingly conservative religion-based political parties have had an enormous impact on the resolution of the questions of how to do deal with the Arab population in Israel and the Gaza/West Bank areas, the "peace process", and . . .

5. . . . the increasing and increasingly militaristic conservative Jewish resettlement in the disputed areas, which in a perfect- storm downward spiral reinforces the resolve of the Israeli government to maintain its presence in the disputed areas.

Again, these are my conclusions, Gilbert draws none and provides no discussion toward conclusions. It is as if he were paralyzed by the source materials and was unable to go beyond the cut and paste job that was the raw material for what might have been a worthwhile effort.

[Callum Soukup-Croy · Rating 4 out of 5]

There is no escaping the fact that this is a massive book but to deal with a topic as broad as Israel then it simply has to be. There are many accounts of Israeli history out there but the size of this book lends it a feature that I felt few others had, comprehensiveness. Gilbert starts off with the pre-Christianity history of Israeli lands (which helps put the claims to a Jewish state into context) before moving forward to the first Jewish settlers in the 19th century. The book then covers every aspect of the path to Israeli nationhood in the first half of the 20th century and the challenges it has faced in the second half. It does so without bias I feel, my allegiances switching between the two sides as the history of Israel and Palestine are laid out. In a conflict as ongoing and polarising as the Israeli-Palestinian one it is difficult to see things from both sides but Gilbert gives you the knowledge and context that allows you to view the dispute objectively.

Gilbert writes in a way that is engaging and makes the facts blend into the narrative so that before you know it you feel yourself becoming an expert on Israeli history. The book, from my point of view, has been expertly researched as there was information and snippets in there that I had never heard before and on their own would seem insignificant. However, in the context of the story he is telling these additions add much needed colour for the reader. I would recommend this book for anyone who feels that they want to know more about the events that have shaped one of the longest running conflicts in the Middle East. If you are already firmly on one side of the fence it may not do much to change your mind but if you can be open to the narrative that Gilbert offers you can broaden your understanding no end.

[Tomi · Rating 4 out of 5]

I got a lot out of this book; it brought home to me the reality of the dangers Israelis face every day and the many ways the rest of the world has let them down. It was hard to get into; most of the first hundred or so pages seemed to be a list of the various settlements established in Israel after the early Zionist movement. I'm glad I kept with it, though; there was so much information in the book. I like Gilbert's style; he doesn't display a lot of emotion when he tells about the atrocities committed against both Israeli and Palestinian. His matter-of-fact style makes those events that much more heart-wrenching. I found myself wondering, repeatedly, why we can't just all get along...Gilbert displays no overt bias toward Israel; he covers the mistakes made by the nation as well as the difficulties facing her. Reading this book also makes me want to read more books about the Palestinian issues.

[Zhelana · Rating 1 out of 5]

This author had a singularly impressive ability to make everything, including war, deathly boring. I also have no idea what was going on in this book regardless of being familiar with Israeli history. I guess it's kind of an old fashioned history book that doesn't try to be engaging but we got past that a long time ago in history. You can make it interesting, and still be a historian. He was also old fashioned in talking only about a few people, and then large battles and stuff. There was no mention of common people, or anything really interesting about history. I dunno. I got through 150 page of this book, and still was only 20% through, and I couldn't imagine myself continuing to read for another 80%.

[Mark Desrosiers · Rating 2 out of 5]

Martin Gilbert was post-WWII Brit Zionist, lucky enough to get pegged by Randolph Churchill to write a gazillion-volume biography of his dad. His credentials as a historian assured, Gilbert's written plenty since, usually without a smidgen of charisma or insight. Here, he treads gently and patriotically through Israel's emotionally charged territory, making this one of the most boring national histories I've ever read. At least the title is accurate (a history, not the history).

[Witek · Rating 2 out of 5]

A very poorly written book on a very interesting subjects. All the interesting information gets bogged down and hazed by tons of unimportant and boring details, i.e. every freaking settlement started by the Israelis in the Holy Land and absolutely every terrorist attack comitted by Palestinians since 1948. It's a pity the author didn't think it through, the potential was there.

[brigs · Rating 2 out of 5]

did not finish - had to stop readings as the intense bias of the author was showing, would not recommend.

[Tom Nixon · Rating 5 out of 5]

I know the basic outline of the existence of the state of Israel. I was around in the 90s for the Oslo Peace Process and it's I guess we would have to call it a collapse. I remember the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin and I think I was inadvertently responsible for the local Catholic school leaving their flag at half mast not for a week but for the better part of a month after I reminded the Principal that the President wanted all the flags at half-mast to honor Rabin. (I don't think the Catholic High School was trying to be extra or anything. I just think they did it, kept doing it, and eventually someone was like, 'Why are we doing this again?')

The point is, that I know a few things about the whole Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. In the wake of the attack of October 7th and the start of yet another conflict in the Middle East, I wanted to try and deepen my understanding to see if I could gain any useful insights or shreds of comfort about the possibilities for if not peace, then certainly, I think I would settle for not war. Yes, I know, it's an incomplete picture. I will get around to trying to read some sources from the Palestinian perspective at some point-- it's just that this book was like $2.50 on Kindle, so I snatched it up and dove in.

The biggest question I was curious about was the most online of them all: Is Zionism racism? Is it a settler/colonialist ideology? The answer that I was left with is yes, no, and depends on what period we're talking about. Are their strains of Zionism that call for a Jewish State 'between the River and the Sea'? Yes, there are. Do I think the early waves of Zionist immigration to Palestine qualify as a settler/colonialist project? No, I don't.

To me, the early waves- from 1878 until about 1934 or so are pretty cut and dried. You could quibble about the aftermath of World War I, when Palestine became a League of Nations Mandate under British control, and argue about white Europeans and the Balfour Declaration a bit as well, but it's worth noting that the first mentions of illegal immigration don't appear in Gilbert's text until 1934 or so when the split between Mainstream Zionism and Revisionism was becoming more pronounced and tipping over into actual violence and terrorism on the part of groups like the Irgun or the Stern Gang. Before that, the movement involved raising money amongst the Jewish diaspora or with wealthy patrons to go and legally purchase land in Palestine, mainly to farm.

That, to me, is not, a "hello, here's a smallpox blanket and get the fuck out" type of ideology. If the legal authorities at that time chose not to stop it, that's on them. But it's worth noting that the British- even with the Balfour Declaration, did not allow unrestricted Jewish immigration to Palestine. In fact, they actively tried to slow it down-- sometimes with the endorsement of the Jewish National Agency, which wanted more time to integrate immigrants, and by the mid-30s without their endorsement, they wanted to keep Palestine from exploding into sectarian violence.

The population disparities between Jews and Arabs were pronounced even up to as little as a decade before Israel declared independence. Jews made up between 20-30% of the population I would say until the start of World War II at least and Gilbert's text is very clear: a lot of mainstream Zionism was more interested in adhering to the language of the Balfour Declaration which called- not for the creation of a Jewish State, but a 'Jewish National Home' in Palestine. There were debates about declaring statehood right up until they actually took a vote and did it. Ben-Gurion was also very clear that they were willing to accept a lot less than what they actually got in order just to have something they could call their own and were always willing to reach an accommodation with the Arabs. They actively wanted to.

So, in that sense, no Zionism is not racism, it's not a settler/colonialist ideology. Sorry, no sale, I remain unconvinced. (Don't worry-- we'll get to today's situation soon.)

Europe, by the time 1878 rolled around, was in the midst of a rising orchard of nationalism. The Revolutions of 1848 failed- for the most part, but their effect was felt for a long time after. And in the midst of all of that, with Europe a best tolerating anti-semitism and at worst, countenancing actual pogroms against Jewish communities, it is no wonder that some of them got together and said, "Hey, wouldn't it be nice to have a place somewhere we could call our own?" It was a natural outgrowth of that. It makes sense- and while it wound up being Palestine, even that wasn't a sure thing. There was talk of Madagascar. There was talk of Uganda. No one set out with the explicit goal of expelling populations already existing in the area. Did that happen? Yet. But it was never- at least from what I can find- an explicit goal of mainstream Zionism.

I will grant you that maybe Gilbert doesn't want to tackle controversial topics- so maybe that impression, based solely on what I read in this book, is incorrect, but that was my takeaway.

Now: please note, that I said mainstream Zionism. Revisionism was a whole 'nother ball game. They advocated for a state on both banks of the Jordan. They also claimed to be adherents to the ideals of liberal democracy while also doing things like opening a Naval training base with Mussolini, so there's some weirdness there. But whether you can tie Revisionist thought to things like the Stern Gang and the Irgun and eventually, the rise of Conservative/Right Wing Parties like Likud, there is a strain of thought that is descended from this and is very present today in the conflict. The animating principle in the wake of the Six Day War for the Israeli Right was the settlement of The West Bank (what they call 'Judea and Samaria'). For all the criticism that pro-Palestinian folks get for using slogans like 'From the River To The Sea' I think it's absolutely fair game to point out that there are Israelis that think the same exact thing. It's a problem. It is a Settler/Colonialist ideology. And yes, I feel pretty comfortable saying that there are aspects of that area of thought/ideology that are racist as well.

The crux of the conflict- even today, is what happened in 1948 (and to an extent in 1967.) I think the Palestinians were sold a bill of goods by the Arabs. I understand why- because there were debates about declaring Statehood on the Israeli side of the equation and when they did so, they knew they were going to have to fight for it and they knew that success was by no means assured- they started off on the back foot with no planes (they got a shipment in from Czechoslovakia and had to assemble them) and no heavy weaponry in the early going either. It's an easy military calculus to look at that and say, "Yeah, go ahead and evacuate, we'll get you back in there in a week or two." Only that's not what happened at all and Palestinians have been living in refugee camps for decades now because none of the Arab armies were able to deliver on their promises. They're still waiting for that 'oh, we'll get you back there in a week or two' to materialize and at this point, I'm sorry, it just ain't coming.

Wars are never pretty-- and certainly, if you're arguing from a Palestinian point of view, you can point to things like Deir Yassin (done by Irgun militants, condemned by Israeli/Jewish authorities) and the expulsions in Lydda and Ramie (directly ordered by the IDF) and say, 'here, look, they murdered us and expelled us' and you wouldn't be wrong. Deir Yassin only spread terror and confusion amongst the Palestinian civilians that more massacres were coming and yeah, the expulsions of Lydda and Ramie were for lack of a better term, ethnic cleansing, straight up. Both of those ugly, shameful things directly benefited Israel and its war effort.

But no one talks about what happened after 1948. This wasn't just a one-sided expulsion of Palestinians from their land. Every country in the Middle East either outright expelled or strongly encouraged their Jewish populations to leave and where did most of them go? Israel. (This should put paid to the online idiocy about Israel being 'so white', etc. It won't, of course, but basic facts-- those damned inconvenient things, facts-- show that it's simply not the case. They can't all 'move back to Europe' because they're not from there to begin with.) I had no idea about any of this- but it also was a great insight into why you see so many Israelis and Israeli officials asking, 'Why can't the Arabs just take the Palestinians?" because that's what Israel did. It took them about ten years or so to get everybody fully integrated, but they took everyone who wanted to come and got them out of camps and into their society eventually.

Have I run the numbers to compare them? No, I haven't. It's entirely possible that more Palestinians had to flee that Jews were expelled from Arab countries-- but however you put it, the Nabka is portrayed as a one-sided expulsion of the Palestinians from Palestine- which is true, but more correctly it should be seen as a population exchange. Still a disaster, still a humanitarian catastrophe-- maybe not on the same scale as Partition between India and Pakistan, but this wasn't a one-way street.

Probably the biggest change of my own personal knowledge base came from Gilbert's chapters on the Suez Crisis of 1956. I had only ever seen more conventional perspectives on this Crisis- mainly from the British point of view and reading it from Israel's point of view present a very different picture. The British and the French may have been more interested in one last grab to preserve fading colonial power- but Israel had very clear strategic aims: getting the Egyptian Army to back off the border along Gaza for a bit and to reopen the Straits of Tiran to ensure maritime shipping got through to their Red Sea port of Eliat. Britain and France may not have gotten what they wanted out of this conflict, but Israel sure did.

Similarly, Gilbert's account of the early hours of the 1973 Yom Kippur War is especially vivid. The call-up notices gradually leaking out in the middle of services. The air raid sirens went off, followed by long stretches of silence. No cars on the streets, no shops open because it's a holy day-- he paints an eerie picture of what, so far, has proven to be Israel's most dangerous hour and perhaps it's most traumatic in many ways- at least up until the 1982 Lebanon War. 1973 saw the collapse of the Labor/National Religious Party alignment and in many ways, I'm not sure the Labor Party has ever gotten back to those heights since.

The period between 1967-1973 is really the hinge point on which subsequent chapters in this conflict flow from. The Israeli Right under the Likud Party came to power. While I'm convinced that only the Camp David Accords and peace with Egypt could have been achieved by Menachem Begin (very much a 'only Nixon could go to China' moment)- from a strategic point of view, what resulted was the return of the Sinai in exchange for a 'cold peace' with Egypt while the settler movement on the West Bank really picked up steam. I think you could view the 1982 War in Lebanon through a similar lens. You've taken your biggest military threat 'off the board' (Egypt) and then you've chased your biggest internal threat (the PLO) out of Lebanon and all the way to Tunisia. The problem is that both of those strategic decisions brought short-term gains to Israel with no meaningful gain in long-term stability or security.

The Peace Process as we knew it in the 90s is largely moribund, but I think it's worth noting that Barak, Rabin, and Sharon-- all old soldiers who had seen wars and battles seemed to share the common notion that the current situation with the Palestinians is (and to me, remains) largely untenable for Israel's future and it's security. You may dislike their methods (the wall, etc in the case of Sharon-- but the security fence was apparently fairly effective at stopping suicide attacks) but they at least tried to do something. They recognized that this was no longer tenable and I think that's to their credit. The fact that Rabin and Peres-- formerly bitter political rivals put that aside and made a serious push for peace in the face of a sustained terrorism campaign is even more to their credit. Lesser leaders than both of them would have quailed in the face of sustained violence and shifts in public opinion. They did not.

Rabin's strategic notion to bolster the PLO to avoid theologizing the conflict-- he believed, as it turned out correctly, that it would make it more intractable, proved to be the right move and those last chapters that cover Rabin's efforts are incredibly depressing- as you see his assassin try three times to get close enough to take his shot before actually succeeding.

(Rabin's assassination was probably the first political assassination that really impacted me. I was around for Rajiv Gandhi's assassination, but largely unaware of it. The fact that my Grandma was scheduled to go to the Tory Party Conference in Brighton that the IRA bombed was something I only learned later- and that doesn't really count because the IRA missed both my Grandma and Thatcher. Outside of the Nepalese Royal Massacre in 2001 and maybe Shinzo Abe's assassination I can't really think of too many others. The Nepalese one received a lot of news coverage, Abe's assassination I think was more down to the footage that was readily available all over the internet when it broke.)

The biggest problem that probably hangs over the last chapters of the book is one that Gilbert doesn't touch upon. To be fair, it's not the book he's writing-- he's here to provide you with a history of Israel and does a remarkably comprehensive job of doing that, but all over those last few chapters is the question: how do you get to a final resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict without shaking those who benefit from the status quo on either side from their very entrenched positions?

The current Israeli government isn't remotely interested in a two-state solution. They benefit from being able to say, "Look, they drop rockets on us, they kill and murder us and you want us to do a deal with them? Are you out of your mind?" And to a certain degree, they're not wrong- it's just that they say that on the one hand while on the other hand, exacerbating the cycle of violence by building more and more settlements on the West Bank some of which maybe not a majority at this point, but some at least, are going to have to be given back. I do think even if Israel gets a new government and everything they could possibly want from the Palestinians, they're never going back to pre-1967 borders now. That's a pipe dream.

Similarly, the Palestinians have been offered quite literally the diplomatic equivalent of the real-life moon on a string and turned it down. It's even worse, given the current conflict, because Hamas has no interest in the welfare of ordinary Palestinians. They've had the run of Gaza since 2005 and by rights with enough oil money, the place should be Dubai on the Med. It's not because they want the status quo of blood and death and violence more than they want something tangible for the Palestinian people. (Don't give me any rot about how 'Gaza is an open-air prison' either. If it is, it's a fucking shit prison, given how many rockets and arms and assorted instruments of death Hamas seems to have acquired.) I think that's the most infuriating thing at all. Building something in Gaza would have only benefited Hamas politically and they could have done that without sacrificing any of their political demands. They could have done that without recognizing the legitimacy of Israel or surrendering the right of return or East Jerusalem. All you had to do was build and not fucking kill and they couldn't manage that.

Before reading this book, I floated one relatively mild thing about the conflict, the gist of which was that without formally recognized co-existence on either side, a lasting peace deal is probably impossible. The Israelis have to acknowledge that the Palestinians aren't going anywhere. The Palestinians have to acknowledge that the Israelis aren't going to march quietly into the sea. I wouldn't expect either side to warm to the idea of a bi-national state, but in the absence of that option, you need to do something. Because none of this is tenable going forward.

Gilbert's book only convinced me of that position even more.

(This book also kicked my IR brain back to life, because am I crazy or does constructivism seem like an increasingly important strain of IR thinking, especially when applied to this conflict? I'm not sure I really plugged into IR the way I should have, but this makes me want to go back and read more.)

As a nation, the fact that Israel has endured despite it all remains something of a heroic achievement. I realize that may not be popular to say out loud, but it's an accurate descriptor. They came to farm the desert and make things grow there and they did. They triumphed time and time again against overwhelming odds. It's hard not to admire them for it. Are they blameless? Have they made mistakes? Do they have things they need to resolve? Sure. But what nation out there doesn't have its share of problems, sins, and shameful episodes they have to overcome?

It's hard to see hope there, right now, but the history of the nation and its people underlined to me something very simple: anything is possible.

[Edward Champion · Rating 2 out of 5]

Well, I muscled my way through this monster in an attempt to get the history from the Israel perspective. And this was one of the most exhausting reading experiences I've had in a few years: exhausting not because of the book's scope, but because of how much it leaves out: namely, endnotes and death tolls for Palestinians; namely, a failure to implicate Israel in the same way that he portrays all Arabs as bloodthirsty terrorists. In order to read this book with any sense of fairness (for it CANNOT be called a history, given the volume's often outrageous tendentiousness), you will need to have a phone by your side for constant Googling. So, yeah, I'm exhausted after reading this. Because i now understand how so many people have had their views falsely influenced by this book because they didn't think to read other texts in their book club questing to find the mythical "comprehensive history."

This book is NOT comprehensive. It is NOT a history. Despite its subtitle, it is a hagiography. Martin Gilbert conveniently elides the nearly 300 Palestinians who were shot dead by the IDF out of "suspicion" that they were freedom fighters during the 1956 Khan Yunis massacre, while offering a defensive canard, unsupported by evidence (and Googling around about this incident also showed tenuous support), that an Arabic edition of MEIN KAMPF was found among Egyptian troops. He risibly suggests that Golda Meir, justifiably disgraced after the Yom Kippur War, was somehow a peace broker, when anyone knows that Meir refused to even ACKNOWLEDGE the Palestianian people. Gilbert does offer us glimpses of Begin and Sharon operating in early days within extremist factions, but it never seems to occur to him (and this would seem to me to be a vital historical point!) that the tragic assassination of Rabin and the rise of Netanyahu likely emerged because of this encouragement. He continually paints Israel as a victim, but refuses to acknowledge the nation's complicity in allowing the current conflict to carry on. The Six Day War, the Yom Kippur War, and the Lebanon War are all skimmed over. I have been forced to order multiple books on these subjects in order to properly understand these conflicts. Gilbert's book IS useful in providing an overview of internal Israel politics -- particularly, the influence of David Ben-Gurion, who wanted Israel to thrive without falling into extremist factions. And Gilbert, to his small credit, does drop the bias a little bit once events get to Lebanon and the First and Second Intifadas. But he is too gutless and too eager to please to really grapple with the underlying factions that has led Israel to be held hostage by its extreme right-wing blocs. I was also disturbed that Gilbert seems perfectly peachy keen with the Irgun and glossses over the fact that this paramilitary organization was just as bad as Hamas.

This is the kind of spurious storytelling you're in for if you read this book. There needs to be a NEW fat book written about Israel that is more objective and that considers the bigger picture. Martin Gilbert is not a historian. He's a mouthpiece.

[Slj · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book covers the period is from the late 1800's to about 2006. The story is completely told from the Jewish perspective. There is no insight given to the mindset of those outside the Jewish community. Here are a few things you should know if you are considering reading this book.

There is no discussion of the position of the Ottoman Empire toward Zionism despite the fact that they ruled this region up until WW1.

The British ruled this area from the end of WW1 until 1948. Yet, only the most perfunctory explanations are given for why the British made the decisions that they did.

No insight or discussion is given into the thinking of the Arabs that lived in Palestine/Israel.

No information is provided on how the PLO came to be. Nor is there any biographical information about PLO founder Yasser Arafat. Likewise, the relationship between the PLO and the Palestinian people as a whole is never discussed.

Throughout the first half of the book the author lists what seems like every new Jewish settlement. For each settlement the author gives the location of the settlement, the name of the settlement, often a brief biographical sketch of who the settlement was named after, the main economic activity of the settlement and so on. This becomes very tedious and is just not important for the larger story. It would have been more appropriate to put this information into an appendix and would have shortened the book considerably.

There are some pretty good maps in the book but the text never references them. Seems like they were added as an afterthought.

The book does do a good job portraying the divisions and disagreements within Israel on how to handle the occupied territories.



The writing style is OK but not very compelling in my opinion. The book has a bit of a thrown together quality. If you are looking for a well-rounded history of Israel look elsewhere. Still, the book does provide much good history, so if you are looking for a history solely from the Jewish perspective this might do.

[Tom Glaser · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm planning a first trip to Israel in 10 weeks and wanted to learn about Israel's modern history. A friend who is an academic and has lived and traveled extensively in the country gave me a reading list and said this was the best book to start with. It begins in 1700 with the arrival of around 1000 Jews in Palestine, then under Ottoman control. It quickly jumps to the mid-19th century, when the Jewish population of Palestine had reached 10,000, concentrated mostly in Jerusalem. The book then discusses early Zionism in the latter half of the 19th century. It ends in 2008 with Israel approaching its 60th anniversary.

I couldn't put the book down. Although it's pretty long, and seems to cover every battle, act of violence, settlement, and election, it's a spellbinding story and Gilbert never loses momentum. Without the detail, the story would be diminished. This is the first and only book I've read about Israel, but my impression is that the author was very even-handed and exposed criminality and moral failures on both sides.

I strongly recommend this book to anyone who'd like a readable, highly informative introduction to Israel's history. The eBook is available free now via Amazon's Prime Reading service. The only problem with the Kindle edition is that the numerous and interesting maps are all bunched at the end and referencing them is a bit clunky. I may buy a print edition; it's a book worth owning.

[Tiffany · Rating 4 out of 5]

A thoroughly researched, incredibly detailed account of Israel's short, but intense history. Martin Gilbert maintains a position of neutrality throughout the book and includes many first and second source quotes which adds both richness and poignancy to the text. The material is quite dense, and at times reads more like a text book. However, it was very informative and comprehensive.

[Phill Parker · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Israelis use rockets to protect their children. Palestinians use children to protect their rockets."

[Nathan · Rating 3 out of 5]

more like "A History of the Israeli Labour Party", but fine.

[Thomas Scott · Rating 2 out of 5]

With the full knowledge that Martin Gilbert is a Jewish Zionist, I read this book looking for a serious history from the point of view that would challenge my position of overwhelming sympathy for the Palestinian cause. Was I missing something? Is there something I've never considered before? These are the questions I wanted answered before reading this book. After having finished this book, I can confidently say that the answer to both questions is a resounding no.

I will start with a few positive comments before I begin my justification for a two star rating. This book does a decent job of conveying the internal political politics of Israel throughout its (then 60, now 80) year history. The rivalries between Peres and Rabin for control of the Labour party, the fall from grace of Meir and Dayan following the October War, the alienating peculiarities of Ben-Gurion towards the end of his career, and the violently divisive state of Israel in the early 1990s leading to the murder of Rabin, are all interesting topics that are not often covered as well in other surveys. For this, I suppose the book is worth reading.

However, there are a few implicit themes throughout the book that make this work unforgivable. Gilbert, like all Zionists assumes that an Arab life is worth less than an Israeli. In fact all goyim are worth less than a Jew, otherwise the entire Zionist project would be completely indefensible. For example, after describing any battle or violent engagement, Gilbert goes out of his way to give the names of the Israelis killed, which kibbutz/moshav they were from and how many children they left behind. When Palestinian civilian is killed? Ah, who cares, they're just goyim. Their lives don't matter as much. After any battle, the lopsided casualty numbers are just proof of plucky jewish ingenuity, not evidence of massive bankrolling of weapons and equipment from wealthy jews in the West.

The only conflict where the author takes a negative view of Israel's position is the 1982 war in Lebanon. Not because of the insane civilian casualties, but because too many jews were getting killed, of course. Sabra and Shatila massacre? Not Israel's fault, even thought the phalangist militias were operating under military control of Ariel Sharon. The author neglects to mention that the first Qana massacre of 1996, (an airstrike called in by none other than future PM Naftali Bennett) was one of the explicit reasons given by Osama Bin Laden for 9/11. Yes, you read that right. Naftali Bennett is a proximate cause for 9/11.

The most egregious omission of the entire book is the author neglecting to inform the reader that the Israeli government was responsible for propping up Hamas so that they could pretend to not have a partner for peace, "because look! we can't possibly negotiate with these scary looking terrorists!" This is well documented in Haaretz, +972, TOI, Jpost, and many other respectable Israeli media sources. The author also omits the infamous Dov Weisglass quote that the purpose of the disengagement from Gaza in 2005 was to put the peace process in "formaldehyde... so there will not be a peace process with the Palestinians."

I could go on and on. Literally every chapter commits the sin of omission, the sin of omitting the committed sins of the Israelis against the Palestinians. No mention is made of the widespread use of torture in Israeli prisons. No mention is made of the "administrative detention" process whereby Palestinians can be detained indefinitely and never charged with a crime. No mention is made how settlers vandalize and attack Palestinians in the West Bank on a daily basis while the IDF stands by idly. Why? Because, remember, Jewish life is more valuable than goyim Palestinians.

I am appalled reading this book at the unabashed sense of entitlement that Israelis feel for American tax dollars to support their war crimes. No mention is made of the complete and under infiltration of American politicians by Israeli intelligence and AIPAC, the effective disenfranchisement of the American people in support of an ethnic cleansing on the other side of the world.

As public opinion in America turns on Israel (a result of the decentralized media landscape whereby Israel no longer monopolizes the control of information on mainstream news networks), I eagerly anticipate the day when the State of Israel becomes a state with equal rights for all, including in the West Bank and Gaza. Only then, and with the return of refugees, will there be peace in the Middle East. But as long as the Israelis insist of stealing all the land and pushing out the native inhabitants with impunity, there will always be conflict. As stated best (and ironically) by Moshe Dayan, "Without the combat helmet and the barrel of a gun, we will not be able to plant a tree or build a house".