What do you think?
Rate this book
The Israel-Palestine Conflict: One Hundred Years of War
James L. Gelvin's new account of the century-old conflict between Israelis and Palestinians presents a compelling, accessible and up-to-the-moment introduction for students and general readers. Placing events in the disputed area within the framework of global history, the book skillfully interweaves biographical sketches, eyewitness accounts, poetry, fiction and official documentation into its narrative, including photographs, maps and an abundance of supplementary material as well. Beginning in the mid-nineteenth century in Palestine, it traces the evolution and interactions of the two communities from their first encounters up to the present conflict.
304 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2005
146 people are currently reading
1406 people want to read
About the author
James L. Gelvin
14 books32 followersJames L. Gelvin is an American scholar of Middle Eastern history. He has been a faculty member in the department of history at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) since 1995 and has written extensively on the history of the modern Middle East, with particular emphasis on nationalism and the social and cultural history of the modern Middle East.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 72 reviews
August 22, 2015
I'd prefer a book which cited sources, as there are very few here. Plus for suggested further reading at the end of each chapter, but huge minuses for what I think is "fake neutrality", especially bad when the author uses the UN Durban conference in the text but doesn't mention what kind of hate fest that was. Also, I'm sure a lot of the critisism of Sharon is well-earned, but isn't Arafat, or Hamas leaders for that matter, let of the hook very easily in comparison? - just two of several problems I had with the book, some small, others grave. All in all, a book I wouldn't recommend for introduction, but for the "competing nationalisms" perspective, it's ok, although (I think) too shallow on several important points to be on my list of books - and even authors - I'll be interested in for future reference.
Edited to add: this BBC documentary tells roughly the same story about the Israeli War of Independence and the Palestinian Nakba, and the war itself, but in my opinion does a better job of explaining the different motivations for the involved: eyewitnesses, soldiers, leaders from different countries and fractions. Of course not as detailed as a 250-page book, and only a small part of the story, but manages what Gelvin doesn't in that it never gets snarky: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vCC3BEw...
Edited to add: this BBC documentary tells roughly the same story about the Israeli War of Independence and the Palestinian Nakba, and the war itself, but in my opinion does a better job of explaining the different motivations for the involved: eyewitnesses, soldiers, leaders from different countries and fractions. Of course not as detailed as a 250-page book, and only a small part of the story, but manages what Gelvin doesn't in that it never gets snarky: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vCC3BEw...
July 1, 2025
Una lunga, complicata, drammatica storia
Decorre oggi un anno da quando Hamas attaccò a sorpresa e con inaudita crudeltà gli insediamenti ebraici al confine di Gaza, riportando agli onori-orrori della cronaca il dramma della terra palestinese contesa tra due popoli che nel tempo non hanno potuto/voluto trovare la sintesi di una soluzione pacifica nella coesistenza. Da allora, il conflitto non si è mai arrestato né le parti sembra abbiano intenzione di farlo.
D'altronde, le ragioni del conflitto hanno origini antichissime. Gelvin ci aiuta a seguirle nel tempo e a comprendere meglio come i percorsi dei due popoli si siano incrociati già dalla conquista della Palestina da parte dell'impero Ottomano del 1500 e dai polgrom contro gli ebrei nella Polonia russa del 1700. Palestinesi ed ebrei accomunati già da allora dalla mancanza di patria e autodeterminazione.
Quando poi gli Ottomani introdussero la proprietà della terra in cambio di tasse e i grandi proprietari palestinesi cominciarono a vendere la terra al miglior offerente, cioè gli ebrei, nacquero le prime tollerate comunità di immigrati. Ondate successive, anche sulla spinta delle persecuzioni zariste e poi della prima guerra mondiale, crearono i germi dell'idea sionista di edificare una patria a Gerusalemme.
Un'idea non da tutti condivisa anche tra gli ebrei, e osteggiata dalle popolazioni arabe che allora teorizzavano una grande Giordania e una grande Siria, separate però politicamente dalla Palestina dalla dominazione rispettivamente francese e inglese. Poi sopraggiunse il Nazismo, e con lui naturalmente la questione di una patria per gli ebrei in fuga divenne anche moralmente più rilevante.
In questo percorso, una delle osservazioni di Gelvin che più mi ha colpito è che il problema principale del conflitto perenne è forse quello della nascita dei due nazionalismi israeliano e palestinese che non esistevano. Non c'era un nazionalismo palestinese nel passaggio dalla dominazione ottomana a quella inglese, e non c'era un vero nazionalismo ebreo in un popolo da sempre cittadino del mondo.
Ma le fazioni più estremiste, quelle che volevano la formazione di stati indipendenti e il possesso esclusivo delle terre e delle città, prevalsero. E naturalmente si confrontarono da allora senza esclusione di colpi. I Sionisti riuscirono a far allontanare gli Inglesi e quindi a far nascere il loro Stato, e i Palestinesi divisi furono anche usati come pretesto dai paesi arabi limitrofi per attaccare Israele.
Da allora, dalla guerra del 1948 ai giorni nostri, le posizioni si sono sempre più radicate. I governi Laburisti di Israele hanno lasciato il posto ai Sionisti della espansione continua di Sharon e Netanyahu, e i palestinesi hanno pian piano assunto una posizione sempre più radicale dall'Olp laica di Arafat all'integralismo islamico di Hamas coi suoi interessi esterni. Che è più o meno la situazione drammatica di oggi.
La vicenda storica, quindi, è complessa e affatto lineare. Non tutti gli ebrei anelano alla terra santa, gli americani per esempio, e non tutti i palestinesi non vorrebbero poter continuare a vivere in una terra pacificata e prospera, israeliana o meno. E Gelvin non ha soluzioni per la pace, si limita a raccontarci dei mille e mille orrori della storia e del dramma di una terra martire. Da sempre, e forse per sempre.
Decorre oggi un anno da quando Hamas attaccò a sorpresa e con inaudita crudeltà gli insediamenti ebraici al confine di Gaza, riportando agli onori-orrori della cronaca il dramma della terra palestinese contesa tra due popoli che nel tempo non hanno potuto/voluto trovare la sintesi di una soluzione pacifica nella coesistenza. Da allora, il conflitto non si è mai arrestato né le parti sembra abbiano intenzione di farlo.
D'altronde, le ragioni del conflitto hanno origini antichissime. Gelvin ci aiuta a seguirle nel tempo e a comprendere meglio come i percorsi dei due popoli si siano incrociati già dalla conquista della Palestina da parte dell'impero Ottomano del 1500 e dai polgrom contro gli ebrei nella Polonia russa del 1700. Palestinesi ed ebrei accomunati già da allora dalla mancanza di patria e autodeterminazione.
Quando poi gli Ottomani introdussero la proprietà della terra in cambio di tasse e i grandi proprietari palestinesi cominciarono a vendere la terra al miglior offerente, cioè gli ebrei, nacquero le prime tollerate comunità di immigrati. Ondate successive, anche sulla spinta delle persecuzioni zariste e poi della prima guerra mondiale, crearono i germi dell'idea sionista di edificare una patria a Gerusalemme.
Un'idea non da tutti condivisa anche tra gli ebrei, e osteggiata dalle popolazioni arabe che allora teorizzavano una grande Giordania e una grande Siria, separate però politicamente dalla Palestina dalla dominazione rispettivamente francese e inglese. Poi sopraggiunse il Nazismo, e con lui naturalmente la questione di una patria per gli ebrei in fuga divenne anche moralmente più rilevante.
In questo percorso, una delle osservazioni di Gelvin che più mi ha colpito è che il problema principale del conflitto perenne è forse quello della nascita dei due nazionalismi israeliano e palestinese che non esistevano. Non c'era un nazionalismo palestinese nel passaggio dalla dominazione ottomana a quella inglese, e non c'era un vero nazionalismo ebreo in un popolo da sempre cittadino del mondo.
Ma le fazioni più estremiste, quelle che volevano la formazione di stati indipendenti e il possesso esclusivo delle terre e delle città, prevalsero. E naturalmente si confrontarono da allora senza esclusione di colpi. I Sionisti riuscirono a far allontanare gli Inglesi e quindi a far nascere il loro Stato, e i Palestinesi divisi furono anche usati come pretesto dai paesi arabi limitrofi per attaccare Israele.
Da allora, dalla guerra del 1948 ai giorni nostri, le posizioni si sono sempre più radicate. I governi Laburisti di Israele hanno lasciato il posto ai Sionisti della espansione continua di Sharon e Netanyahu, e i palestinesi hanno pian piano assunto una posizione sempre più radicale dall'Olp laica di Arafat all'integralismo islamico di Hamas coi suoi interessi esterni. Che è più o meno la situazione drammatica di oggi.
La vicenda storica, quindi, è complessa e affatto lineare. Non tutti gli ebrei anelano alla terra santa, gli americani per esempio, e non tutti i palestinesi non vorrebbero poter continuare a vivere in una terra pacificata e prospera, israeliana o meno. E Gelvin non ha soluzioni per la pace, si limita a raccontarci dei mille e mille orrori della storia e del dramma di una terra martire. Da sempre, e forse per sempre.
July 27, 2024
Gelvin analizza la genesi del sionismo e del nazionalismo palestinese. Senza schierarsi sul tema spinoso approfondisce il tema storico
March 23, 2021
This one is quite a comprehensive book on the Israel-Palestine conflict, which makes it a lot simpler to understand the full scope of it. Furthermore, the author seemed quite unbiased and presented facts in a very clear way. Absolutely one of the best that I have read on the conflict by far and I think that might have something to do with the fact that this is a Cambridge University edition, because I find those seem to be extremely well researched and reviewed and less tendencious.
Definitely recommend to anyone trying to come to grasps with the unfortunate reality of a war that has devastated and ended lives throughout the past 100 years.
Definitely recommend to anyone trying to come to grasps with the unfortunate reality of a war that has devastated and ended lives throughout the past 100 years.
April 5, 2023
I have read one other book on this conflict and I found this one much more accessible. I enjoyed how it spoke at length about the wider historical context: talking about the break up of the Ottoman empire and the history of eastern european Zionism. This didn't feel like a tough read despite the tough subject matter.
Read
June 23, 2021idk
October 11, 2020
This review is actually of Prof. James Gelvin’s lectures for The Teaching Company, originally entitled “Palestine, Zionism, and the Arab-Israel Conflict” — but now, totally removed from their archive. Even the Goodreads review page (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4...) has been removed. Apparently the Teaching Company told one listener that the topic was more controversial than the company wanted to deal with — a fact that shouldn’t surprise, since after all, the Teaching Company must align with the largest blocks of American middle-class customers, and even those with intellectual aspirations are unlikely to view the issues of Palestine and the Arab-Isreal conflict with anything less than intense bias. Which is a pity, and also part of the very story these lectures tell.
In the lectures, Professor James Gelvin explains the historical context for Palestinian and Zionist nationalism, and the fraught, seemingly unresolvable conflict that bedevils the region today. “Complexity” really seems to be the key word here, but then such is modern history, with its intersecting forces of capitalist expansion, rising nationalisms and state power, and an old imperialism that seems on the decline, yet manages to exert insidious influence. To try to make sense of it all, I listened to many of the lectures twice, and have distilled my notes below, more for my own benefit than any audience, I suppose.
Both Jews and Palestinians hold historical claims to the relatively tiny patches of land in question, north of the Arabian peninsula (and named by the Romans after the ancient Philistines, a whole other story worth following up on). Palestine came under Arab control relatively early during the rapid conquests of the 7th and 8th centuries, but with the rise of the Turkic-led Ottoman Empire, the area was only partially folded into the Ottoman bureaucracy, with significant developments driven by warlords like Ahmad Pasha al-Jazzar and Muhammad Ali of Egypt. There was at this time no coherent sense of “Palestinian” identity. Still, during the 19th century, contrary to popular accounts by observers like Mary Eliza Rogers and Mark Twain, which tended to confirm the place was a “land without a people,” the region witnessed rapid population growth and increasing integration into the world economy. Jewish population growth and the vicissitudes of European Jewry would lead to settlement efforts and, eventually, Zionist visions — with new Enlightenment ideals only imperfectly realized in Europe, especially in Russia, where a majority of European Jews lived. Settlement opened up as a welcome alternative to struggling for acceptance in Europe.
Early Zionists like Theodor Herzl and Leo Pinsker theorized that if Britain was for Britons, and France for Gauls and the descendants of Charlemagne, then the only path to Jewish citizenship would be a Jewish state. This was not at first a widely accepted view, for most rabbis responded that they had to work for change in the communities they lived in in Europe. But pogroms, and the larger pressures of the coming Russian revolution, as well as previous generations of massive Jewish emigration (though in largest part to the United States, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries), drove the growth of the World Zionist Organization. Waves of immigration known as aliyot developed social, political and economic institutions for the growing Jewish population — farming communities like the kibbutz were invented, and Hebrew was eventually chosen as the national language. Social and political ideology remained in flux — “revisionist” settlers led by Jabotinsky claimed a larger region around the Jordan river than previous Zionisms, leading to conflict with managers of British “mandate” rule that had evolved during and following World War I.
As World War I, arguably the most significant political conflict influencing the modern Middle East, came to a conclusion, “The Balfour Declaration,” from 1917, was one key statement of the enigmatic British attitude, now seeming to support Zionism, now not, toward this region of an Ottoman Empire now on the brink of collapse. With Ottoman identity too decadent to serve the regions, a new Palestinian sense of nation would grow mostly influenced by the British-backed Zionism that was, as twentieth-century European anti-Semitism increased, driving accelerated immigration into the region. With “The Great Revolt,” after 1936, we see the beginnings of cohesion around Islamic identity and applying the methods of strikes and protests, as well as attacked on British forces and Jewish settlements. Such tactics backfired, resulting in low support and effective suppression during 1939.
With the creation of the Jewish Agency in 1929, under the direction of the ‘mandate’ of USA and Britain, the third aliyah began, bringing many new young and capable Zionists to Palestine, which began to look like Hong Kong, essentially a crown colony. Meanwhile, Palestinian identity began to coalesce in the process of opposing Zionism, though at first without much unity, and little more than spontaneous local rebellions, but in the 1930s, with increased nationalist feeling as a people ‘alienated’ from their land holdings. In 1936, a ‘general revolt’ began that would last for three years, with strikes in the cities, a few killings, anti-British sentiment, and the emergence of a posthumous leader-martyr, Jerusalem mufti Hajj Amin al-Hussein, who had been killed in 1935.
Jewish immigrants to Palestine decreased during World War II, though the sixth aliyah, in 1945, would be the largest ever. Meanwhile, Zionists worked, with factions disagreeing, for official borders, a treat with Egypt, and help defeating the Nazis (though a few Zionists actually favored negotiating with Nazis, which is among the most bizarre things I would hear in this lecture series). After the War, the USA set up an intergovernmental committee that would manage post-holocaust immigration. Meanwhile, the violence and war begin to break out in Palestine. Zionists and Palestinians have opposing historical accounts of these years, with ZIonists painting a David and Goliath story of overcoming desperate circumstances, while Palestinians tell of the beginning of expulsion from their homelands. New sources since the 1980s show that neither account is entirely true. There was massive disagreement on all sides about partition, and the British certainly stepped into the conflict in their pursuit of control over the Suez Canal. (Listen to 14 over again.) In the wake of the 1948 war, there would be a state of Israel, recognized by both the USSR and the USA. Contemporary historians warned Truman of the dangers of leaving so many Palestinians dispossessed. The poetry of Manhmooud Darwish articulates the collective trauma of a hybrid nation in exile, using the language of Israelites in Babylonian exile, which irritates leaders of the Jewish state.
In Jewish Israel, economic growth and state building are rapid in the post-war era, as hundreds of thousand arrive every year, and now from countries like Yemen and Iraq. The Israeli labor party led most Israel governments until 1977, when Likud gained new prominence. Arab regimes after 1948 suffered from corruption and mis-steps, as with Nasser’s attempt on the Suez Canal. (Review.) Wars in 1967 and 1973 would forever end pan-Arab policy on Palestine, with Israel achieving stunning defeat over the ill-equipped and badly organized Arab armies; the emergence of the USA as the uncontested world power links us irretrievably to the region. The PLA forms, and Palestinians are increasingly restricted to the Occupied Territories, which although encroached upon by settlers, are nevertheless long-lasting and evolving regions serving as buffers against aggressor countries like Syria, as well as convenient dumps marginalizing Palestinians.
Beyond peace with Syria, the situation has remained one of conflict between Israel and the Arab world, with Israel popularly calling for walls and buffer zones. Israel settlements also continue to grow. Israel, especially the Zionist party Likud, preserves and even cultivates a religious nationalism with the mythic sense of the land as the body politic. This has met with condemnation in some quarters around the world, but Reagan carefully tacked toward an only moderately negative stance. Lecture 21 goes over the “kaleidoscope” of perspectives the USA has brought to the issue of Palestine in the years since the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations, with the main tenor of response to be to consider both democratic Israel and various Arab oil reserves alike as strategic assets. Carter was the first president to recognize Palestinian claims. Liberal governments in Israel led to the Oslo I and II accords, but peace was short-lived, as Israeli settlement building and Palestinian terrorist attacks both failed to cease. A second Intifada began
During these years, the Palestine Liberation Organization forms under Nasser and grows, following the loss of the 1967 war, under the leadership of Yassir Arafat. Born in 1929 and a veteran of earlier days of secular, anti-imperialist Arab nationalism, he leads an “alphabet soup” of groups to advocate Palestine rights beyond any call for an Arab state, with mixed results: no more assassinations, but new instances of terrorism. Terrorism obstructs deals. Expelled from Jordan, the itinerant PLO is attacked in Lebanon in 1982, and moves on from there, too, with goals that change over these years. Giving up the right of return lead to the Oslo accords, by which time the PLO was the defective leadership of the Palestinian people, thought not one that supplied infrastructure or services to speak of — this would lead to other representatives emerging. Since the 9/11 incident, the spirit of the Oslo accords is ended. Development is stunted in the Arab world, Israel is a national security state “living off American dole,” and Palestinian politics is fragmented and trivialized. In the larger Arab world, thriving Jewish cultures have declined, as in Baghdad. The dispute evolves, but will not stop.
In the lectures, Professor James Gelvin explains the historical context for Palestinian and Zionist nationalism, and the fraught, seemingly unresolvable conflict that bedevils the region today. “Complexity” really seems to be the key word here, but then such is modern history, with its intersecting forces of capitalist expansion, rising nationalisms and state power, and an old imperialism that seems on the decline, yet manages to exert insidious influence. To try to make sense of it all, I listened to many of the lectures twice, and have distilled my notes below, more for my own benefit than any audience, I suppose.
Both Jews and Palestinians hold historical claims to the relatively tiny patches of land in question, north of the Arabian peninsula (and named by the Romans after the ancient Philistines, a whole other story worth following up on). Palestine came under Arab control relatively early during the rapid conquests of the 7th and 8th centuries, but with the rise of the Turkic-led Ottoman Empire, the area was only partially folded into the Ottoman bureaucracy, with significant developments driven by warlords like Ahmad Pasha al-Jazzar and Muhammad Ali of Egypt. There was at this time no coherent sense of “Palestinian” identity. Still, during the 19th century, contrary to popular accounts by observers like Mary Eliza Rogers and Mark Twain, which tended to confirm the place was a “land without a people,” the region witnessed rapid population growth and increasing integration into the world economy. Jewish population growth and the vicissitudes of European Jewry would lead to settlement efforts and, eventually, Zionist visions — with new Enlightenment ideals only imperfectly realized in Europe, especially in Russia, where a majority of European Jews lived. Settlement opened up as a welcome alternative to struggling for acceptance in Europe.
Early Zionists like Theodor Herzl and Leo Pinsker theorized that if Britain was for Britons, and France for Gauls and the descendants of Charlemagne, then the only path to Jewish citizenship would be a Jewish state. This was not at first a widely accepted view, for most rabbis responded that they had to work for change in the communities they lived in in Europe. But pogroms, and the larger pressures of the coming Russian revolution, as well as previous generations of massive Jewish emigration (though in largest part to the United States, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries), drove the growth of the World Zionist Organization. Waves of immigration known as aliyot developed social, political and economic institutions for the growing Jewish population — farming communities like the kibbutz were invented, and Hebrew was eventually chosen as the national language. Social and political ideology remained in flux — “revisionist” settlers led by Jabotinsky claimed a larger region around the Jordan river than previous Zionisms, leading to conflict with managers of British “mandate” rule that had evolved during and following World War I.
As World War I, arguably the most significant political conflict influencing the modern Middle East, came to a conclusion, “The Balfour Declaration,” from 1917, was one key statement of the enigmatic British attitude, now seeming to support Zionism, now not, toward this region of an Ottoman Empire now on the brink of collapse. With Ottoman identity too decadent to serve the regions, a new Palestinian sense of nation would grow mostly influenced by the British-backed Zionism that was, as twentieth-century European anti-Semitism increased, driving accelerated immigration into the region. With “The Great Revolt,” after 1936, we see the beginnings of cohesion around Islamic identity and applying the methods of strikes and protests, as well as attacked on British forces and Jewish settlements. Such tactics backfired, resulting in low support and effective suppression during 1939.
With the creation of the Jewish Agency in 1929, under the direction of the ‘mandate’ of USA and Britain, the third aliyah began, bringing many new young and capable Zionists to Palestine, which began to look like Hong Kong, essentially a crown colony. Meanwhile, Palestinian identity began to coalesce in the process of opposing Zionism, though at first without much unity, and little more than spontaneous local rebellions, but in the 1930s, with increased nationalist feeling as a people ‘alienated’ from their land holdings. In 1936, a ‘general revolt’ began that would last for three years, with strikes in the cities, a few killings, anti-British sentiment, and the emergence of a posthumous leader-martyr, Jerusalem mufti Hajj Amin al-Hussein, who had been killed in 1935.
Jewish immigrants to Palestine decreased during World War II, though the sixth aliyah, in 1945, would be the largest ever. Meanwhile, Zionists worked, with factions disagreeing, for official borders, a treat with Egypt, and help defeating the Nazis (though a few Zionists actually favored negotiating with Nazis, which is among the most bizarre things I would hear in this lecture series). After the War, the USA set up an intergovernmental committee that would manage post-holocaust immigration. Meanwhile, the violence and war begin to break out in Palestine. Zionists and Palestinians have opposing historical accounts of these years, with ZIonists painting a David and Goliath story of overcoming desperate circumstances, while Palestinians tell of the beginning of expulsion from their homelands. New sources since the 1980s show that neither account is entirely true. There was massive disagreement on all sides about partition, and the British certainly stepped into the conflict in their pursuit of control over the Suez Canal. (Listen to 14 over again.) In the wake of the 1948 war, there would be a state of Israel, recognized by both the USSR and the USA. Contemporary historians warned Truman of the dangers of leaving so many Palestinians dispossessed. The poetry of Manhmooud Darwish articulates the collective trauma of a hybrid nation in exile, using the language of Israelites in Babylonian exile, which irritates leaders of the Jewish state.
In Jewish Israel, economic growth and state building are rapid in the post-war era, as hundreds of thousand arrive every year, and now from countries like Yemen and Iraq. The Israeli labor party led most Israel governments until 1977, when Likud gained new prominence. Arab regimes after 1948 suffered from corruption and mis-steps, as with Nasser’s attempt on the Suez Canal. (Review.) Wars in 1967 and 1973 would forever end pan-Arab policy on Palestine, with Israel achieving stunning defeat over the ill-equipped and badly organized Arab armies; the emergence of the USA as the uncontested world power links us irretrievably to the region. The PLA forms, and Palestinians are increasingly restricted to the Occupied Territories, which although encroached upon by settlers, are nevertheless long-lasting and evolving regions serving as buffers against aggressor countries like Syria, as well as convenient dumps marginalizing Palestinians.
Beyond peace with Syria, the situation has remained one of conflict between Israel and the Arab world, with Israel popularly calling for walls and buffer zones. Israel settlements also continue to grow. Israel, especially the Zionist party Likud, preserves and even cultivates a religious nationalism with the mythic sense of the land as the body politic. This has met with condemnation in some quarters around the world, but Reagan carefully tacked toward an only moderately negative stance. Lecture 21 goes over the “kaleidoscope” of perspectives the USA has brought to the issue of Palestine in the years since the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations, with the main tenor of response to be to consider both democratic Israel and various Arab oil reserves alike as strategic assets. Carter was the first president to recognize Palestinian claims. Liberal governments in Israel led to the Oslo I and II accords, but peace was short-lived, as Israeli settlement building and Palestinian terrorist attacks both failed to cease. A second Intifada began
During these years, the Palestine Liberation Organization forms under Nasser and grows, following the loss of the 1967 war, under the leadership of Yassir Arafat. Born in 1929 and a veteran of earlier days of secular, anti-imperialist Arab nationalism, he leads an “alphabet soup” of groups to advocate Palestine rights beyond any call for an Arab state, with mixed results: no more assassinations, but new instances of terrorism. Terrorism obstructs deals. Expelled from Jordan, the itinerant PLO is attacked in Lebanon in 1982, and moves on from there, too, with goals that change over these years. Giving up the right of return lead to the Oslo accords, by which time the PLO was the defective leadership of the Palestinian people, thought not one that supplied infrastructure or services to speak of — this would lead to other representatives emerging. Since the 9/11 incident, the spirit of the Oslo accords is ended. Development is stunted in the Arab world, Israel is a national security state “living off American dole,” and Palestinian politics is fragmented and trivialized. In the larger Arab world, thriving Jewish cultures have declined, as in Baghdad. The dispute evolves, but will not stop.
February 19, 2024
Testo di complessità non comune, in particolar modo per l'analisi estremamente fluida e fuori dalle categorie classiche dei nazionalismi, che francamente mi ha trovato un po' spiazzato. Il sottotesto del titolo è corretto solo in maniera relativa, perché in realtà non si parla di guerra e di grandi eventi, ma il focus è eminentemente politico.
Comunque un testo di grande qualità.
Comunque un testo di grande qualità.
December 18, 2025
I will be re-reading this book, or, reading one very much like it almost immediately. After reading this book I have realized how ill informed I and everybody else is on this issue. People should not speak on this topic without having read at least three of this type of book, from as many perspectives as possible. This perspective comes from Dr. James Gelvin, Professor of modern Middle East history at the university of California LA. I found this author through an interview on the YouTube channel “Channel 5 News” which covers current issues and small stories in the US, Mexico, Ukraine Middle East etc. and found his position to be quite neutral. I found the same in this book and can’t recommend it more.
January 5, 2024
O livro fornece uma visão geral da questão palestina e considero uma introdução ao tema. O autor faz uma análise do sionismo e do nacionalismo palestino por meio de uma perspectiva histórica. Por vezes a leitura é densa e monótona. Porém acredito que o autor atingiu o seu objetivo.
February 3, 2025
A good read for someone who’s looking for a first interface to the Palestinian Question as well as the broader history of the conflict: especially good bibliography
March 17, 2025
Read it for school but honestly felt like a really good and comprehensive history of this conflict. I learned a ton and felt like it was relatively unbiased.
December 15, 2023
reading for my epq really easy to understand but there weren’t many sources for me to reference 😭
November 7, 2024
I want to give a book that I spent OVER A MONTH reading more than three stars, but I feel I cannot.
The book itself begins in such an obvious bias from almost page one, that I felt there was more to come, and I was right.
It isn’t that I don’t agree with the author in some (hell, a lot honestly) of his opinions, but to me the book was not portrayed to be an opinion on why I should support the Palestinian people and their troubles. When you name your book “The Israel-Palestine Conflict: A History”, I view that as an unbiased overview of the conflict beginning as early as 1920 between the Zionists and Palestinians. If this book had been called, “A Historical Overview of the Palestinian and Israeli Conflict, and Why You Should Support the Palestinian People”, then maybe I would give this five stars.
Because James Gelvin does a hell of a convincing job as to why the Palestinian conflict is just so obviously insane, with Israel being this absolute Goliath force that will always be able to overpower a helpless and divided population. But again, the book demonstrates itself as this: “James L. Gelvin's award-winning account of the conflict between Israel and Palestine offers a compelling, accessible and current introduction for students and general readers… The Israel-Palestine Conflict: A History skilfully interweaves biographical sketches, eyewitness accounts, poetry, fiction, and official documentation into its narrative”.
And AGAIN (for no one reading this but me), I AGREE with Gelvin’s opinions almost every. dang. time. But I feel as though he advertises this book to be something it’s not and allows for underlying opinions to seep into the text.
The actual parts of the book where Gelvin wrote about the historical events that occurred, were very good. James Gelvin does a fantastic job at exploring the roots of the struggle and why both sides feel such intense anger at eachother.
Anyways, goodnight
The book itself begins in such an obvious bias from almost page one, that I felt there was more to come, and I was right.
It isn’t that I don’t agree with the author in some (hell, a lot honestly) of his opinions, but to me the book was not portrayed to be an opinion on why I should support the Palestinian people and their troubles. When you name your book “The Israel-Palestine Conflict: A History”, I view that as an unbiased overview of the conflict beginning as early as 1920 between the Zionists and Palestinians. If this book had been called, “A Historical Overview of the Palestinian and Israeli Conflict, and Why You Should Support the Palestinian People”, then maybe I would give this five stars.
Because James Gelvin does a hell of a convincing job as to why the Palestinian conflict is just so obviously insane, with Israel being this absolute Goliath force that will always be able to overpower a helpless and divided population. But again, the book demonstrates itself as this: “James L. Gelvin's award-winning account of the conflict between Israel and Palestine offers a compelling, accessible and current introduction for students and general readers… The Israel-Palestine Conflict: A History skilfully interweaves biographical sketches, eyewitness accounts, poetry, fiction, and official documentation into its narrative”.
And AGAIN (for no one reading this but me), I AGREE with Gelvin’s opinions almost every. dang. time. But I feel as though he advertises this book to be something it’s not and allows for underlying opinions to seep into the text.
The actual parts of the book where Gelvin wrote about the historical events that occurred, were very good. James Gelvin does a fantastic job at exploring the roots of the struggle and why both sides feel such intense anger at eachother.
Anyways, goodnight
November 7, 2023
I read the fourth edition which includes a quick rundown of the deal cooked up by the Trump administration.
Tracing the conflict through the lens of nationalism Gelvin provides a fairly even account of the conflict (I’m sure both sides would disagree). I think it works well as an introductory work but those who need a chronological timeline may want to look elsewhere, Gelvin’s approach is approximately chronological but things overlap and go forwards and backwards, as it is organized by topic as well. That sounds more confusing than it really is.
A lot of mistakes have been make, not just by Israel and Palestine, the West and Arab countries also had plenty of not-helpful contributions. Essentially we move from crisis to crisis while also permanently in a state of crisis.
There is a lot more history than this 280 page book can cover, a lot more points of view. Endless contradictions and competing claims. Little hope. But it’s absolutely something people needs to read about, be informed about, care about. I stand with the civilians caught in the maelstrom. #Ceasefire
Tracing the conflict through the lens of nationalism Gelvin provides a fairly even account of the conflict (I’m sure both sides would disagree). I think it works well as an introductory work but those who need a chronological timeline may want to look elsewhere, Gelvin’s approach is approximately chronological but things overlap and go forwards and backwards, as it is organized by topic as well. That sounds more confusing than it really is.
A lot of mistakes have been make, not just by Israel and Palestine, the West and Arab countries also had plenty of not-helpful contributions. Essentially we move from crisis to crisis while also permanently in a state of crisis.
There is a lot more history than this 280 page book can cover, a lot more points of view. Endless contradictions and competing claims. Little hope. But it’s absolutely something people needs to read about, be informed about, care about. I stand with the civilians caught in the maelstrom. #Ceasefire
December 23, 2025
This book stands as one of the most respected concise syntheses of a deeply complex and emotionally charged subject. Widely adopted in university curricula across the world, the book succeeds where many others falter: it explains the conflict clearly without simplifying it, contextualizes competing narratives without endorsing them, and foregrounds structural forces rather than moral absolutism.
Gelvin’s central contribution lies in his insistence that the conflict must be understood primarily through the lenses of colonialism, nationalism, and modernization, rather than as an ancient religious feud or an inevitable clash of civilizations.
Gelvin begins by dismantling common misconceptions. He rejects the idea that the conflict is timeless or rooted in primordial hatred between Jews and Muslims. Instead, he situates its origins firmly in the late nineteenth and early 20th centuries, when the Ottoman Empire was collapsing and European imperial powers were reshaping the Middle East.
By doing so, Gelvin places both Zionism and Palestinian nationalism within the broader global history of modern nationalism, arguing that both movements emerged as responses to similar pressures: imperial domination, economic transformation, and the redefinition of political sovereignty.
A key strength of the book is its comparative approach. Gelvin treats Zionism and Palestinian nationalism not as moral opposites but as parallel nationalist projects that developed under asymmetrical conditions.
Zionism benefited from international support, institutional organization, and colonial patronage, particularly under British rule, while Palestinian nationalism developed under political suppression and fragmented leadership.
This imbalance, Gelvin argues, is crucial for understanding why the conflict evolved as it did.
Gelvin’s treatment of the British Mandate period is especially effective. He portrays British policy as contradictory and short-sighted, shaped more by imperial expediency than by coherent planning.
The Balfour Declaration, conflicting wartime promises, and administrative practices that empowered Zionist institutions while restricting Arab political organization are presented as structural factors that entrenched inequality.
Gelvin avoids casting Britain as a singular villain; instead, he emphasizes how imperial systems operate through bureaucratic inertia, racial assumptions, and strategic miscalculations.
The book’s discussion of 1948 is notably restrained. Gelvin does not attempt to adjudicate moral responsibility for the war’s outcomes in emotional terms. Instead, he presents displacement, violence, and state formation as interconnected processes common to many nationalist conflicts of the twentieth century.
This approach has drawn criticism from readers who seek moral clarity, particularly regarding Palestinian dispossession. However, Gelvin’s objective is explanatory rather than advocative: he seeks to show how outcomes emerged, not to assign blame in absolute terms.
One of Gelvin’s most important analytical contributions is his emphasis on modernization. He argues that the transformation of Palestine’s economy, land ownership patterns, and social hierarchies under Ottoman reform and European influence intensified competition and sharpened identities.
Migration, urbanization, and capitalist agriculture disrupted older systems of coexistence and produced new forms of political consciousness. In this framework, violence is not an aberration but a recurring feature of rapid social change.
Gelvin is equally careful in his treatment of post-1967 developments. He frames Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza as a turning point that transformed the conflict from a struggle between two national movements into a system of control marked by settlement expansion, legal dualism, and permanent temporariness.
Yet even here, Gelvin resists polemical language. He analyzes Israeli policies, Palestinian resistance, and international diplomacy as interlocking systems shaped by Cold War politics, regional instability, and shifting global norms.
The prose is one of the book’s greatest strengths. Gelvin writes with clarity and precision, avoiding jargon while maintaining analytical sophistication.
Each chapter builds logically, making the book especially effective for students encountering the topic for the first time. Maps, timelines, and thematic organization further enhance accessibility.
Critics of Gelvin’s approach often point to his refusal to moralize as a limitation. In an era when scholarship on Israel–Palestine is frequently intertwined with activism, Gelvin’s restraint can feel unsatisfying to readers seeking ethical judgment. However, this very quality is what makes the book enduringly valuable.
By refusing to collapse explanation into condemnation or defense, Gelvin creates space for readers to understand the conflict’s complexity before forming normative conclusions.
Importantly, the book does not claim neutrality in the sense of denying power asymmetries. Gelvin repeatedly acknowledges the unequal distribution of resources, sovereignty, and international support.
What he avoids is moral absolutism—the tendency to reduce the conflict to heroes and villains. This makes the book particularly effective as a teaching text, where the goal is critical engagement rather than ideological alignment.
In sum, The Israel–Palestine Conflict is not the most emotionally compelling or morally declarative work on the subject, but it may be one of the most intellectually responsible. Gelvin offers readers the analytical tools needed to understand how the conflict emerged, evolved, and persists.
For students, educators, and serious readers seeking a clear, historically grounded introduction that resists propaganda from all sides, Gelvin’s book remains indispensable.
Most recommended.
Gelvin’s central contribution lies in his insistence that the conflict must be understood primarily through the lenses of colonialism, nationalism, and modernization, rather than as an ancient religious feud or an inevitable clash of civilizations.
Gelvin begins by dismantling common misconceptions. He rejects the idea that the conflict is timeless or rooted in primordial hatred between Jews and Muslims. Instead, he situates its origins firmly in the late nineteenth and early 20th centuries, when the Ottoman Empire was collapsing and European imperial powers were reshaping the Middle East.
By doing so, Gelvin places both Zionism and Palestinian nationalism within the broader global history of modern nationalism, arguing that both movements emerged as responses to similar pressures: imperial domination, economic transformation, and the redefinition of political sovereignty.
A key strength of the book is its comparative approach. Gelvin treats Zionism and Palestinian nationalism not as moral opposites but as parallel nationalist projects that developed under asymmetrical conditions.
Zionism benefited from international support, institutional organization, and colonial patronage, particularly under British rule, while Palestinian nationalism developed under political suppression and fragmented leadership.
This imbalance, Gelvin argues, is crucial for understanding why the conflict evolved as it did.
Gelvin’s treatment of the British Mandate period is especially effective. He portrays British policy as contradictory and short-sighted, shaped more by imperial expediency than by coherent planning.
The Balfour Declaration, conflicting wartime promises, and administrative practices that empowered Zionist institutions while restricting Arab political organization are presented as structural factors that entrenched inequality.
Gelvin avoids casting Britain as a singular villain; instead, he emphasizes how imperial systems operate through bureaucratic inertia, racial assumptions, and strategic miscalculations.
The book’s discussion of 1948 is notably restrained. Gelvin does not attempt to adjudicate moral responsibility for the war’s outcomes in emotional terms. Instead, he presents displacement, violence, and state formation as interconnected processes common to many nationalist conflicts of the twentieth century.
This approach has drawn criticism from readers who seek moral clarity, particularly regarding Palestinian dispossession. However, Gelvin’s objective is explanatory rather than advocative: he seeks to show how outcomes emerged, not to assign blame in absolute terms.
One of Gelvin’s most important analytical contributions is his emphasis on modernization. He argues that the transformation of Palestine’s economy, land ownership patterns, and social hierarchies under Ottoman reform and European influence intensified competition and sharpened identities.
Migration, urbanization, and capitalist agriculture disrupted older systems of coexistence and produced new forms of political consciousness. In this framework, violence is not an aberration but a recurring feature of rapid social change.
Gelvin is equally careful in his treatment of post-1967 developments. He frames Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza as a turning point that transformed the conflict from a struggle between two national movements into a system of control marked by settlement expansion, legal dualism, and permanent temporariness.
Yet even here, Gelvin resists polemical language. He analyzes Israeli policies, Palestinian resistance, and international diplomacy as interlocking systems shaped by Cold War politics, regional instability, and shifting global norms.
The prose is one of the book’s greatest strengths. Gelvin writes with clarity and precision, avoiding jargon while maintaining analytical sophistication.
Each chapter builds logically, making the book especially effective for students encountering the topic for the first time. Maps, timelines, and thematic organization further enhance accessibility.
Critics of Gelvin’s approach often point to his refusal to moralize as a limitation. In an era when scholarship on Israel–Palestine is frequently intertwined with activism, Gelvin’s restraint can feel unsatisfying to readers seeking ethical judgment. However, this very quality is what makes the book enduringly valuable.
By refusing to collapse explanation into condemnation or defense, Gelvin creates space for readers to understand the conflict’s complexity before forming normative conclusions.
Importantly, the book does not claim neutrality in the sense of denying power asymmetries. Gelvin repeatedly acknowledges the unequal distribution of resources, sovereignty, and international support.
What he avoids is moral absolutism—the tendency to reduce the conflict to heroes and villains. This makes the book particularly effective as a teaching text, where the goal is critical engagement rather than ideological alignment.
In sum, The Israel–Palestine Conflict is not the most emotionally compelling or morally declarative work on the subject, but it may be one of the most intellectually responsible. Gelvin offers readers the analytical tools needed to understand how the conflict emerged, evolved, and persists.
For students, educators, and serious readers seeking a clear, historically grounded introduction that resists propaganda from all sides, Gelvin’s book remains indispensable.
Most recommended.
April 12, 2017
Very interesting book; very balanced. I am pro-Israeli but this book has softened my views on the Palestinians. Additionally, while digesting this book, I saw a very tenuous, but visible, parallel between the Israeli-Palestinian conflict over land and the what is going on with the immigration debate in America today. Replace the word 'Zion' with the word 'Aztlan', which is a word that loosely represents the American Southwest that was lost by Mexico. Then substitute the Palestinians with Americans who live in the Southwest, and the Jews, who emigrated in the aliyahs of the the early 2oth century, with the illegal immigrants from Mexico. With that done, you might see a very striking similarity.
January 8, 2022
I’ve enjoyed reading this book, I find it useful for understanding the timeline of events that defined the conflict. The book obviously doesn’t analyse in depth all the events and negotiations and laws regarding the conflict. I’ve given 4 stars, maybe 4.5, because at times it felt like it passed by important points and events, or straight up contradicted himself.
The book is though overall unbiased, which is something rare in this conflict, even between academics
The book is though overall unbiased, which is something rare in this conflict, even between academics
February 10, 2023
فلسطین و اسرائیل
حکایت برخورد یک نیروی توقف ناپذیر و یک جسم غیرقابل حرکت
کلاف در هم پیچ اسرائیل و فلسطین از آن دسته صفحاتی از تاریخ است که تنها بایست نگاهی کرد، سریع ورق زد و گذشت...
حکایت برخورد یک نیروی توقف ناپذیر و یک جسم غیرقابل حرکت
کلاف در هم پیچ اسرائیل و فلسطین از آن دسته صفحاتی از تاریخ است که تنها بایست نگاهی کرد، سریع ورق زد و گذشت...
May 21, 2024
I was looking for unbiased opinion on MiddleEast and this was not it. Not well written with incorrect, false, one sided so called facts. One of the books that I actually researched because authors statements were so one sided that there had to more and true to form, this so called experts did not provide the context of his personal bias or was just wrong. This book is seething with personal opinions with underlays of anti-Semitic rhetoric. One example of his political leanings is where he personally attacks Trump and his family and repeatedly calls attention the Trump and Netanyahu as being “strongmen” yet he never associate Abbis, Arafat or any other other Arab country dictators or autocrats as such.I now realize why theses dim witted college students are protesting in support for Palestinians and Hamas. The author and similar so called woke intellects have indoctrinated these dimwits to support a terrorist organization which considers women as chattel/property and homosexuals as abominations subject to death. They have convinced women and homosexuals to support a group of people that would consider them less than human. What a disgrace. This book does not even deserve to sent to recycle bin. Straight to trash and dump. I hate to tell the author but there no thing as Palestine. It was called Israel and Judea. Palestine was derived by the Romans from Philistines as punishment to Jews. Jews were the original inhabitants of these area but were expelled by the Assyrians, Babylonians, Romans and Ottoman Empire but that does not mean they have no right to their land. Ask the Native American Indians about that. The author brushed over that the land was originally stolen from Jews. He also forgets that Jews still lived there during Ottoman Empire which prevented them from owning land. The Palestinians have only 150 year history in that area. The Jews have been there since 2000to 1500 BC. Don’t bother with one.
December 17, 2024
I read the newest edition but I don't see it on Goodreads. This succinct book is extremely good at describing the history of the Israeli Palestinian conflict in the context of broader global events and is quite well written. Especially informative is Gelvins overview of the conditions that existed for the Fellahin on the eve of mass Jewish immigration under the Ottoman empire and how it caused so many Western misconceptions about the land not being settled already and how the Ottoman land ownership laws made the Fellahin so vulnerable to dispossession by legal land purchases made by the Zionists which was a key underlying driver of the conflict.
Unfortunately the authors mission to be light on details makes it necessary to also consult a more fine detailed source as well since the blow by blow of events actually matters a lot. I recommend reading this book as a companion to a more detailed history like "righteous victims" by Benny Morris which is much more focused on details at the expense of the global context that Gelvin focuses on. I also was a bit disappointed in Gelvins (2021) reliance on the early 2000s Mitchell report of the cause for the Al Aqsa intifadah even after compelling evidence arose in the 2010s through testimony of former PLO chiefs and Arafats wife that Arafat likely planned the insurgency immediately after the camp David breakdown and long before Sharon's visit to the temple mount. I also found his treatment of the "water war" leading up to the 1967 conflict to be so stripped down that it felt pretty misleading.
Unfortunately the authors mission to be light on details makes it necessary to also consult a more fine detailed source as well since the blow by blow of events actually matters a lot. I recommend reading this book as a companion to a more detailed history like "righteous victims" by Benny Morris which is much more focused on details at the expense of the global context that Gelvin focuses on. I also was a bit disappointed in Gelvins (2021) reliance on the early 2000s Mitchell report of the cause for the Al Aqsa intifadah even after compelling evidence arose in the 2010s through testimony of former PLO chiefs and Arafats wife that Arafat likely planned the insurgency immediately after the camp David breakdown and long before Sharon's visit to the temple mount. I also found his treatment of the "water war" leading up to the 1967 conflict to be so stripped down that it felt pretty misleading.
April 23, 2025
Good overview and starting point for someone wanting to learn more about the Israel-Palestine ‘conflict.’ Starts off with an important discussion about nationalism which is essential imo. To me, it is clear that early Palestinian nationalism was not able to be fulfilled mainly due to the external force of Britain’s influence and the strength of the Zionist movement rather than bc of internal ‘shortcomings,’ and I think Gelvin’s discussion of nationalism helps set up a conversation about that. That being said, early on in the book he writes that “The problem […] is over real estate,” and it takes him a while to get to the topic of settler colonialism. Overall a good book, but if someone wants to read an author who frames the conflict in the context of settler colonialism, Rashid Khalidi would be a better pick.
“Whereas all sorts of religious and ethnic groups feel sentimental attachments to places, nationalism converts sentiment into politics. When it comes to connecting history and geography to political rights, neither Zionism nor Palestinian nationalism is a slacker.” (6)
“Nationalist movements do not bring preexisting nations to a state of self-awareness; nationalist movements create those nations.” (15)
“Nationalisms succeed or fail not because they are true or false but because of factors extrinsic to the nationalisms themselves: the adversaries against whom they are arrayed, the resources available to them and their supporters, [and] the support they receive from the international community.” (89)
“Whereas all sorts of religious and ethnic groups feel sentimental attachments to places, nationalism converts sentiment into politics. When it comes to connecting history and geography to political rights, neither Zionism nor Palestinian nationalism is a slacker.” (6)
“Nationalist movements do not bring preexisting nations to a state of self-awareness; nationalist movements create those nations.” (15)
“Nationalisms succeed or fail not because they are true or false but because of factors extrinsic to the nationalisms themselves: the adversaries against whom they are arrayed, the resources available to them and their supporters, [and] the support they receive from the international community.” (89)
September 17, 2019
This book is arguably the best introduction to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict available. It provides both a detailed chronological overview of the roots, developments, and nuances of the topic for unfamiliar readers, and offers thinking points for even seasoned scholars.
Gelvin presents the conflict, most appropriately, as being between two competing national groups. Examined in the wider context of the emergence of modernity, accompanied by the growth of nationalism and decline of decentralised empires, he is successful in dispelling many of the central myths to both Zionism (which, as he argues, is a form of nationalism) and Palestinian nationalism. Gelvin is strong in his presentation of the development of both nationalisms, and in clarifying the early manifestations of Palestinian nationalism (in both its pan-Syrian and pan-Arab forms). Furthermore, the helpful lists at the end of each chapter for suggested further reading are likely to stimulate ideas for even familiar audiences.
The study nonetheless largely overlooks the significance of the 1929 riots on hardening these national identities (see Hillel Cohen's substantive book 1929: Year Zero), and Gelvin's continued use of the term 'Palestine' to describe Israel-Palestine is likely to alienate some Israeli readers. The author himself, however, insists audiences should not read too deeply into his preferred choice of terms - recognising, as he does, the inherent contentions in the very language of the conflict. Additionally, though in keeping with most publishing norms, the lack (though not total absence) of in-text citations for a study of such a contended topic is a little irritating.
The updated edition contains a welcome and reasoned examination of developments post-2011, when uprisings swept through the Greater Middle East, but this section is somewhat weighed down by Gelvin's inaccurate conflation of binationalism with majoritarianism. He seems to agree with critics of the one-state solution that any such state might mean the eradication of any distinctly Jewish identity amongst the populations of Israel-Palestine, without reflecting on how consociational models (such as those tried in Bosnia & Herzegovina, or Northern Ireland) have attempted to tackle this.
I find myself differing greatly with his final conclusion that the stagnant Oslo peace process might yet see a revival.
Gelvin presents the conflict, most appropriately, as being between two competing national groups. Examined in the wider context of the emergence of modernity, accompanied by the growth of nationalism and decline of decentralised empires, he is successful in dispelling many of the central myths to both Zionism (which, as he argues, is a form of nationalism) and Palestinian nationalism. Gelvin is strong in his presentation of the development of both nationalisms, and in clarifying the early manifestations of Palestinian nationalism (in both its pan-Syrian and pan-Arab forms). Furthermore, the helpful lists at the end of each chapter for suggested further reading are likely to stimulate ideas for even familiar audiences.
The study nonetheless largely overlooks the significance of the 1929 riots on hardening these national identities (see Hillel Cohen's substantive book 1929: Year Zero), and Gelvin's continued use of the term 'Palestine' to describe Israel-Palestine is likely to alienate some Israeli readers. The author himself, however, insists audiences should not read too deeply into his preferred choice of terms - recognising, as he does, the inherent contentions in the very language of the conflict. Additionally, though in keeping with most publishing norms, the lack (though not total absence) of in-text citations for a study of such a contended topic is a little irritating.
The updated edition contains a welcome and reasoned examination of developments post-2011, when uprisings swept through the Greater Middle East, but this section is somewhat weighed down by Gelvin's inaccurate conflation of binationalism with majoritarianism. He seems to agree with critics of the one-state solution that any such state might mean the eradication of any distinctly Jewish identity amongst the populations of Israel-Palestine, without reflecting on how consociational models (such as those tried in Bosnia & Herzegovina, or Northern Ireland) have attempted to tackle this.
I find myself differing greatly with his final conclusion that the stagnant Oslo peace process might yet see a revival.
December 21, 2025
Un ottimo saggio, che fornisce una prima comprensione di una vicenda intricatissima e dalle radici ben profonde, delle quali rende conto.
Molto stimolante in rapporto a vari ordini di riflessioni: in primis la responsabilità degli Stati occidentali e delle conseguenze dirette e indirette delle centenarie politiche coloniali; la responsabilità degli stessi nella mediazione delle crisi diplomatiche; la loro incapacità di porre un freno all’occupazione e ai massacri israeliani, ai quali hanno più o meno tacitamente contribuito; i confini tra diritto e potere; lo sviluppo del senso di appartenenza nazionale; la apparentemente innata instabilità dei governi mediorientali circostanti; il labilissimo confine tra resistenza e terrorismo; il prezzo della libertà e della autodeterminazione.
L’unica “pecca” è il non aver ancora lavorato a una revisione e aggiunta delle vicende degli ultimi vent’anni, che hanno solo aggravato le condizioni degli abitanti dell’area e allontanato ancor di più (se possibile) da una risoluzione della crisi. Ma forse tutto ciò richiede una sedimentazione che ancora non è giunta a maturazione.
Molto stimolante in rapporto a vari ordini di riflessioni: in primis la responsabilità degli Stati occidentali e delle conseguenze dirette e indirette delle centenarie politiche coloniali; la responsabilità degli stessi nella mediazione delle crisi diplomatiche; la loro incapacità di porre un freno all’occupazione e ai massacri israeliani, ai quali hanno più o meno tacitamente contribuito; i confini tra diritto e potere; lo sviluppo del senso di appartenenza nazionale; la apparentemente innata instabilità dei governi mediorientali circostanti; il labilissimo confine tra resistenza e terrorismo; il prezzo della libertà e della autodeterminazione.
L’unica “pecca” è il non aver ancora lavorato a una revisione e aggiunta delle vicende degli ultimi vent’anni, che hanno solo aggravato le condizioni degli abitanti dell’area e allontanato ancor di più (se possibile) da una risoluzione della crisi. Ma forse tutto ciò richiede una sedimentazione che ancora non è giunta a maturazione.
January 8, 2024
In the role of historical primer, this work did its job. In particular, it filled in some of the knowledge gaps I had about the struggle, particularly the actions in Palestine between the Balfour Declaration and the founding of the state of Israel. It does cover how the modern Palestinians came to settle the area and how they generally lived from the Ottoman Empire to 1948. Perhaps this work gives short shrift to the PLO and Hamas (admittedly, this was published before Oct 2023). Yet, it is not so glowing of Israel and the US either. Best taken for the gaps in history but the modern analysis is subject to debate. Worth the read for the history.
November 22, 2021
Aunque el autor abre el libro con una declaración de intenciones ideológica basada en la idea de que todos los nacionalismos son malos (tanto el palestino como el israelí), es decir, un posicionamiento centrista y poco comprometido, la honestidad intelectual del autor le permite observar y denunciar (aunque muy sutilmente) la desigualdad de poderes entre ambas naciones. Al final, sin igualdad no puede haber hermandad, y claramente uno de los dos bandos tiene más poder de destrucción y de barbarie que el otro.
May 29, 2024
I read this for Dr. Gelvin's class at UCLA and thoroughly enjoyed it. He brings the unique angle of the "cultures of nationalism" idea to the table and does a thorough job introducing the topic in a relatively short book. At times, his constant list-making gets a bit exhausting and he certainly fakes neutrality while being more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, but that's the way he sees the issue and I don't disagree with his takes. Overall, a good read for anyone looking for an introduction on one of today's most pertinent topics.
February 10, 2025
This is the third overview of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict I've read in the past six months (Smith's Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict and Bickerton's A History of the Arab Israeli Conflict being the others) and this is the most concise and best portrayal of the conflict. Gelvin discusses the conflict through the lens of two modern nationalisms contesting their claims to the same land. Gelvin is generally evenhanded in his approach to one of the most polarizing topics of our day and is able to humanize and criticize both Israelis, Palestinians, and third party actors.
June 4, 2025
This book effectively introduces the state of affairs in the region. It's the most palatable of the various texts I've skimmed through, though this ease-of-access comes at an obvious cost. This cost does not entirely concern its coverage of the relevant events as much as it concerns the ease by which one might misinterpret the text as a one stop shop to gain a sort of political expertise.
In the same way that the successful soldier fights many battles and reads many plans, an informed political view requires one read many texts and set aside a significant amount of time.
In the same way that the successful soldier fights many battles and reads many plans, an informed political view requires one read many texts and set aside a significant amount of time.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 72 reviews