What do you think?
Rate this book
Shortest History
Den Korte Historie Om Israel Og Palæstina
Konflikten mellem Israel og Palæstina er en af de bitreste i historien, og den har omfattende globale konsekvenser. I denne bog beskriver mellemøsteksperten Michael Scott-Baumann konfliktens oprindelse og udvikling helt op til nutiden.
Bogen undersøger blandt andet briternes rolle i optakten til etablering af staten Israel i 1948, Uafhængighedskrigen 1948-49, Seksdageskrigen i 1967, Osloaftalerne, de to Intifadaer, Trumps fredsplan fra 2020 og den krig, der brød ud mellem Israel og Hamas i 2023.
Hvert kapitel kortlægger de politiske forhold, præsenterer forskellige fortolkninger og slutter med personlige vidnesbyrd fra israelere og palæstinensere, hvis tilværelse er blevet formørket af vold.
Bogen undersøger blandt andet briternes rolle i optakten til etablering af staten Israel i 1948, Uafhængighedskrigen 1948-49, Seksdageskrigen i 1967, Osloaftalerne, de to Intifadaer, Trumps fredsplan fra 2020 og den krig, der brød ud mellem Israel og Hamas i 2023.
Hvert kapitel kortlægger de politiske forhold, præsenterer forskellige fortolkninger og slutter med personlige vidnesbyrd fra israelere og palæstinensere, hvis tilværelse er blevet formørket af vold.
268 pages, Paperback
First published February 28, 2023
596 people are currently reading
6292 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 466 reviews
June 1, 2023
As I've researched Palestine/Israel, I've been learning that 1) there is no such thing as a neutral historical narrative of anything at all and 2) it's important to continue finding current sources since this relationship is ongoing. This book was *so* helpful in providing historical context and establishing some of the chronology of some of the key players and events in this particular relationship. There is danger in basing all information/knowledge on a single source, but Scott-Baumann did a great job in providing an accessible, clear explanation that serves to reinforce or provide a point of further research on these two nations. I recognize that some may say that this account is biased (pro-Palestinian, particularly in the final few chapters), and I don't pretend to have an expert, definitive opinion on the subject. It does, though, seem difficult to demand a “neutral” narrative that evens the score between peoples when the powers under discussion are unequally matched. At a certain point, a call for neutrality seems like a denial of the presence of oppression....
March 17, 2024
If you feel that this book leans too much toward Palestinian suffering, I wonder if it would be useful to consider the possibility that you might be on the wrong side of history
December 6, 2024
What a relevant book to be reading these days.
For how polarized this topic is I'm impressed at but not convinced of the wisdom of the ambition of trying to condense it into 250 pages or so. I did like the book with some VERY heavy caveats.
This book is consistently pro-Palestine and at best Israel-neutral. Throughout the whole reading experience, it felt like the author was working off of the underlying unspoken thesis that Israel shouldn't exist due to it's original sin of colonial establishment under the British. Perhaps that's not necessarily Scott-Baumann's intention, but as the (very real) atrocities of Israel pile up and the (also very real) atrocities of Palestinians or other foreign nations are barely mentioned, it's quite clear to me that a narrative thread through this history has been woven in which paints Israel as an illegitimate power. One can argue that's true, I was even swayed by it a little based on that particular historical context, but it's tricky to navigate.
This is perhaps the main issue I have with condensing this particular region of history into a Shortest History Of book. The book's main timeline only goes from the 1800's to "today" (2023 pre Oct 7). The region of Israel/Palestine, the Levant, whatever you want to call it, stretches back to ancient history. Taking a look at the lens of Israel/Palestine through just the lens of post-1800 feels like chopping off a massive chunk of historical and cultural context. What was life like in Palestine during Ottoman rule and before? What was life like before Muslim empires conquered vast swathes of the Middle East, North Africa, and Spain? What was life like for Jews scattered throughout the world due to conquests and wars? What was life like in 1500 B.C.E. when the first Hebrews were around?
Essentially, I got the same feeling from this book as I did from a History of Jews in Eastern Europe class I took in college, where, very conveniently, the class ended with Jews living somewhat happily in the newly established Soviet Union. We never touched upon the subsequent pogroms. A huge chunk of context was left out.
I was encouraged every time the author did bring up particular bits of Jewish history that ignorant people on the right and the left seem to want to erase: that there were original Hebrew peoples in the region thousands of years ago, that Jews have lived in the region side by side with other peoples throughout history, and that the concept of a Jewish nation state (or even a Palestinian nation state for that matter) is a relatively recent concept. I suppose the concept of a Westphalian nation state had to be invented first.
My own personal main takeaway from this book, with the context I have from researching this conflict through modern Israel/Palestine researchers and experts who have dedicated their lives to understanding the conflict, is that nationalism is a disease. Right wing Zionist Jews have taken the sympathy and support of freedom-loving peoples and nations all over the world and squandered it with their oppressive and genocidal policies and practices on the treatment of Arab minorities in Israel proper and with settlement building in the West Bank. Zionist ambitions and pathologies contribute to the downfall of the very nation they purport to defend.
One of the first things you should learn in any counterterrorism course or any course covering the War on Terror should be that killing or mistreating civilians creates terrorists. That's one of the simplest and easy concepts to understand. It's very easy to empathize with somebody trapped in a hellhole, abused by security forces, and fighting for their freedom. Jews in fact did the very same thing across history, perhaps most notably in the Warsaw ghetto uprising as the Soviets pushed the Nazis across Poland. So it's easy to see that mistreatment of civilians will cause them to lash out at you. The United States experienced the "bombs create terrorists" phenomenon everywhere it sent bombs: Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen. Every time a drone strike killed civilians it made U.S. goals in the local region harder. Every civilian killed was a propaganda victory for Al-Qaeda and ISIS.
Right wing Zionists in Israel either don't understand this concept or, more likely, they don't care because the fear of Arab terrorists is great fodder for election victories. Yet I would have hoped that after the historically massive protests that happened in Israel, bringing the country to the very brink of a constitutional crisis and societal breakdown (which included the resignation of thousands of reservists and pilots and open letters from former military and intelligence officials), would have shown that Israel is not in a healthy place. Politicians and voters cannot gamble on the survival of Israel. Something has to change or this cycle of violence will keep happening, and my analysis is that the thing that needs to change is the entrenched empowerment of ultra-Orthodox and Zionist ideology as a political power in Israel's government. This book goes into pretty good detail on how toxic Zionism has become. Rather than a legitimized movement in response to the Holocaust, it has evolved into an excuse for Israeli Jews to subjugate people that are different.
My own thoughts on Zionism are practically negative because, as a general rule, I am anti-nationalist since at this time in history, a VAST majority of nationalist movements turn fascist at the first opportunity. I am mostly a proponent of the idea that Jews have strength through diversity, not just spreading the religion to others but ensuring that vibrant, acceptable liberal democracies that protect the rights of all underneath them continue to exist. This is to prepare for the inevitable: the next pogrom, the next Holocaust, the next ethnic cleansing. If they attack us in one place, we have somewhere to go. And thus, despite the systematic cleansing of Jews in Europe, Jews survived in America. If America were to fall to anti-semitism, Jews could survive somewhere else. This same concept applies if Israel were it to fall.
But if Jews want Israel to continue existing as a vibrant nation state then Israel's legitimacy as a liberal democracy is vital. It cannot become yet another Middle Eastern dictatorship or autocracy conducting its own ethnic cleansings and going to war with its neighbors, fomenting terror groups, oppressing LGBTQ+ and other minorities. Some would argue some of these points are already happening and have been for the entire history of Israel. They're right on certain aspects, but I do think there is value to the existence of Israel or a liberal democracy like it. Until another Arab Spring successfully occurs or Iranian youths finally overthrow their theocracy, Israel (despite its war crimes and discrimination) will remain the nation with the highest standard of living and highest place on any regional freedom index. Getting rid of it would open up a massive power vacuum where Hamas or another Middle Eastern country would rule and would likely lead to a Holocaust 2.0. But Israel and the U.S. are in control here. They have the responsibility to improve the situation. I just have no faith, like the author, that right wing Zionists will take action to improve.
Despite my 3 stars, a pretty big recommend from me WITH THE VERY IMPORTANT REQUIREMENT that if you read this book you need to also read other history sources that explore ancient history to 1800s to get a better understanding of things. Perhaps a history of Zionism would also add context.
The best most balanced resource I've ever seen on Israel/Palestine is this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWKma...
For how polarized this topic is I'm impressed at but not convinced of the wisdom of the ambition of trying to condense it into 250 pages or so. I did like the book with some VERY heavy caveats.
This book is consistently pro-Palestine and at best Israel-neutral. Throughout the whole reading experience, it felt like the author was working off of the underlying unspoken thesis that Israel shouldn't exist due to it's original sin of colonial establishment under the British. Perhaps that's not necessarily Scott-Baumann's intention, but as the (very real) atrocities of Israel pile up and the (also very real) atrocities of Palestinians or other foreign nations are barely mentioned, it's quite clear to me that a narrative thread through this history has been woven in which paints Israel as an illegitimate power. One can argue that's true, I was even swayed by it a little based on that particular historical context, but it's tricky to navigate.
This is perhaps the main issue I have with condensing this particular region of history into a Shortest History Of book. The book's main timeline only goes from the 1800's to "today" (2023 pre Oct 7). The region of Israel/Palestine, the Levant, whatever you want to call it, stretches back to ancient history. Taking a look at the lens of Israel/Palestine through just the lens of post-1800 feels like chopping off a massive chunk of historical and cultural context. What was life like in Palestine during Ottoman rule and before? What was life like before Muslim empires conquered vast swathes of the Middle East, North Africa, and Spain? What was life like for Jews scattered throughout the world due to conquests and wars? What was life like in 1500 B.C.E. when the first Hebrews were around?
Essentially, I got the same feeling from this book as I did from a History of Jews in Eastern Europe class I took in college, where, very conveniently, the class ended with Jews living somewhat happily in the newly established Soviet Union. We never touched upon the subsequent pogroms. A huge chunk of context was left out.
I was encouraged every time the author did bring up particular bits of Jewish history that ignorant people on the right and the left seem to want to erase: that there were original Hebrew peoples in the region thousands of years ago, that Jews have lived in the region side by side with other peoples throughout history, and that the concept of a Jewish nation state (or even a Palestinian nation state for that matter) is a relatively recent concept. I suppose the concept of a Westphalian nation state had to be invented first.
My own personal main takeaway from this book, with the context I have from researching this conflict through modern Israel/Palestine researchers and experts who have dedicated their lives to understanding the conflict, is that nationalism is a disease. Right wing Zionist Jews have taken the sympathy and support of freedom-loving peoples and nations all over the world and squandered it with their oppressive and genocidal policies and practices on the treatment of Arab minorities in Israel proper and with settlement building in the West Bank. Zionist ambitions and pathologies contribute to the downfall of the very nation they purport to defend.
One of the first things you should learn in any counterterrorism course or any course covering the War on Terror should be that killing or mistreating civilians creates terrorists. That's one of the simplest and easy concepts to understand. It's very easy to empathize with somebody trapped in a hellhole, abused by security forces, and fighting for their freedom. Jews in fact did the very same thing across history, perhaps most notably in the Warsaw ghetto uprising as the Soviets pushed the Nazis across Poland. So it's easy to see that mistreatment of civilians will cause them to lash out at you. The United States experienced the "bombs create terrorists" phenomenon everywhere it sent bombs: Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen. Every time a drone strike killed civilians it made U.S. goals in the local region harder. Every civilian killed was a propaganda victory for Al-Qaeda and ISIS.
Right wing Zionists in Israel either don't understand this concept or, more likely, they don't care because the fear of Arab terrorists is great fodder for election victories. Yet I would have hoped that after the historically massive protests that happened in Israel, bringing the country to the very brink of a constitutional crisis and societal breakdown (which included the resignation of thousands of reservists and pilots and open letters from former military and intelligence officials), would have shown that Israel is not in a healthy place. Politicians and voters cannot gamble on the survival of Israel. Something has to change or this cycle of violence will keep happening, and my analysis is that the thing that needs to change is the entrenched empowerment of ultra-Orthodox and Zionist ideology as a political power in Israel's government. This book goes into pretty good detail on how toxic Zionism has become. Rather than a legitimized movement in response to the Holocaust, it has evolved into an excuse for Israeli Jews to subjugate people that are different.
My own thoughts on Zionism are practically negative because, as a general rule, I am anti-nationalist since at this time in history, a VAST majority of nationalist movements turn fascist at the first opportunity. I am mostly a proponent of the idea that Jews have strength through diversity, not just spreading the religion to others but ensuring that vibrant, acceptable liberal democracies that protect the rights of all underneath them continue to exist. This is to prepare for the inevitable: the next pogrom, the next Holocaust, the next ethnic cleansing. If they attack us in one place, we have somewhere to go. And thus, despite the systematic cleansing of Jews in Europe, Jews survived in America. If America were to fall to anti-semitism, Jews could survive somewhere else. This same concept applies if Israel were it to fall.
But if Jews want Israel to continue existing as a vibrant nation state then Israel's legitimacy as a liberal democracy is vital. It cannot become yet another Middle Eastern dictatorship or autocracy conducting its own ethnic cleansings and going to war with its neighbors, fomenting terror groups, oppressing LGBTQ+ and other minorities. Some would argue some of these points are already happening and have been for the entire history of Israel. They're right on certain aspects, but I do think there is value to the existence of Israel or a liberal democracy like it. Until another Arab Spring successfully occurs or Iranian youths finally overthrow their theocracy, Israel (despite its war crimes and discrimination) will remain the nation with the highest standard of living and highest place on any regional freedom index. Getting rid of it would open up a massive power vacuum where Hamas or another Middle Eastern country would rule and would likely lead to a Holocaust 2.0. But Israel and the U.S. are in control here. They have the responsibility to improve the situation. I just have no faith, like the author, that right wing Zionists will take action to improve.
Despite my 3 stars, a pretty big recommend from me WITH THE VERY IMPORTANT REQUIREMENT that if you read this book you need to also read other history sources that explore ancient history to 1800s to get a better understanding of things. Perhaps a history of Zionism would also add context.
The best most balanced resource I've ever seen on Israel/Palestine is this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWKma...
![Profile Image for s.penkevich [hiatus-will return-miss you all].](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.gr-assets.com%2Fimages%2FS%2Fcompressed.photo.goodreads.com%2Fusers%2F1735525095i%2F6431467._UX200_CR0%2C11%2C200%2C200_.jpg&w=128&q=75)
December 6, 2023
Condensing a vast and nuanced history into an accessible walkthrough with the intention of being on the shorter side will always have its flaws, but for those looking for a worthwhile introductory read The Shortest History of Israel and Palestine is a great starting point. This has become my recommendation for those looking for a first read at my jobs, though I would encourage any readers to continue to find additional sources. The overview is great and provides a lot of concise details that manages to still convey how very nuanced the situation is as well as examining how people are divided over the issues, though there is still a lot to be learned and Scott-Baumann does provide an extensive bibliography that can be a great resource for that. As for concerns of bias, I feel this does an excellent job at trying to simply present the historical context and provide a variety of personal testimonies but I also feel that, due to language being an imperfect and inherently biased medium, there can truly never be such a thing as unbiased or completely objective. It’s just human nature. That said, this is an insightful look at key events across the centuries to give an accessibly detailed overview of the early role of the British and the establishment of Israel in 1948, the Nakba, the Six-Days War, the PLO, Netenyahu, and more recent events like the Nation-State Law, Trump’s 2020 plan all the way to the present.
I’ve previously read The Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: A Very Short Introduction a few years back and found this to be a bit more engaging to a general audience while also covering events of the recent decade (Bunton’s was published in 2013, this one, was 2021 and has been recently updated to bring us up to mid October 2023 where an estimated 2,600 have been murdered in Gaza and another million displaced). For that I’d say both can be a good resource, but for a general audience looking for an introductory work, I’d recommend this one.A lot of history is covered here, beginning in the 1800s with only a few slight references to life pre-Ottoman and such. It touches briefly on topics such as diverse peoples living side-by-side there throughout history and that the Biblical connections to a nation state are a very recent idea. It stays primarily focused on Israel, Gaza and the West Bank but does provide a bit of context on larger political issues in the Middle East and how that plays into the events here. It also dives into the role of the US in funding Israel and gives an overview of how much changed in just the last few years with influences of Trump as well as the Netanyahu being replaced by Naftali Bennett, then returning to power again in 2022 after the Israeli government collapsed after one year. If you are looking for a book that dives back into the past and brings you up to speed, this is a good one and you will certainly see that there is a long history of conflict well before this past October.
I’ve previously read The Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: A Very Short Introduction a few years back and found this to be a bit more engaging to a general audience while also covering events of the recent decade (Bunton’s was published in 2013, this one, was 2021 and has been recently updated to bring us up to mid October 2023 where an estimated 2,600 have been murdered in Gaza and another million displaced). For that I’d say both can be a good resource, but for a general audience looking for an introductory work, I’d recommend this one.A lot of history is covered here, beginning in the 1800s with only a few slight references to life pre-Ottoman and such. It touches briefly on topics such as diverse peoples living side-by-side there throughout history and that the Biblical connections to a nation state are a very recent idea. It stays primarily focused on Israel, Gaza and the West Bank but does provide a bit of context on larger political issues in the Middle East and how that plays into the events here. It also dives into the role of the US in funding Israel and gives an overview of how much changed in just the last few years with influences of Trump as well as the Netanyahu being replaced by Naftali Bennett, then returning to power again in 2022 after the Israeli government collapsed after one year. If you are looking for a book that dives back into the past and brings you up to speed, this is a good one and you will certainly see that there is a long history of conflict well before this past October.
March 4, 2025
“A jobboldal legerősebb érve mindig a félelem. Nem mondják ki fennhangon, mert szégyellik, de a leginkább meggyőző érvük az, hogy valójában félnek. És ez még csak nem is ostobaság. Én magam is félek az araboktól. Ha újrakezdhetném a béketárgyalásokat, szóvá tenném az araboktól való félelmünket. Őszinte párbeszédet kell folytatnunk arról, hogy a zsidók félnek az üldöztetéstől és a megsemmisüléstől."
Ámosz Oz
Csak hát ugye pont ez nem megy. Beismerni, mitől félünk. Ehelyett megy a túlkompenzálás, az emberkedés, hogy majd mi orrba csűrjük azokat, akik miatt nekünk rossz. Mert ha ők csűrnek orrba minket, az sátáni gonoszság, de ha mi csűrünk orrba másokat, az szakrális aktus, Szent Cselekedet. És hát azt is tegyük hozzá még az orrbacsűréssel kapcsolatban, hogy az se igazságosan van ám elosztva: a miniszterelnök urakat ugyanis, akik a leghangosabban helyeznek kilátásba ilyesmit, nem könnyű orrba csűrni – őket ugyanis két tucat állig felfegyverzett testőr veszi körbe. Viszont aki csak úgy ballag az utcán, mit se tudva arról, mit hord össze az általa esetleg megvetett politikai hérosz, na, ő bármikor kaphat a pofájába. Így megy ez.
A könyv legnagyobb (és legelszomorítóbb) tanulsága, hogy rossz ösztöneinket, agressziónkat és paranoiánkat Szent Cselekedetté emelni – na, az a populista politikában a Bölcsek Köve. Azzal bármennyi szavazatot be lehet söpörni. A palesztin-izraeli konfliktus esetében pedig azt is lemérhetjük, mi történik, ha ez a fajta politikai haszonszerzés (amelyet gyakran mindkét szembenálló felet jellemzi*) évtizedeken keresztül zajlik. Történelmi közhely, hogy a muzulmánok és a zsidók között hosszú évszázadokig sokkal zökkenőmentesebb kapcsolat volt, mint ugyanezen időszakban a keresztények és a zsidók között. Részben ez utóbbi tény szülte meg a Közel-Kelet konfliktusait is: a pogromok és a virulens antiszemitizmus, ami a Harmadik Birodalomba és a holokausztba torkollott. Ez ugyanis erősen elültette a zsidókban a gondolatot, hogy csak egy saját államban élhetnek életveszély nélkül, tehát ez az állam nekik jár, mégpedig ott, ahonnan az ókorban elűzték őket: Palesztina bibliai tájain. Csak hát ugye ott már arabok éltek. De oda se neki. Mert Izrael állam megalapítói még valamit leszűrtek a XX. század derekának borzalmas eseményeiből: hogy ha egy nép tűri a balsorsnak nyűgét s nyilait, akkor abból népirtás lesz. Szóval most nem mennek a vágóhídra, hanem visszalőnek. Sőt, először lőnek vissza.
Mindez egy klasszikus történelmi szituációhoz vezetett: olyan felek küzdelméhez, akiknek érthető és respektálható okaik vannak (mondhatni, igazuk van), de az eszközeik bűnösek. Igen, a zsidóknak joguk volt egy államhoz, és ahhoz, hogy az államon belül biztonságban éljenek. Ahogy a palesztinoknak is joguk volt ahhoz, hogy a földet, ahol élnek, a sajátjuknak tekintsék**. A baj az, hogy nagyon hamar belezuhantak abba a spirálba, ahol az érveket az erő és az elszántság demonstrálásával kívánták helyettesíteni – és mindezt azzal legitimálták, hogy a másik is pont ugyanezt teszi. Az egész egy végtelenül tragikus helyzetet teremtett: mindkét fél magát homogén, egyetlen akarattal rendelkező Nemzetként határozta meg, és a másik félre is ekként tekintett. Azonban a Nemzetek tudnak ugyan harcolni egymással, de meghalni az egyének szoktak. A palesztinok és az izraeliek is abból a tévképzetből indultak ki, hogy ha ütnek, a másik Nemzeten ütnek egyet. De ez csak illúzió, mert az okozott veszteség elsősorban személyes: egyének haltak meg, és az egyének családtagjai éreztek fájdalmat. Ami kollektív, az a félelem és a düh, ami válaszlépéseket követelt, mégpedig lehetőleg aránytalanul nagyokat, hogy a másik „megtanulja”. De senki nem tanult meg semmit, csak a rossz válaszok lettek rutinná, a Nemzetek pedig minden ütésváltás után egyre inkább saját szélsőségeseik fogságába kerültek.
Hogy mennyire nehéz ebből a spirálból kikeveredni, azt az oslói békefolyamat kudarca tökéletesen megmutatja. A ’90-es évek elejére ugyanis mindkét fél – úgy tűnt – eljutott a kifáradás azon pontjára, ahol a tartós nyugalmat már többre értékelték, mint a kölcsönös pofozkodást. Ennek köszönhetően elindult egy tárgyalásos folyamat, melyben benne volt egy működőképes kompromisszum lehetősége. Csakhogy a több évtizedes kölcsönös erőszak, a méltánytalanságok pont azt építették le, ami elengedhetetlen egy tartós megegyezéshez: a bizalmat. Ilyen helyzetben különösen nagy felelőssége van az erősebb félnek (ez esetben Izraelnek) a béke fenntartásában – neki kell elsősorban megmutatnia, hogy ha van is hatalma, nem fog azzal visszaélni. Például saját szélsőségeseit, akik nyilván hazaárulást kiáltanak majd, akár a karhatalom igénybe vételével is izolálnia kell. Sajnos az izraeli jobboldal (konkrétan Ariel Saron és Netanjahu) nem így tett - a szélsőségesekre inkább mint potenciális szavazatbankra tekintett, akiket kiváló hatásfokkal lehet mozgósítani, ha a helyzet radikalizálódik. És hát mindent meg is tettek, hogy a helyzet radikalizálódjon – Ariel Saron Templom-hegyi látogatását pedig nehéz nem provokációnak látni. Vélhetően maga is annak szánta, különben nem vitt volna magával egy ezer fős rendőri kontingenst. Az eseményt persze öngyilkos merényletek tucatjai követték, de hát ez Saront nem különösebben foglalkoztatta – ami azt illeti, talán örült is a merényleteknek, mert ezek szteroidként funkcionálva felpumpálták a szélsőségesek számát. Így váltják be a politikusok állampolgáraik életét belpolitikai haszonra.
Nagyon jó könyv. Világos, erőteljes, ahol a tárgyszerűséget a mindkét féltől idézett személyes élmények egészítik ki. Mindenkinek ajánlom, a hasznos ismeretközlő szakirodalom mintapéldánya.
* Szimpla logika: ha az egyik politikai fél (félelemből) agresszióra uszít a másik ellen, az jogos félelmet kelt abban a félben. Ez a félelem pedig szükségszerűen kitermeli a veszélyeztetett közösségben azokat a politikusokat, akik élősködni akarnak a pánikon.
** A palesztinok esetében sokáig nem volt szó önálló államról – az erre való igény talán nem is született volna meg, ha nem nehezedik rájuk Izrael állam teljes súlya.
Ámosz Oz
Csak hát ugye pont ez nem megy. Beismerni, mitől félünk. Ehelyett megy a túlkompenzálás, az emberkedés, hogy majd mi orrba csűrjük azokat, akik miatt nekünk rossz. Mert ha ők csűrnek orrba minket, az sátáni gonoszság, de ha mi csűrünk orrba másokat, az szakrális aktus, Szent Cselekedet. És hát azt is tegyük hozzá még az orrbacsűréssel kapcsolatban, hogy az se igazságosan van ám elosztva: a miniszterelnök urakat ugyanis, akik a leghangosabban helyeznek kilátásba ilyesmit, nem könnyű orrba csűrni – őket ugyanis két tucat állig felfegyverzett testőr veszi körbe. Viszont aki csak úgy ballag az utcán, mit se tudva arról, mit hord össze az általa esetleg megvetett politikai hérosz, na, ő bármikor kaphat a pofájába. Így megy ez.
A könyv legnagyobb (és legelszomorítóbb) tanulsága, hogy rossz ösztöneinket, agressziónkat és paranoiánkat Szent Cselekedetté emelni – na, az a populista politikában a Bölcsek Köve. Azzal bármennyi szavazatot be lehet söpörni. A palesztin-izraeli konfliktus esetében pedig azt is lemérhetjük, mi történik, ha ez a fajta politikai haszonszerzés (amelyet gyakran mindkét szembenálló felet jellemzi*) évtizedeken keresztül zajlik. Történelmi közhely, hogy a muzulmánok és a zsidók között hosszú évszázadokig sokkal zökkenőmentesebb kapcsolat volt, mint ugyanezen időszakban a keresztények és a zsidók között. Részben ez utóbbi tény szülte meg a Közel-Kelet konfliktusait is: a pogromok és a virulens antiszemitizmus, ami a Harmadik Birodalomba és a holokausztba torkollott. Ez ugyanis erősen elültette a zsidókban a gondolatot, hogy csak egy saját államban élhetnek életveszély nélkül, tehát ez az állam nekik jár, mégpedig ott, ahonnan az ókorban elűzték őket: Palesztina bibliai tájain. Csak hát ugye ott már arabok éltek. De oda se neki. Mert Izrael állam megalapítói még valamit leszűrtek a XX. század derekának borzalmas eseményeiből: hogy ha egy nép tűri a balsorsnak nyűgét s nyilait, akkor abból népirtás lesz. Szóval most nem mennek a vágóhídra, hanem visszalőnek. Sőt, először lőnek vissza.
Mindez egy klasszikus történelmi szituációhoz vezetett: olyan felek küzdelméhez, akiknek érthető és respektálható okaik vannak (mondhatni, igazuk van), de az eszközeik bűnösek. Igen, a zsidóknak joguk volt egy államhoz, és ahhoz, hogy az államon belül biztonságban éljenek. Ahogy a palesztinoknak is joguk volt ahhoz, hogy a földet, ahol élnek, a sajátjuknak tekintsék**. A baj az, hogy nagyon hamar belezuhantak abba a spirálba, ahol az érveket az erő és az elszántság demonstrálásával kívánták helyettesíteni – és mindezt azzal legitimálták, hogy a másik is pont ugyanezt teszi. Az egész egy végtelenül tragikus helyzetet teremtett: mindkét fél magát homogén, egyetlen akarattal rendelkező Nemzetként határozta meg, és a másik félre is ekként tekintett. Azonban a Nemzetek tudnak ugyan harcolni egymással, de meghalni az egyének szoktak. A palesztinok és az izraeliek is abból a tévképzetből indultak ki, hogy ha ütnek, a másik Nemzeten ütnek egyet. De ez csak illúzió, mert az okozott veszteség elsősorban személyes: egyének haltak meg, és az egyének családtagjai éreztek fájdalmat. Ami kollektív, az a félelem és a düh, ami válaszlépéseket követelt, mégpedig lehetőleg aránytalanul nagyokat, hogy a másik „megtanulja”. De senki nem tanult meg semmit, csak a rossz válaszok lettek rutinná, a Nemzetek pedig minden ütésváltás után egyre inkább saját szélsőségeseik fogságába kerültek.
Hogy mennyire nehéz ebből a spirálból kikeveredni, azt az oslói békefolyamat kudarca tökéletesen megmutatja. A ’90-es évek elejére ugyanis mindkét fél – úgy tűnt – eljutott a kifáradás azon pontjára, ahol a tartós nyugalmat már többre értékelték, mint a kölcsönös pofozkodást. Ennek köszönhetően elindult egy tárgyalásos folyamat, melyben benne volt egy működőképes kompromisszum lehetősége. Csakhogy a több évtizedes kölcsönös erőszak, a méltánytalanságok pont azt építették le, ami elengedhetetlen egy tartós megegyezéshez: a bizalmat. Ilyen helyzetben különösen nagy felelőssége van az erősebb félnek (ez esetben Izraelnek) a béke fenntartásában – neki kell elsősorban megmutatnia, hogy ha van is hatalma, nem fog azzal visszaélni. Például saját szélsőségeseit, akik nyilván hazaárulást kiáltanak majd, akár a karhatalom igénybe vételével is izolálnia kell. Sajnos az izraeli jobboldal (konkrétan Ariel Saron és Netanjahu) nem így tett - a szélsőségesekre inkább mint potenciális szavazatbankra tekintett, akiket kiváló hatásfokkal lehet mozgósítani, ha a helyzet radikalizálódik. És hát mindent meg is tettek, hogy a helyzet radikalizálódjon – Ariel Saron Templom-hegyi látogatását pedig nehéz nem provokációnak látni. Vélhetően maga is annak szánta, különben nem vitt volna magával egy ezer fős rendőri kontingenst. Az eseményt persze öngyilkos merényletek tucatjai követték, de hát ez Saront nem különösebben foglalkoztatta – ami azt illeti, talán örült is a merényleteknek, mert ezek szteroidként funkcionálva felpumpálták a szélsőségesek számát. Így váltják be a politikusok állampolgáraik életét belpolitikai haszonra.
Nagyon jó könyv. Világos, erőteljes, ahol a tárgyszerűséget a mindkét féltől idézett személyes élmények egészítik ki. Mindenkinek ajánlom, a hasznos ismeretközlő szakirodalom mintapéldánya.
* Szimpla logika: ha az egyik politikai fél (félelemből) agresszióra uszít a másik ellen, az jogos félelmet kelt abban a félben. Ez a félelem pedig szükségszerűen kitermeli a veszélyeztetett közösségben azokat a politikusokat, akik élősködni akarnak a pánikon.
** A palesztinok esetében sokáig nem volt szó önálló államról – az erre való igény talán nem is született volna meg, ha nem nehezedik rájuk Izrael állam teljes súlya.
October 1, 2023
Was hoping for a more objective take on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than this. The author almost always defends any acts of the Palestinians, no matter how many innocent civilians were killed by their terrorist attacks, consistently highlighting their motive over the severity of their actions.
Despite the authors bias, this book was at least informative to understand the Palestinian prospective, while lightly breezing over the Israeli prospective.
Despite the authors bias, this book was at least informative to understand the Palestinian prospective, while lightly breezing over the Israeli prospective.
July 11, 2023
Oh my, this book was an eye opener for me. Basically, it laid out the recent history of the Jewish people and Palestinians attempting to occupy a small parcel of land. Most shocking to me was the treatment of the Palestinians by the Israelis. It is in many ways exactly how the Nazis treated the Jews: invading, taking their homes, driving them out or into smaller and smaller parcels of land, restricting their movement, separating families, and killing them. It is really no wonder that they are hopeless and angry after decades of this. And complicit in the problem is the United States playing both sides. Sobering, and a must read if you want the full picture.
October 21, 2023
This book is an excellent summary of what has been happening in israel and Palestine since the Second World War . It is concise, factual and also includes personal statements from Israelis and Palestinians over the last decades. I read the book in one day and came away feeling ashamed of how little I knew about that part of the world . A must read .
November 12, 2023
An important read - particularly for clueless, ignorant Americans (like me) who continue to opine without any knowledge, let alone understanding, of the historical underpinnings or factual realities of this ongoing deadly and inhumane conflict.
April 14, 2024
Definitely a must-read given the state of things. Very dense, a lot of information, but that’s to be expected with two groups who have a looooooooonggggggg history. It’s hard to be unbiased, but I think the author did a good job of presenting facts.
November 26, 2024
Well written, but very one sided. Would have liked to see a more even-handed approach.
January 23, 2024
As someone who has much to learn about the Israel-Palestine conflict, this was a great resource for me. The author did a good job presenting the information as factually and evidence-based as possible, while staying away from political views and comments. It reads as a list of chronological events, where you can then insert your own critical thinking and analysis. Of course, a completely neutral account of history doesn’t perfectly exist and near the end, you can sense he is more pro-Palestine, but I felt he did a good job not making the book about his views. I finished it with many more questions and a greater desire to learn more, which to me is a sign that the book did its job.
October 6, 2022
When reading this book, it is at first easy to see this as history - you forget that this is a current conflict and a current challenge for peace. The history is fascinating and the author has done a wonderful job to distill the content into meaningful, accessible chapters. The role of the USA, particularly in recent years, demonstrates the failure to find an objective mediator or middle ground and the book ends on a less than hopeful note. This book is essential reading for those wishing to understand the issues and may serve to encourage greater investigation by the reader, too.
December 21, 2023
Purported to be a neutral history, it is distinctly not. It glosses over Palestinian atrocities and refusals to broker peace while blaming Israel for every issue. While Israeli is not perfect and I have many criticisms over how they have handled much, especially in the area of settlers, the situation is far more complicated than this book portrays.
January 2, 2024
Not a balanced report. Assumed history began in 1914. Minimizes Palestinian violence. Uncomfortable reading of a narrative to reach a conclusion instead of an honest appraisal of all the facts
April 18, 2024
I picked this book from a bookstore shelf hoping to get an objective "history" of an immensely complex and volatile issue. Unfortunately, and, alas, almost predictably, I find the book to be filtered through the pro-Palestinian bias of the author. Before long, the pattern of ruthless, powerful, and oppressive Jews/Israelis mercilessly abusing, displacing and slaughtering Palestinians became a somewhat tiresome trope. The occasional nod toward even-handedness was---well, very occasional, and a very slight nod.
Just one example well illustrates the pattern. One of the more horrific events of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict was the 1972 capture and murder of 11 Israeli athletes in the Olympic Village at the Munich Games. The author covers this rather matter-of-factly in about 75 words, going so far as to mitigate the scope of the atrocity by saying that the Black September group killed two of the athletes at first, then the remaining nine, "when police attempted a rescue." As if they were forced into that part of the atrocity.
He then transitions from a comment about the world's shock at this brutal deed to the paramount "however." "Many people in Europe and other parts of the world began to think more about the Palestinian problem. They read about the crowded, unhealthy camps in which hundreds of thousands of refugees had lived for over twenty years. With growing understanding in the West of the plight of the Palestinians...."
Admittedly, the "plight of the Palestinians," is of momentous concern. But a prospective reader should be forewarned that this is a history book with that plight as its theme. Even the Munich massacre is cited dispassionately in service to that over-arching theme. All in all, this book did not deliver the even-handed, insightful historical account that I was hoping for.
Just one example well illustrates the pattern. One of the more horrific events of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict was the 1972 capture and murder of 11 Israeli athletes in the Olympic Village at the Munich Games. The author covers this rather matter-of-factly in about 75 words, going so far as to mitigate the scope of the atrocity by saying that the Black September group killed two of the athletes at first, then the remaining nine, "when police attempted a rescue." As if they were forced into that part of the atrocity.
He then transitions from a comment about the world's shock at this brutal deed to the paramount "however." "Many people in Europe and other parts of the world began to think more about the Palestinian problem. They read about the crowded, unhealthy camps in which hundreds of thousands of refugees had lived for over twenty years. With growing understanding in the West of the plight of the Palestinians...."
Admittedly, the "plight of the Palestinians," is of momentous concern. But a prospective reader should be forewarned that this is a history book with that plight as its theme. Even the Munich massacre is cited dispassionately in service to that over-arching theme. All in all, this book did not deliver the even-handed, insightful historical account that I was hoping for.
Read
April 30, 2024really took my time with this, highlighted so much in the ebook. i wish i owned a physical copy so i could keep better notes. i really appreciated the emphasis placed on including personal narratives alongside the historical background.
this should be required reading (unoriginal take, but doesn't make it any less true)
this should be required reading (unoriginal take, but doesn't make it any less true)
January 22, 2024
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been one of the most bitter conflicts in the past century in West Asian history. Most of us find it a mystifying, intractable and never-ending conflict. Some misunderstand it as a religious conflict between fanatics of Islam and Judaism. Others view it through the prism of the Cold War and geo-politics. In this excellent book, author Scott-Baumann zeroes in on the core of the conflict. He says it is one between Jewish immigrants and their descendants following the ideology of Zionism and the Palestinian Arabs, among whom the Zionists settled. Both parties claim ownership and control over Palestine. Despite the Jews living in Palestine two thousand years before, Scott-Baumann does not assert they are indigenous to the land. Rather, he suggests the European Jewish immigrants in the early twentieth century to Palestine were occupiers. This may rile pro-Israeli readers, but I found the book presenting the origin and history of the conflict from both sides in a balanced approach in a concise form. In today’s violent eruption of the conflict again in Gaza, it is an important book for us to read and understand the reasons behind the ongoing tragedy in Gaza.
The book chronicles the history of Palestine from 1500 BCE to the start of the October 2023 war in Gaza. The core of the book covers the period from Britain’s Balfour Declaration in 1917 to the current age of Benjamin Netanyahu. Rather than summarizing the history, I wanted to review the book by asking how it answers some of the contentious and recurring questions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. One question is whether Jews have a historical right to lay sole claim to the whole of Palestine. Another is whether the PLO sabotaged the Oslo peace accords in the 1990s. A third is whether Israel is a colonial state as Palestinians charge. Other questions are whether the Western powers colluded to establish a Jewish state in Palestine, disregarding the Arabs living there. In the upcoming sections, I explore how this book addresses these challenging questions.
First, let us explore the claim that Palestine has historically been the Jewish homeland, suggesting Palestinian Arabs have no rightful claim to it. Scott-Baumann does not quite answer this question in the book. However, he discusses the origins of Jews and their migration to Europe and Arab lands by the late 19th century. We can make inferences from this history. Jews had lived in Palestine from 1500 BCE. The Romans conquered Jerusalem in 64 BCE, making Palestine part of the Roman empire. After decades of revolt against the Romans, the Jews got expelled from Palestine by 135 CE. Only a minority remained in Palestine. Most Jews settled in Europe and the Arab world. By the late nineteenth century, most Jews lived in the European parts of the Russian empire. Between 1882 and 1914, anti-Semitism forced Jews out of Russia. Out of the 2.5 million Jews, most migrated to the US and Western Europe, with only 55,000 choosing to return to Palestine. A small community of Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews were already living in Palestine for centuries in harmony with Arabs. Sephardic Jews are descendants of Jews from Spain and North Africa. Ashkenazi Jews are Yiddish-speaking European Jews. Meanwhile, Arab Muslims conquered Palestine in the seventh century. Most of the Palestinian population adopted Arabic as their language and Islam as their religion, though sizable Christians and a small population of Jews also remained. In the sixteenth century, the Ottomans conquered Palestine and ruled it for four-hundred years until 1918. At the turn of the twentieth century, Jews in Palestine accounted only for seven percent of its population. They numbered seventy-five thousand, whereas the Arabs, Bedouins and Druze totaled half a million in twenty towns and cities and hundreds of villages. So, Palestinians today would feel justified arguing for the equal right of non-Jewish Palestinians to live in present-day Palestine.
Did the PLO squander a chance for an independent Palestinian state and peaceful co-existence during the Oslo negotiations of the1990s? Israeli political leadership accused Yasser Arafat of not being interested in peace. How valid is this claim? The Oslo peace accord in the 1990s was a remarkable breakthrough in peacemaking between the Israelis and Palestinians. I won’t go into the details of the Oslo peace accords I and II here. However, they collapsed in 2000, seven years after both parties signed the first accord. Scott-Baumann says the major reason it failed was the imbalance and asymmetry in power between the mighty Israeli military and a weak Palestinian body. The first Oslo accord gave Israel what it most wanted - security and an end to the intifada. But, what Palestinians wanted most had to wait till the negotiations completed in five years’ time. They were the removal of settlements, a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as capital and resolving the refugee issue. This meant Israel had less incentive to make further concessions. While, by recognizing Israel, the Palestinians gave up 78% of the historic Palestine and their only leverage by renouncing violence.
The second Oslo accord granted Israel control over the aquifers and the most fertile land in the West Bank. It allowed Israel to build 250 miles of roads in confiscated Palestinian land to link all Israeli settlements. These roads divided and fragmented Palestinian lands so that little contiguity existed between them. It left Palestinians feeling like living on small islands surrounded by Israeli-controlled lands, diminishing the likelihood of a viable Palestinian state ever emerging. Besides, Yossi Beilin, one of the chief architects of the Oslo accords, reported that he informed Manmoud Abbas, the PLO negotiator, about Israel’s red lines. They include the demilitarization of any future Palestinian state and no return to the pre-1967 borders. Beilin had also denied Palestinian refugees the right to return, and said that Jerusalem will be undivided without uprooting Jewish settlers. It is no surprise Hamas rejected the accords, refusing to recognize Israel. Even Israeli intellectuals like Meron Benvenisti called it a capitulation by the Palestinian leadership.
Jewish religious nationalists, too, denounced the Oslo accords. They wanted to strive for a Greater Israel that incorporates all the biblical Judea and Samaria because it is the bedrock of Jewish national identity. Yigal Amir, a Jewish extremist, killed Yitzhak Rabin in November 1995, accusing him of selling out. Scott-Baumann’s analysis suggests that the Oslo accords failed because they favored further Israeli occupation and left Palestinians feeling that they got an unfair deal. The accord did not fail because of the PLO’s intransigence.
In the current Israeli war on Gaza in 2023-24, the international community has criticized Israel for using a disproportionate amount of military violence on civilians, killing over 20000 Palestinians. Israeli officials disagree, responding that the Oct 7, 2023 Hamas attack was the last straw on the camel’s back and Israel’s patience has run out. Was Israel always restrained in the past? Is the 2023 war on Gaza a one-off action and deserves ‘understanding’?. A careful reading of Scott-Baumann’s book provides evidence for the way the Israeli state has responded to any Palestinian revolt.
In May 2021, violence erupted in East Jerusalem, triggered by the eviction of Palestinian families from the Arab suburb of Sheikh Jarrah. Israeli police stormed the Al-Aqsa Mosque, wounding three hundred people, most of them Palestinians. Hamas responded, firing rockets which killed thirteen Israelis, including two children. Israel retaliated with air strikes on Gaza in a campaign lasting eleven days, killing 278 Palestinians, including 66 children. The 2014 war in Gaza started with Hamas kidnapping and killing three Israeli teenagers from the West Bank. Israel responded with a seven-week war with over 6000 air strikes and a ground invasion of Gaza. Whole neighbourhoods got destroyed and Israel cut water and electricity to Gaza. Israeli human rights group B’Tselem reported over 2000 Palestinians killed, most of them non-combatants. Sixty-seven Israeli soldiers lost their lives, along with five civilians. The US and Europe both affirmed that 'Israel has the right to defend itself', then as now.
In 2008, Israel launched Operation Cast Lead to destroy Hamas bases, military stores and senior Hamas officials. They publicized it as ‘self-defense’. In its three-week campaign, Israel killed 1400 Gazans, including 900 civilians and 300 children. Thirteen Israelis lost their lives, four of them killed by their own troops in friendly-fire. The UN reported 4000 houses and 600 factories destroyed. Going backwards to 1947, the author documents additional instances of disproportionate responses. One concludes that the state of Israel has always responded with massive violence to any Palestinian revolt, regardless of whether it is peaceful or violent.
Palestinians charge Israel is a colonial state occupying Palestine. Scott-Baumann provides evidence to analyze this charge at length. The Oslo accords and the Paris Protocol of 1994 promised an ‘open economy’. It meant the free movement of goods and labor and economic regeneration for the Palestinians in the occupied territories. However, Israeli goods continued to have unrestricted access to the West Bank, while Palestinian goods to Israel faced tariffs. They denied Palestinians the right to establish their own currency. The Paris Protocol allowed Israel to collect import and customs duties on goods destined for the occupied territories and then pay them every month to the Palestinian Authority (PA). Between 1995 and 2000, sixty percent of PA’s revenue came from this source. But Israel could cut it off at will, citing Palestinian violence as the reason. They did so in 1997, demonstrating their control over the Palestinians. The Oslo accords granted Israel the right to close ‘crossing points’ into Israel, prohibiting Palestinians from entering. From 1994 to 1999, Israel imposed 484 days of closure, making the Palestinian economy a hostage to closures and checkpoints. The constraints on the Palestinian economy resulted in unemployment rising from 15% in 1993 to 30% in 1995. The EU and NGOs stepped in to mitigate these problems by providing $3.2 billion to the West Bank and Gaza. Scott-Baumann says the cost of Israeli occupation got subcontracted to the international community this way and they became complicit in endorsing Israeli occupation. The PA was also corrupt, and some of its members colluded with Israel in this shameful saga.
Scott-Baumann says Israeli laws segregate Israeli Jews and Palestinians. Civilian laws and courts govern Jews in the West Bank. Israeli military laws and courts and PA courts govern Arabs. West Bank Jews can vote in elections to the Knesset, Arabs cannot. West Bank Palestinians require permits to visit East Jerusalem - a city 60% Palestinian. They have only a status as ‘permanent residents’ and cannot vote elections to the Knesset. Gaza is worse. Poverty and ill health are widespread. Israel controls its water and electricity, with much of the tap water undrinkable. In 2019, seventy percent of its population depended on humanitarian aid. It remains under tight Israeli blockade, with Egypt often closing its border. All this is reminiscent of the strategy and tactics Britain used in India in its long colonial occupation.
Writing an impartial history of Israel and Palestine is a high-risk endeavor. Even if one sticks to documented facts, one may get accused of selectively choosing data to advance one’s bias. Despite the perils, Michael Scott-Baumann has done a terrific job, showing clarity and balance. His experience of teaching history for thirty-five years and traveling in the Middle-East shines through this book. One also notes that the author worked as a volunteer in the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions and did fieldwork with them in the West Bank. The book contains his considered conclusions based on his vast experience.
I found it an excellent, clear and accessible history of Israel and Palestine.
The book chronicles the history of Palestine from 1500 BCE to the start of the October 2023 war in Gaza. The core of the book covers the period from Britain’s Balfour Declaration in 1917 to the current age of Benjamin Netanyahu. Rather than summarizing the history, I wanted to review the book by asking how it answers some of the contentious and recurring questions about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. One question is whether Jews have a historical right to lay sole claim to the whole of Palestine. Another is whether the PLO sabotaged the Oslo peace accords in the 1990s. A third is whether Israel is a colonial state as Palestinians charge. Other questions are whether the Western powers colluded to establish a Jewish state in Palestine, disregarding the Arabs living there. In the upcoming sections, I explore how this book addresses these challenging questions.
First, let us explore the claim that Palestine has historically been the Jewish homeland, suggesting Palestinian Arabs have no rightful claim to it. Scott-Baumann does not quite answer this question in the book. However, he discusses the origins of Jews and their migration to Europe and Arab lands by the late 19th century. We can make inferences from this history. Jews had lived in Palestine from 1500 BCE. The Romans conquered Jerusalem in 64 BCE, making Palestine part of the Roman empire. After decades of revolt against the Romans, the Jews got expelled from Palestine by 135 CE. Only a minority remained in Palestine. Most Jews settled in Europe and the Arab world. By the late nineteenth century, most Jews lived in the European parts of the Russian empire. Between 1882 and 1914, anti-Semitism forced Jews out of Russia. Out of the 2.5 million Jews, most migrated to the US and Western Europe, with only 55,000 choosing to return to Palestine. A small community of Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews were already living in Palestine for centuries in harmony with Arabs. Sephardic Jews are descendants of Jews from Spain and North Africa. Ashkenazi Jews are Yiddish-speaking European Jews. Meanwhile, Arab Muslims conquered Palestine in the seventh century. Most of the Palestinian population adopted Arabic as their language and Islam as their religion, though sizable Christians and a small population of Jews also remained. In the sixteenth century, the Ottomans conquered Palestine and ruled it for four-hundred years until 1918. At the turn of the twentieth century, Jews in Palestine accounted only for seven percent of its population. They numbered seventy-five thousand, whereas the Arabs, Bedouins and Druze totaled half a million in twenty towns and cities and hundreds of villages. So, Palestinians today would feel justified arguing for the equal right of non-Jewish Palestinians to live in present-day Palestine.
Did the PLO squander a chance for an independent Palestinian state and peaceful co-existence during the Oslo negotiations of the1990s? Israeli political leadership accused Yasser Arafat of not being interested in peace. How valid is this claim? The Oslo peace accord in the 1990s was a remarkable breakthrough in peacemaking between the Israelis and Palestinians. I won’t go into the details of the Oslo peace accords I and II here. However, they collapsed in 2000, seven years after both parties signed the first accord. Scott-Baumann says the major reason it failed was the imbalance and asymmetry in power between the mighty Israeli military and a weak Palestinian body. The first Oslo accord gave Israel what it most wanted - security and an end to the intifada. But, what Palestinians wanted most had to wait till the negotiations completed in five years’ time. They were the removal of settlements, a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as capital and resolving the refugee issue. This meant Israel had less incentive to make further concessions. While, by recognizing Israel, the Palestinians gave up 78% of the historic Palestine and their only leverage by renouncing violence.
The second Oslo accord granted Israel control over the aquifers and the most fertile land in the West Bank. It allowed Israel to build 250 miles of roads in confiscated Palestinian land to link all Israeli settlements. These roads divided and fragmented Palestinian lands so that little contiguity existed between them. It left Palestinians feeling like living on small islands surrounded by Israeli-controlled lands, diminishing the likelihood of a viable Palestinian state ever emerging. Besides, Yossi Beilin, one of the chief architects of the Oslo accords, reported that he informed Manmoud Abbas, the PLO negotiator, about Israel’s red lines. They include the demilitarization of any future Palestinian state and no return to the pre-1967 borders. Beilin had also denied Palestinian refugees the right to return, and said that Jerusalem will be undivided without uprooting Jewish settlers. It is no surprise Hamas rejected the accords, refusing to recognize Israel. Even Israeli intellectuals like Meron Benvenisti called it a capitulation by the Palestinian leadership.
Jewish religious nationalists, too, denounced the Oslo accords. They wanted to strive for a Greater Israel that incorporates all the biblical Judea and Samaria because it is the bedrock of Jewish national identity. Yigal Amir, a Jewish extremist, killed Yitzhak Rabin in November 1995, accusing him of selling out. Scott-Baumann’s analysis suggests that the Oslo accords failed because they favored further Israeli occupation and left Palestinians feeling that they got an unfair deal. The accord did not fail because of the PLO’s intransigence.
In the current Israeli war on Gaza in 2023-24, the international community has criticized Israel for using a disproportionate amount of military violence on civilians, killing over 20000 Palestinians. Israeli officials disagree, responding that the Oct 7, 2023 Hamas attack was the last straw on the camel’s back and Israel’s patience has run out. Was Israel always restrained in the past? Is the 2023 war on Gaza a one-off action and deserves ‘understanding’?. A careful reading of Scott-Baumann’s book provides evidence for the way the Israeli state has responded to any Palestinian revolt.
In May 2021, violence erupted in East Jerusalem, triggered by the eviction of Palestinian families from the Arab suburb of Sheikh Jarrah. Israeli police stormed the Al-Aqsa Mosque, wounding three hundred people, most of them Palestinians. Hamas responded, firing rockets which killed thirteen Israelis, including two children. Israel retaliated with air strikes on Gaza in a campaign lasting eleven days, killing 278 Palestinians, including 66 children. The 2014 war in Gaza started with Hamas kidnapping and killing three Israeli teenagers from the West Bank. Israel responded with a seven-week war with over 6000 air strikes and a ground invasion of Gaza. Whole neighbourhoods got destroyed and Israel cut water and electricity to Gaza. Israeli human rights group B’Tselem reported over 2000 Palestinians killed, most of them non-combatants. Sixty-seven Israeli soldiers lost their lives, along with five civilians. The US and Europe both affirmed that 'Israel has the right to defend itself', then as now.
In 2008, Israel launched Operation Cast Lead to destroy Hamas bases, military stores and senior Hamas officials. They publicized it as ‘self-defense’. In its three-week campaign, Israel killed 1400 Gazans, including 900 civilians and 300 children. Thirteen Israelis lost their lives, four of them killed by their own troops in friendly-fire. The UN reported 4000 houses and 600 factories destroyed. Going backwards to 1947, the author documents additional instances of disproportionate responses. One concludes that the state of Israel has always responded with massive violence to any Palestinian revolt, regardless of whether it is peaceful or violent.
Palestinians charge Israel is a colonial state occupying Palestine. Scott-Baumann provides evidence to analyze this charge at length. The Oslo accords and the Paris Protocol of 1994 promised an ‘open economy’. It meant the free movement of goods and labor and economic regeneration for the Palestinians in the occupied territories. However, Israeli goods continued to have unrestricted access to the West Bank, while Palestinian goods to Israel faced tariffs. They denied Palestinians the right to establish their own currency. The Paris Protocol allowed Israel to collect import and customs duties on goods destined for the occupied territories and then pay them every month to the Palestinian Authority (PA). Between 1995 and 2000, sixty percent of PA’s revenue came from this source. But Israel could cut it off at will, citing Palestinian violence as the reason. They did so in 1997, demonstrating their control over the Palestinians. The Oslo accords granted Israel the right to close ‘crossing points’ into Israel, prohibiting Palestinians from entering. From 1994 to 1999, Israel imposed 484 days of closure, making the Palestinian economy a hostage to closures and checkpoints. The constraints on the Palestinian economy resulted in unemployment rising from 15% in 1993 to 30% in 1995. The EU and NGOs stepped in to mitigate these problems by providing $3.2 billion to the West Bank and Gaza. Scott-Baumann says the cost of Israeli occupation got subcontracted to the international community this way and they became complicit in endorsing Israeli occupation. The PA was also corrupt, and some of its members colluded with Israel in this shameful saga.
Scott-Baumann says Israeli laws segregate Israeli Jews and Palestinians. Civilian laws and courts govern Jews in the West Bank. Israeli military laws and courts and PA courts govern Arabs. West Bank Jews can vote in elections to the Knesset, Arabs cannot. West Bank Palestinians require permits to visit East Jerusalem - a city 60% Palestinian. They have only a status as ‘permanent residents’ and cannot vote elections to the Knesset. Gaza is worse. Poverty and ill health are widespread. Israel controls its water and electricity, with much of the tap water undrinkable. In 2019, seventy percent of its population depended on humanitarian aid. It remains under tight Israeli blockade, with Egypt often closing its border. All this is reminiscent of the strategy and tactics Britain used in India in its long colonial occupation.
Writing an impartial history of Israel and Palestine is a high-risk endeavor. Even if one sticks to documented facts, one may get accused of selectively choosing data to advance one’s bias. Despite the perils, Michael Scott-Baumann has done a terrific job, showing clarity and balance. His experience of teaching history for thirty-five years and traveling in the Middle-East shines through this book. One also notes that the author worked as a volunteer in the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions and did fieldwork with them in the West Bank. The book contains his considered conclusions based on his vast experience.
I found it an excellent, clear and accessible history of Israel and Palestine.
August 31, 2025
Eye-opening :(
Read
April 21, 2025Marketing itself as “accessible and balanced,” this book presents a decently objective account of the Palestine-Israel conflict. (I have checked, and some reviewers perceive it as pro-Palestine by its conclusion, which raises the question: is acknowledging oppression the equivalent of bias?)
With all that in mind, having read this book, it is undeniably clear to me that the government of Israel as it currently stands is a colonial project and an apartheid state that is engaged in genocide, not war. No group is entitled to an ethnostate.
With all that in mind, having read this book, it is undeniably clear to me that the government of Israel as it currently stands is a colonial project and an apartheid state that is engaged in genocide, not war. No group is entitled to an ethnostate.
February 5, 2024
What seems to be a pattern with these shortest history books this book is really well done for the first half or so and then the author's politics gets in the way. This is not an unbiased book. It is at best pro Palestinian at worse pure propaganda. All that said it still does a good job of presenting a cliff note history of a very difficult subject.
Recommended with the understanding that this is far from a balanced history.
Recommended with the understanding that this is far from a balanced history.
September 29, 2023
This is the book I've been looking for
I've long wondered who to believe.
The origins of all this are so wrapped up in propaganda and nation founding myths that its hard to get at any unbiased facts.
So satisfying to finally find an account based on source materials.
The down side is that it's still depressing.
Nobody comes out of this looking very good at all, except Norway.
I've long wondered who to believe.
The origins of all this are so wrapped up in propaganda and nation founding myths that its hard to get at any unbiased facts.
So satisfying to finally find an account based on source materials.
The down side is that it's still depressing.
Nobody comes out of this looking very good at all, except Norway.
January 4, 2024
Super digestible history, was only 8 hours on audiobook which makes it perfect for travel. I really liked how updated it was in that it had information from 2022. Also I really liked the inclusion of personal accounts at the end of each chapters. There are definitely parts that are confusing but is a good introduction. Definitely recommend if you don’t have an understanding of the conflict
January 13, 2024
A very biased account of history favoring Palestinian struggle and neglecting that of Jews. If you decide to read this book, make sure to read many others on the same subject to gain a well rounded perspective.
April 4, 2025
Indeed, this is the short, tragic and ongoing tale of Israel’s colonial genocide backed by the West’s Judeo-Christian zealousness, military lust and oil thirst. As a Jew, a particularly horrifying read.
August 12, 2023
Good review of the basics. Inherently biased, and a bit a prisoner of the moment.
September 3, 2025
A really easily digestible overview of the Israel-Palestine conflict, going back over 100 years. I really recommend this for anyone who wants to better understand how we got here today (that is, the genocide currently unfolding in Gaza) but feels intimidated by some of the larger/more complicated works on this subject.
December 20, 2023
لكي تناصر قضية ما، لابد أن تفهمها وتقتنع بمبادئها، لكي لا يكون الأمر مجرد فقاعة من التعاطف المؤقت.
July 18, 2025
uma leitura muito, muito importante para toda a gente
Displaying 1 - 30 of 466 reviews