Except for Palestine: The Limits of Progressive Politics

by Marc Lamont Hill, Mitchell Plitnick

A bold call for the American Left to extend their politics to the issues of Israel-Palestine, from a New York Times bestselling author and an expert on U.S. policy in the region

In this major work of daring criticism and analysis, scholar and political commentator Marc Lamont Hill and Israel-Palestine expert Mitchell Plitnick spotlight how holding fast to one-sided and unwaveringly pro-Israel policies reflects the truth-bending grip of authoritarianism on both Israel and the United States. Except for Palestine deftly argues that progressives and liberals who oppose regressive policies on immigration, racial justice, gender equality, LGBTQ rights, and other issues must extend these core principles to the oppression of Palestinians. In doing so, the authors take seriously the political concerns and well-being of both Israelis and Palestinians, demonstrating the extent to which U.S. policy has made peace harder to attain. They also unravel the conflation of advocacy for Palestinian rights with anti-Semitism and hatred of Israel.

Hill and Plitnick provide a timely and essential intervention by examining multiple dimensions of the Israeli-Palestinian conversation, including Israel's growing disdain for democracy, the effects of occupation on Palestine, the siege of Gaza, diminishing American funding for Palestinian relief, and the campaign to stigmatize any critique of Israeli occupation. Except for Palestine is a searing polemic and a cri de coeur for elected officials, activists, and everyday citizens alike to align their beliefs and politics with their values.

Genres: Nonfiction, Politics, History, Audiobook, Social Justice, Middle East, Religion

227 pages, Hardcover

First published February 16, 2021

About the author

Dr. Marc Lamont Hill is one of the leading intellectual voices in the country.

He is currently the host of BET News and VH1 Live, as well as a political contributor for CNN. An award-winning journalist, Dr. Hill has received numerous prestigious awards from the National Association of Black Journalists, GLAAD, and the International Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences.
Dr. Hill is Distinguished Professor of African American Studies at Morehouse College. Prior to that, he held positions at Columbia University and Temple University.
Since his days as a youth in Philadelphia, Dr. Hill has been a social justice activist and organizer. He is a founding board member of My5th, a non-profit organization devoted to educating youth about their legal rights and responsibilities. He is also a board member and organizer of the Philadelphia Student Union. Dr. Hill also works closely with the ACLU Drug Reform Project, focusing on drug informant policy. Over the past few years, he has actively worked on campaigns to end the death penalty and to release numerous political prisoners.
Ebony Magazine has named him one of America’s 100 most influential Black leaders.
Dr. Hill is the author or co-author of four books: the award-winning Beats, Rhymes, and Classroom Life: Hip-Hop Pedagogy and the Politics of Identity; The Classroom and the Cell: Conversations on Black life in America; Nobody: Casualties of America’s War on The Vulnerable from Ferguson to Flint and Beyond; and Gentrifier (January 2017). He has also published two edited books: Media, Learning, and Sites of Possibility; and Schooling Hip-Hop: New Directions in Hip-Hop Based Education.
Trained as an anthropologist of education, Dr. Hill holds a Ph.D. (with distinction) from the University of Pennsylvania. His research focuses on the intersections between culture, politics, and education.

Reviews

[Sleepless Dreamer · Rating 2 out of 5]

Marc Lamont Hill's I/P conflict takes are usually tone-deaf so my hopes for this book were low but this wasn’t as bad as other stuff he's said in the past. I'll start off with some general comments before getting into everything, let’s go!

Except for Palestine claims that American progressives treat Palestinians exceptionally by allowing unprogressive policy towards them. However, when I think about the entire MENA region and American policy, it seems progressives pay more attention to the I/P conflict than to other conflicts. Not updated to 2021, but who's really exceptional here for progressives?



Either way, approaching American policy in regards to I/P without discussing American policy in the Middle East seems wrong. America doesn't inherently care about the lives of Palestinians or Israelis. This is about power, it's about Russia and China and Iran. It's about the Cold War and radical Islam and imperialism and oil and capitalism. Which, okay, Israel gains by being "on America's side" in the Middle East but analyzing American foreign policy about I/P without looking at the broader connection to the Middle East seems misleading and methodologically flawed. Why is support for Israel mostly bi-partisan? That can't be answered without looking at American interests in the entire MENA region.

Beyond this, it's unclear who’s the target audience. It seems like it's meant for American progressives who don't know much about Palestine but the authors assume much prior knowledge. How many Americans know what big historical event happened in 1973, what the second intifada was and why Oslo failed? Heck, how many know where the Golan is?

For those who are familiar with the conflict, this book just doesn't say much. I honestly expected the takes here to be spicier (like Hill’s interviews). This is as bland as Democrat economic policy. My Shabbat dinners have edgier takes.

As always, it becomes painfully clear that Israelis weren't really spoken to. So here I am, ready to explain what this book misses, chapter by chapter (there are only four so it’s feasible). Putting it in spoiler tags to make it more organized!

Israel's Right to Exist
Essentially, the argument in this chapter is that Israel's demand of Palestinians to recognize its existence is merely a tool in order to avoid solutions and is unfair towards Palestinians.

As they write, we must define what recognizing Israel means. Truly, it's not about recognizing that Israel exists (cause you know, it simply does) or about rights to Israelis. The authors conclude that it's about legitimizing Israel's behavior towards Palestinians.

I disagree (of course I do). Take a look at Fatah's insignia or every Palestinian tiktok where they delete Israel off the map. Recognizing Israel means recognizing that Jews have a claim to the land too. It means recognizing that Israel, as a Jewish country, has a right to exist. Not that it exists, but that it should exist. The recognition of Israel is meant to be a promise of coexistence which is essential for a two-state solution.

Are there issues with a Jewish country? Sure. Such issues need to be resolved (equal funding, recognition of non-Orthodox Judaism, fighting racism, etc). However, just as America's systematic racism doesn't mean America should cease to exist, the line between criticizing Israel's politics and claiming the country itself isn't legitimate is precisely why this gets spoken about.

They ask why Israel is so invested in getting recognition from Palestinians and no one else, almost as if there isn't, you know, a conflict going on. I don't care if Malaysia doesn't recognize Israel because there isn't a conflict.

Recognizing Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state doesn't take away the Palestinian right for a Palestinian state to exist. It is through such acknowledgements that some kind of co-living can begin. Which is why Israel recognized the PLO in return for the PLO's recognition of Israel. What were they expecting? For the IDF to disband cause wow, Palestinians recognize Israel?

Americans should ask themselves what can be done to further mutual recognition, rather than claim that recognition isn't important. The lack of recognition flows both ways ("Israelis are European colonizers", "Palestinians are just Arabs") and it is equally harmful. If we don't believe the other side deserves to live here, how can we live together?

Criminalizing BDS
I didn't disagree with everything that was written here, it's a miracle! Clearly, the hasbara has stopped working (whoever translated hasbara as propaganda has a very weak grasp on Hebrew and I hate that it's become a given that that's what it means).

So this chapter claims that criminalizing BDS is wrong because BDS isn't run by a foreign country but by civil society. Additionally, the authors try to claim that BDS is merely trying to fight for equal rights. Supporters of Israel dislike it because it raises uncomfortable questions.

So I fully agree that criminalizing BDS isn't right. As a progressive, I do believe people can do whatever they want with their money- it's not up to the state to decide. Moreover, fighting BDS through the court is not the way to go. We shouldn't silence those who challenge us but face them (I got a BDS supporter the other day to say that she's equally against a Palestinian country so I'm definitely spending my study time right).

I have an actual list of reasons why BDS is problematic but the character limit is a thing so I'll sum it up by saying that BDS is problematic because it (1) fails to fight against antisemitism done in its name (2) negatively impacts people living in the land by taking jobs away from Palestinians and hurting the weakest in Israeli society (3) doesn't offer any kind of feasible solution that could work and (4) hurts the ability of Israelis and Palestinians to lead the way together.

The authors don't discuss these points because it would force them to acknowledge that BDS isn't black and white. It's not just a civil rights movement and there are valid reasons for Israeli opposition that aren't just "nooo, don't talk about Palestinians".

American Policy
This chapter lacks content the most. The argument is that Trump's Israel/Palestine policy changes weren't a big change from other American politicians, they were just less subtle. From moving the embassy to viewing the Golan as part of Israel, there is bipartisan support.

However, this feels like beating around the bush. I don't care where the embassy is (though, ugh, Tel Aviv) or if America recognizes the Golan. This isn't the heart of anything, it’s just pure politics.

I don't know what America could actually do to further reconciliation. I'm more of a Politics than an International Relations kind of guy. However, symbolic changes aren't it. At a guess, I'd say putting pressure on Israel and Palestine to get the Palestinian leadership problem solved, furthering Israeli-Palestinian cooperation in civil society (and not just conflict based), letting go of the two-state plan, throwing away the one-state plan and starting new peace talks with new solutions (*cue me screaming, "CONFEDERATION!!!!!).

Heck, more deliberative democracy and power to civilians. Small steps, rather than big grandiose plans. Have a constant back-up plan for when things inevitably go wrong. Accept that trust will have to be built slowly. Get the people of each society on board, rather than the politicians. Recognize that we are traumatized and skeptical of foreign involvement. There is much that can be done and none of it is being done by pro-Palestine or pro-Israel foreign activists.

On the Golan, briefly. The Golan is 1,800 square kms, smaller than West Sussex or the Virgin Islands. On the very long list of problems Syria has, is this really the hill American foreign policy should die on? It's like how Assad recently assured Syrians that he won't make peace with Israel or legalize gay marriage, as if that's what Syrians care about right now. Yeah, it sucks that Syria lost wars with Israel but you'll forgive me for not particularly feeling sad that they lost a bit of land and weren't willing to discuss any kind of resolution with Israel (fun fact, the Wikipedia page for Syria-Israel independent peace efforts include Israel's 2000 Eurovision entry, I kid you not).

And a word on UNRWA. I will never ever speak against helping refugees. That said, UNRWA's inability to help refugees get settled seems counteractive. I'd like to believe one day an Israeli leader and a Palestinian leader will sit at the table and talk about the Right of Return but with how things look now, that day seems so far and in the meantime, these people continue to live in refugee camps. It is bizarre that these organizations have a political interest to keep their refugee status as descendants, that finding these people homes isn't a top priority. Everyone is tossing around responsibility and ultimately, UNRWA seems to be keeping things as is, rather than fixing the lives of those they claim to help.

Ultimately, Jerusalem, UNRWA, the Golan, they're all just symbolic, it's bandaids on a gun wound. Not giving UNRWA funds won't solve the refugee problem. Moving the embassy won't solve the Jerusalem problem (what can we do, Jerusalem is so great that everyone wants it). Sure, it's for the "Israeli side" but in the long run, it's for no one. Let's stop framing this as "Israel vs Palestine" and start considering what's good for all of us.

Gaza
This chapter is the best written. The authors describe the history of Gaza, from the Egyptian occupation to the disengagement plan to Cast Lead and Protective Edge (all the operation names sound cooler in Hebrew ngl, I would not translate eitan as protective).

On a public policy level, this chapter is unfair (look at me talking about public policy instead of writing the report that I very much have to hand in, anyway, don't do internships, kids). When we're discussing policy, analysis can't be so biased. We should separate the facts from their motive and from their various impacts.

For example, the Gaza disengagement plan. It is a fact that Israel unilaterally dismantled all settlements and stepped out of the land. Did Sharon do it as a step for peace or because he was setting Palestinians up for failure? That's analyzing the motives and can't be portrayed as a yes or no question, as they do. Was it a good idea? That's a normative question and requires looking at the impact for everyone.

Things in Gaza are not good, despite how wild it is to see YouTube videos like this one. However, the issues Gaza faces are beyond the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If I have to pick a field in Economics, def going with Development Economics to understand how a country gets back on its feet. It's nice to say that if Israel were to open the border, Gaza would be okay but this is naïve. Gaza is systematically struggling and requires a rebuilding of everything from the ground up, from the leadership to the economics, this is not just Israel's doing.

As a side note, why was the great march of return frightening for Israelis? Is it because of Israeli fear of the Right of Return, as they claim? Take a look at the map and you can see that right next to Gaza's border, you have civilians. Now, during those marches, you had as many as 50,000 people. Israel may have used too much force but let's not pretend those 50,000 people weren't any kind of threat. I shudder to think of what would happen if 50,000 Mexicans tried walking towards the US border, even if it was fully peaceful (which the march of return was not).

Conclusion
They sum up the book by saying that it is changing and that Republicans are now more "Pro-Israel" while Democrats are more "Pro-Palestinian". A mere page before the authors point out that Israeli policy in Gaza hasn't been helpful for anyone. Now, if policy making hasn't been good for all of us, not just Palestinians perhaps it's time to let go of "Pro-Palestinian" and "Pro-Israeli" and start adopting the mindset that there can be solutions that are pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian.

Republicans and Democrats turning this into a partisan issue is dangerous for us all. (At this point my Palestinian friends would probably say that no one in the American political scene truly represents their interests, even Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib). To me, it feels like Americans almost turn this into a sporting event, a competition. It is not Israelis who wave the Israeli flag in radical right wing rallies and it is not Palestinians who vandalize synagogues with "Free Palestine". We should not be a foreign background for American inner struggles.

They criticize the idea that Palestinian rights must be defended because it'll be better for Israelis. And yeah, sure, everyone deserves equal rights as a means to its own end but the idea here is that Palestinians and Israelis are intertwined. There is no Palestinian liberation without Israeli liberation. Our economies, our history, the environment, the culture, we share so much so it's in all of our benefits when things improve.

Finally, they offer the usual empty ideas. Ending the blockade on Gaza and ceasing settlements. Wow. Insightful. Truly, none of us have thought about this before. Thank you, Americans, for showing us Middle-Easterners the light (how obvious is it that I'm really angry and horrified at what the US is doing in Afghanistan right now).

Here's my take on this: both the 1947 and the 1967 borders mean nothing. Clearly, both Israelis and Palestinians aren't on board with them. We must acknowledge that there is a Jewish/Israeli claim to Hebron, just like there's a Palestinian claim to Acre. With this in mind, our thinking can't be about drawing borders but rather about building a political system that gives each people sovereignty and allows for people to settle everywhere. Basically, both the one-state and the two-state solution aren't going to be enough. We need to stop fooling ourselves and start looking at reality lucidly.

In conclusion, can the British come back?

What I'm Taking With Me
- they also blame Israel for the bad relations with various Arab countries?? Tell me, what has Israel done to Libya? The Arab League has been boycotting Israel far before the 1967 occupation and frankly, doesn’t care about Palestinians.
- Also, it's pretty much a given that Israel cooperates with Egypt and Jordan far more than is publicly known.
- I like writing these long reviews cause looking back at this is going to be a lot of fun. Also, way better than doing math.
- I suspect Plitnick reined in some of Hill's ideas and added the academic nuances.
- I wonder if anyone got through reading the entire review and if one day I'll work in politics and feel everything here is wrong.

[BooksAmyRead · Rating 5 out of 5]

I had the chance to read an advanced copy of this book thanks to #netgalley and I'm so thankful I did. The book is so well researched, straight to the point and asks the most daring of questions; why is it that the liberals of the US, both private citizens and public officials alike, call for justice and peace everywhere in the world "Except for Palestine". Why is it that when it comes to the lives and basic human rights of Palestinians does the world suddenly turn a blind eye? My personal opinion is that Israel can give master classes in spinning realities and controlling the public narrative but after reading the book you may have your own opinions on the subject but one thing is for sure, it won't leave you indifferent to the topic. This book forms a bold call to action, a wake up call of sorts, to the realities of people who were made into refugees on their own land. Hats off to Marc and Mitchell on this work!

[Kevin · Rating 3 out of 5]

“U.S. policy in Israel-Palestine rests upon decades of decisions that have been supported, either through active endorsement or silent complicity, by the American Left. No American president has been an exception in this regard.” (pg 8)

Hill and Plitnick are obviously writing to a well informed demographic in the U.S. which, I’m sorry to say, is very, very small. This book, as wonderfully written as it is, seems to be anchored on two rather shaky assumptions. The first is that the average American has at least a rudimentary knowledge of Israel’s socio-economic framing and, secondly, that American support for Israel comes from a place of empathy and Semitic concern. I’m not sure either of those suppositions are entirely accurate.

There are, however, two important points that Hill, Plitnick, and I agree on. The first is that, when it comes to support for the Palestinian people, the American far-right is a lost cause. The second point of congruence is that liberal and progressive Americans have been shamefully apathetic.

“With the rise of anti-Semitism in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere, Jewish people everywhere need and deserve solidarity with liberals to survive. But if that solidarity comes at the expense of another people, it is ultimately self-defeating.” (pg 158)

[Wick Welker · Rating 5 out of 5]

Israel is an apartheid state.

There is much to be said about Israel and Palestine. It's not a battle that's been raging for hundreds of years but only since the 1940s. There are many interested parties, ideologies, religions and view points in looking at the conflict. If you are to truly step back and consider the problem from an objective stand point I think the conclusion is unassailable: Israel is an apartheid state. Palestinians live in an open air prison in Gaza and are victims of crimes against humanity. That's all there is to it. The Israeli government enjoys broad control over the Palestinians and does so with impunity because fo the direct support of the US government. The US and Israel share similar features in that they can act unilaterally, breaking international law, and pay exactly zero consequences.

This book covers a lot you need to know if you're not familiar: The Oslo Accord, The Antifadas, The BDS boycott movements, the propaganda of Israel to constantly victimize itself and we get commentary up to Trump stating Jerusalem as its capital.

Please read this and other books like it. Abject human rights violations are happening in Israel while the entire world looks away. History will not be kind to the current Israeli government.

[David Wineberg · Rating 5 out of 5]

The Palestinians have been refugees for so long, the world has tired of them and pays no attention to their plight. People may be shocked at the treatment of the Rohingya expelled from Burma, or the innumerable escapees from various African horrors, everyone trying desperately to get into Europe, with little or no success. And lately, the Ukrainians have taken top of mind as the latest collection of millions looking to flee a tyrant. The Palestinian problem is an old story, seemingly without solution, but is in many ways worse than the others. Marc Lamont Hill and Mitchell Plitnick try to renew the Palestinians' place in our psyche with their book Except For Palestine.

It is a largely straightforward and top-line history of the founding of Israel and the roadkill that has become the fate of the natives, the Palestinians. It breaks neatly into four chapters, which are telling all by themselves. The first wraps and warps the world around Israel's neurotic "right to exist", which does not apply to Palestine. The second follows the global movement of boycotts, which, naturally are antisemitic despite all logic, law and human rights. The boycotts are often uniquely outlawed by one-of-a-kind laws for that reason. The third collects the madness of the Trump era. It was when all progress was ditched in favor of the US embassy moving to Jerusalem and all pretense of the occupied territories ever returning to their owners evaporated in the desert heat. Lastly, the current state of affairs, as bad and worse than it has ever been, with the usual political hypocrisy stalling any kind of solution at all.

At first, in 1948, the Palestinians were shuffled off their properties and gathered in what amounted to refugee camps in their own lands. As time went on, they lost more and more rights - the right to travel in Israel and visit family, the right to work there, the right to any kind of quality of life and the right to negotiate a free and fair conclusion to their plight. Today, they are worse off than ever, and as long as Israel is sitting across the table with the USA behind it, it will never be resolved.

It might be hard to swallow, but the Palestinians have been in a refugee camp called Gaza for 70 years now. Whole generations have come and gone, lived and died there, unable to go anywhere else. They are stateless, without passports, and no one speaks for them, supports them or is allied with them. From tens of thousands in 1948, there are now about two million in Gaza, in what is always in the top three most densely populated places on Earth (11,702 per square mile - compared to less than 300 for the rest of Israel).

Unemployment is 50%. Only 4% of the water is drinkable. Electricity is rationed for four hours a day. Every time they build up the infrastructure, the Israelis smash it. Every time the United Nations passes a resolution condemning Israel for this treatment of innocent bystanders, it simply ignores it. With solid backing from America, they have no fear. The USA has vetoed 44 resolutions calling Israel to let those people go. And many more have never made it to the voting stage because of the foregone conclusion.

The original problem still holds: to Israelis, this is a zero-sum game, the authors say. Any rights the Palestinians have mean less rights for Israelis. So all rights must be taken away from the natives in order for Israelis to be free. Just this year, it downgraded Arabic from its standing as equally important as Hebrew. Those Palestinians not in the camps are second class citizens in their country. They can be removed from their lands at any time, in favor of Israeli settlers. It is as bad as what America did to its indigenous peoples, isolating them and pushing them away. There is an odious correlation between the two. Others compare it to Apartheid. Both are apt and accurate comparisons in their own way.

The book recounts various failures over the decades, each one a setback for the Palestinians, who call the advent of the Israelis the Nakba - the Disaster. Some of them still hold onto the keys to their old homes in the pointless hope they will be allowed to return and pick up where they left off. The trends and events covered include the infighting among political factions of the Palestinians, borne of the frustration of getting absolutely nowhere regardless of who represents them. Whether they represent peace talks or violence, the result is the same - fewer rights for Palestinians.

On the Israeli side, the oft-ruling Likud Party has a plank in its platform strictly against giving the Palestinians their own state. This despite the public mouthings of its leaders claiming to support it (because the USA requires it). This is why it goes precisely nowhere.

It is also redolent of the mouthings by lawmakers regarding nuclear weapons. "Everyone knows" Israel has nuclear weapons, but no one is allowed to say so (though it slips out from time to time) because of an American law forbidding aid to nations harboring nuclear weapons. It often seems the whole country is built on deceit. With Palestinians at the bottom.

Palestinians cling to UN principles, treaties and rules like Human Rights and the Right of Return, which Israel will do everything in its power to prevent, because it might diminish the colonizers as a Jewish nation-state. The Israelis consider peaceful co-existence too much of a gamble and it is out of the question. So what else is there? For Israel it seems to be a matter of keeping everyone caged, shrinking their space and rights, and hoping the world is too weary to care. So far so good.

Taking a small step towards showing their real opinions, the authors discuss the constant bleating by Israel for everyone to acknowledge its right to exist. No other nations do this, even under fire. It is self-obvious, they say, that countries have the right to exist. But insecure Israel is forever demanding that Palestinians formally agree, and keep requiring it over and over as part of every discussion or negotiation. Failure to agree can get the other party branded as antisemitic. The authors label this a set-up and intellectually dishonest. It reminds me of white women breaking down in tears when accused of racism. That too, works.

There is a by now old saying that Capitol Hill is Israeli-Occupied Territory. It was never more the case than when Trump was president. Not only did he move the American embassy to Jerusalem, but he blessed Israel's permanent takeover of the Golan Heights, which belong to Syria. Naturally, the Israelis moved right in. (Not to put too fine a point on it, the Israelis immediately built a suburban community in the Golan Heights, called Ramat Trump - Trump Heights - and the US Ambassador inaugurated it.) For good measure, Trump cancelled food and social services aid to Palestinians while increasing military aid to Israel. Whatever became of the Palestinians, Trump obviously did not care. Then, at the end of his term, Trump's son-in-law published his long-awaited roadmap to peace in the middle east. It basically gave Israel everything it wanted, and gave nothing at all to the Palestinians. The best that can be said about the roadmap is that it has been entirely forgotten. It neatly wrapped up the anarchy of the Trump presidency.

So while Except for Palestine might seem biased, the truth is it has been a linear one-way slide to oblivion. There have been no bright spots, no reversals of fortune, no rights recovered thanks to some enlightened leader. There have been none. It is a constant beating, and the book reflects it well.

David Wineberg

[myo ⋆｡˚ ❀ *]

i think this was a good introduction to learning about Palestine but this was more about politics and how the us correlates than i expected? i wanted to know more about Palestine and the people in Palestine. This was also very complex for me personally, i’m not as smart as i think i am and this was very academic (not the books fault) but just wanted to say that for any readers looking for this to be their first book and they aren’t confident in how much they can understand/comprehend

[emma · Rating 4 out of 5]

Incredibly informative. The history sits in front of you, and whilst this went into US politics more than I would have liked, it still offers you an education on the need for a liberated Palestine dating back to 1948 all the way up to (pretty much) the present day. Read it.

[Tara · Rating 5 out of 5]

Longer review to come but everyone should read this, it’s short, concise, but super informative.

This is a great introduction and overview of how the United States is heavily involved in relations between Israel and Palestine, presented by showing how progressives abandon their principles when it comes to Palestine. This isn't a comprehensive history of relations, but it's a concise look at some of the main areas where progressives would normally support Palestine, but instead agree with the conservative view.

The main areas the book looks at: 1. The Right to Exist- a really great look at the issue inherent in arguing over Israel's right to exist and demands that Palestine recognize it. 2. Criminalizing BDS- an overview on how the boycott movement has escalated to criminalizing it which is at odds with progressive values and freedom of speech. 3. Trumped Up Policy- an overview of the damage Trump did in office, but how it wasn't actually a departure from previous Presidents. 4. The Crisis in Gaza- an overview of how progressives have abandoned the humanitarian crisis for years- very informative on how we got to where we are today, sadly.

All of these chapters give a overview of relations and the heavy US involvement and explain a lot of talking points that are brought up when people argue about Israel and Palestine. And it lays out how progressives SHOULD support Palestinian rights based on their supposed values as progressives.

This book is only 158 pages and it really packs in a lot of information, but it's concise and direct- while that can get a bit info dump, it really can get you up to speed on a lot of history in a short time so I highly recommend picking this up. It's written by Marc Lamont Hill who is a journalist and Mitchell Plitnick who used to be a co-director of Jewish Voice for Peace.

I listened to the audiobook on scribd and followed along to highlight in my physical copy. The audiobook is read by Paul Boehmer- who I guess does a lot of audiobook work, but I did struggle with his robotic narration and was glad to have the physical book to go with.

[Amy Biggart · Rating 4 out of 5]

4.5 — this was excellent and infuriating in equal measure.

More once ive gathered my thoughts

[Becca · Rating 1 out of 5]

Marc Lamont Hill and his co-author might claim to be "progressive" - except they aren’t when it comes to Palestine. Then they become a reactionaries. The central thesis of the book is bait and switch.

The book begins with a checklist of items for progressives, opposition to “racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBTQIA hate... “. The problem – the society they are attacking, Israel, opposes these prejudices, and the one he is defending, Palestine, maintains them. Queer Palestinians, facing death threats from relatives at home, flock to progressive Israel for sanctuary. Israel is a democracy as its many elections and political parties can attest to. Hill falsely claims that it is not. Not only is it a democracy at the top level, that democracy extends to below the municipal level to a high degree of participation in community councils The last Palestinian election was in 2007 and was marked by members of Fatah and Hamas throwing each other off of rooftops in Gaza.

Progressives support giving refugees asylum and citizenship. But when it comes to Palestinians living in refugee camps in Arab countries for several generations they switch gears and advocate “sending them back where their ancestors came from”, rather than integration into the countries in which they were born.

Palestinian President-For-Life, Mahmoud Abbas is now in the 14th year of a 4 year term and, along with his cronies rules the Palestinian Authority, which is a cover for Fatah. The EU funded parliament building in Abu Dis, as AFP reported last year, lies most empty. For those unfamiliar with the geography of Jerusalem, and Hill can count himself in among them, this location, first proposed by Palestinian ally Saudi Arabia 2 decades ago is the same distance from Al Aqsa/the Temple Mount as the Knesset is, but in the opposite direction. Where do they expect the capital to be built – in the Old City on top of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre or in the Jewish or Armenian Quarters? Or perhaps inside the Al Aqsa Mosque or the Dome of the Rock?

They also falsely claim that the move of America’s embassy and official recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital “caused great controversy”. It didn’t. The Washington Post and New York Times wrote a couple of editorials as did the Guardian. Abbas threatened Arab uprisings across the middle east. No one cared. The PA got a few dozen people to rally in Ramallah. Hamas "Great March" was unrelated - it started several months earlier.

Like the PA, Gaza has been ruled by Hamas’s inner circle which decides their own leadership, sans vox populi. Both are guided by Sharia Law, the PA by Basic Law #4 which also enshrines Arabic (and only Arabic) as the official language, and Hamas by their 1988 Covenant and by their 2017 “new charter” which still calls for the destruction of Israel through violent struggle. In contrast Israel’s framework of Basic Laws are secular in nature and enshrine both Hebrew and Arabic as official languages.

Hill and Plitnick expect an eventual Palestinian state to be both democratic and secular, respecting the rights of women, LGBTQ+ people and minorities. This doesn’t happen elsewhere in the Middle East which is largely governed by conservative Islamic views, and is not matched by polls conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research. If it was going to happen then it would have happened already, and it hasn’t. As oppressive as these societies can be, what is waiting in the wings tends to be more of the same. Real progressives would be able to recognize this.

In blaming Israel the authors are targeting the wrong party. They make the wrong choice, typical in books of this kind, in thinking that to be pro-Palestinian one has to be be anti-Israel. Nowhere do they praise Israel’s attempts to make peace or efforts to aid and support Palestinians or Arab Israelis. Rule 1 in seeking peace - focus on the positive to bring people together. Preaching hate, as the authors do, will accomplish the opposite.

Aside from dissing Abu Dis, the flim flam men are not very good or truthful with the facts. Perhaps that comes from Hill’s Media Studies background where facts are less important than the perceptions one can create. It’s an unbelievable coincidence that the borders of “ancient Palestine” match that drawn up by the League of Nations. The fact: “Palestine” was a Roman and Christian perception of the territory of ancient Israel and pre-Mandate maps show it to include what is now Jordan and parts of Syria. In Jordan 50-60% of the population including Queen Rania are Palestinian, with 2.1 million considered “refugees” and denied basic rights, which the flim flam men ignore. Similarly Palestinians in the west bank were stripped of their Jordanian citizenship by King Hussein in 1988 – except for top PLO officials who were exempted. Fiction: Palestinians are routinely denied building permits. The fact: In Gaza and in Areas A and B it is Hamas and the PA that issue permits, not Israel, and that covers 95% of Palestinians in the territories. In Area C and in Jerusalem many avoid applying for permits and wind up in violation of municipal guidelines. Of those who do apply for permits the rejection rate is the same for Arabs and non-Arabs. The fiction: Hill plays the race card by claiming that Israeli Jews “fears black and brown hordes”. The fact: nearly 50% of Israelis are as dark or darker skinned than most Palestinians. Because they and their parents came from Arab/Muslim counties where they experienced prejudice and ethnic cleansing, they tend to be conservative in outlook while Jews who migrated from western Europe tend to be more left wing and liberal. The two groups are intermarrying at a high rate so eventually there will be little distinction. America’s problems with race do not translate to Israeli society.

Myth: Israel has faced no existential threat since 1973. The facts: Iran’s IRGC has repeatedly published genocidal threats to destroy Israel in minutes, a threat that can only be carried out using nuclear arms. Hezbollah, Iran’s proxy in Lebanon has promised the same. Iran’s Ayatollah Khameini inaugurated a countdown clock of 25 years to Israel’s destruction. More recently Turkey, which has been building up its military ihas threatened to reconquer Jerusalem. Nor can one dismiss the possibility of new regimes in Jordan and Egypt renouncing their peace treaties or the potential threat of Saudi Arabia which possesses the 5th largest armed force on the planet. Egypt is 6th and Israel is 17th. And then there is Hamas and the PA who have threatened yet another intifadeh, an existenstial threat through asymetrical war.

Myth: Anti-boycott legislation “criminalizes” BDS (Blame, Distort and Slander). The fact: BDS advocates seek to make the US government complicit in their anti-Israel campaign. It has nothing to do with free speech. Personally you may boycott Israeli produces, as wrongheaded as this may be. If your business excludes Jews or Israelis or employs guilt by association with companies that do business in Israel you won’t be prosecuted in criminal court – you’ll be denied access to government contracts. Ironic – those who would boycott cry “foul” when they in turn are boycotted.

Myth: BDS opposes violence and is not antisemitic. The facts: At the Sept 2018 USCPR Conference Hill endorsed terrorism “Leilah Khaled style” - she was convicted of hijacking two civilian passenger airplanes, Hill also claimed (falsely) that Israel was “poisoning the water” of Palestinians a classic antisemitic allegation. He endorsed terror by stating that “we can’t fetishize that (non-violent) strategy”. He gaslights readers by claiming that the phrase “from the river to the sea” does not mean Israel’s destruction.

BDS advocates have targeted and terrorized Jewish student directly by posting mock eviction notices on their dorm rooms and by scheduling divestment votes on Jewish holidays and the Sabbath, often on short notice and at times that when observant Jews would be unable to attend and voice their opinion. BDS routinely lies by claiming “victories” such as when Renaldinho and his Brazilian team mates backed out of a 2018 exhibition match in Israel due to death threats against the players. The event was rescheduled and took place in October 2019.

Hill and Plitnick also promote the “deadly exchange” conspiracy theory that Israeli police anti-terrorism training exchanges, which has nothing to do with arrest procedures such as those that led to the death of Geroge Floyd. The program has been highly praised for its emphasis on community relations.

If one were to refute all the mistakes it would take twice as many pages as the book contains. But one doesn’t need to go that far. The very first misrepresentation is in the dedication.

To Ahmed Erekat, a beautiful spirit stolen from the world two weeks before his wedding.

Erekat was killed after ramming his car into an Israeli checkpoint on June 23rd, 2020. Instead of pulling over when flagged by the female officer he increased his speed, swerved, and tried to kill her. Undeniable. Recorded on video.

If the flim flam men are committed to non-violence – they hide it very well.

[Traci Thomas · Rating 3 out of 5]

I learned a lot here but found the audio narrator very boring and took me out of the book. It’s pretty academic and struggled a bit to keep track of every person, location, and event.

[Sarah]

Very informative, highly recommend. This book goes in depth into the role the U. S. has played in facilitating the marginalization of Palestinians and crisis in Gaza. It includes a lot of historical details and context, policy explanations, and primary source citations. Chapter 4 is entirely devoted to Gaza. Published in 2021, the book follows events up through President Biden's election and is extremely relevant to the current situation. I honestly might listen to the audiobook again.

It's a fairly condensed book (audiobook is just over 6 hours long). If you have a Spotify Premium subscription, this book is included.

(No rating because I don't know how to rate nonfiction)

[Drea · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book takes a look at how US foreign policy towards Israel has been complicit to the atrocities committed agains Palestinians. It takes us through different presidencies and explores how each of these (Republican and Democrat) have laid the ground to the terrible decisions that Trump made during his presidency. It is about how the US political system has been built to be absolutely inefficient in the face of the current conflict we are witnessing.

This book is not necessarily beginner friendly. I would recommend this to people that are familiar with the Palestine/Israeli conflict and have a basic knowledge on American Foreign policy.

[Carolynn Jimenez · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is not comprehensive, but if you are looking for something that gets to the point and want to know more about the occupation of Palestine, this is the right book for you. It’s 4 chapters, and each one will give you pretty salient takeaways. The last chapter on Trump’s foreign policy is worth it alone.

[Kinza · Rating 5 out of 5]

Answers so many questions and gets to the point with easy to follow explanations. Very well researched and informative. A must read for everyone looking to learn more about the topic. Available on hoopla for free with most city’s library cards, & the audiobook is available on Spotify (since it’s not too long the audio time doesn’t run out with a standard subscription). Will be reading all of Marc Lamont Hill’s other books after this.

[Randall Wallace · Rating 3 out of 5]

Backstory: Scholar Noura Erakat writes that “had the Jews merely wanted to live in Palestine, this would not have been a problem. In fact, Jews Muslims and Christians has co-existed for centuries throughout the Middle East. But Zionists sought sovereignty over a land where others lived. Their ambitions required not only the dispossession and removal of Palestinians in 1948 but also their forced exile, judicial erasure, and denial they ever existed.” She concludes, “The overwhelming majority of Palestinians have not demanded Jewish-Israelis removal …only a relinquishment of their desire to rule.”

Zionist leader Jabotinsky asked fellow Zionists “whether there is one solitary instance of any colonization being carried on with the consent of the native population. There is no such precedent. The native populations, civilized, or uncivilized have always stubbornly resisted the colonists.” “Given this state of affairs, conquest was the only option for the colonizer, Jabotinsky posited”. More Jabotinsky quotes: “[E]ither Zionism is moral and just, or it is immoral and unjust. But that is a question we should have settled before we became Zionists. Actually, we have settled that question, and in the affirmative.”

Israel’s Basic Law “obligates them, by law, to discriminate against the Arab population.” National self-determination in Israel is now a right exclusive to the Jewish people. Omar Barghouti says, “From now on, it will not just be legal to racially discriminate against the Palestinian citizens of the state. It will be constitutionally mandated and required.” I can picture a Zionist Broadway song: “I’m Confessin’ an Obsession with Dispossession”. “Israeli journalist Anshel Pfeffer said, “Israel has a serious racism problem, there is a legal and social framework that discriminates against its non-Jewish citizens. For the last 52 years (75 now) it has been occupying millions of stateless Palestinians who still have no prospect of receiving their basic rights.” “Real countries don’t have to argue they are legitimate.”

Questions to ask Zionists: “Is the dispossession and ongoing denial of rights at various levels to Palestinians justified?” What justifies their dispossession? “When someone asks if one supports ‘Israel’s right to exist’, they are tacitly asking if one agrees that Israel’s elevation of Jewish rights above those above those of Palestinians in the land they all inhabit is acceptable.” The question to ask is “whether it was legitimate?” All Palestinians know that to recognize Israel’s right to exist is to “legitimate their own dispossession.” Such an admission implies that one is lesser or inferior.

When President Obama gave a $38 billion aid package to Israel at the end of his presidency, it was the largest military aid package in history given to another nation; illegal occupations aren’t cheap. In 2018, Israel passes the “Nation-State Bill” which finally makes it clear “only Jews can exercise national self-determination in Israel. It clearly also encourages settlement (settler-colonialism). “It has the force of what Americans would think of as constitutional law.” “Legitimate opposition has been delegitimized by denying the right of an occupied people to resist.” The authors make the case that security “cannot be used as a cover for depriving one group of their equal human, civil, legal, and national rights.” The authors say a policy debate is “long overdue” and they want equal rights and self-determination for both Israelis and Palestinians.

Borders: “Israel has long refused to define its borders (and also refused to tell the world it has nuclear weapons)”. Israel’s claims to the Syrian Golan Heights and East Jerusalem are still disputed although it claims it “annexed” them. But that’s like calling your bathroom toilet a Learning Annex. The reason Israel fights so hard to keep any Palestinians from returning (Right of Return) is because that would “endanger Israel’s Jewish demographic majority. “The Gaza Strip has been under siege since 2006.” Note that “Israel does not demand that Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, the United Nations, Australia or any other country recognize it as a Jewish state.” Only the Palestinians have to do so. Bully 101: remember that ONLY the held-down child on the playground has to cry “uncle” to their bully, the job of the other children is to show obedience through silence.

History: BDS was started in 2005 by Palestinian organizations. It asked for an end of the occupation and full equality for Palestinian citizens of Israel. BDS shifted the conversation to equal rights, which is where actual power lies (and why it’s being denied). Also, in 2005, “the Institutional Court of Justice rules that the Wall that Israel had constructed inside the West Bank was illegal under international law.” A long-term Zionist goal was to build the Wall without paying Roger Waters royalties. Israel used white phosphorous on Gazans during Operation Cast Lead (12/08 to 1/09). Why white phosphorus? Because you can’t wash it off with water and then it burns you (or your children) to the bone. That will teach you to be living on your own land!

What would you do if you were Palestinian in Gaza? Strikes and demonstrations don’t get media coverage. Palestinians have nothing to negotiate when well-financed Israel is holding all the cards. And so, the only thing that gets press coverage is significant resistance, or any attack that can be deemed violent. The authors say, this gives the “false perception that Palestinians are overwhelmingly violent, and expressions of non-violence are rare.” Imagine if two past US Presidents were known as terrorists and still got elected. Well, Israel’s Begin and Yitzhak Shamir were both once terrorists. “Me and Yitzak both stand for Peace; A Piece of a leg over here, a Piece of a scalp over there…” How would you feel living in Israel as a Jew knowing that while you can freely drive around and go to the beach for marvelous lunch, “Palestinians are deprived of most human rights?” It’s like the joy of waiting for a table at a seafood restaurant stuck watching ill-fated captive lobsters in their wretched fish tank.

Trump made a statement recognizing Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights – great - one more reason to loathe him. “With his statement, Trump undermined the most fundamental international law which as stated in the Charter of the United Nations, forbids the acquisition of territory by force.” Fun Fact for your next Cocktail Party: “Since 1972, the US has used its veto power at the UN Security Council to shield Israel from forty-four resolutions criticizing its behavior or calling it to comply with international law and UN resolutions.” Take A Seat-O’s, We’re the King of the Vetoes! It’s Papa Rogue State protecting Baby Rogue State.

How to Win Friends & Influence Others: In the Mavi Marmara incident, “Israeli troops boarded a Turkish ship trying to deliver humanitarian supplies to Gaza and killed ten activists.” That will teach humans to be kind to each other.

In 2004, Bush Jr. promises there would be no return of Palestinian refugees. ‘This is my miscarriage of justice and I stand by this message.’ Israel (between 1970 and 2001) builds “twenty-one Jewish only-settlements in the strip.” The message from the Intifada that Israel got, was to stop using local Palestinian workers, and get them from the Philippines and Thailand instead. The encirclement of Gaza meant it became totally dependent of Israel for electricity, water and trade “and there was nowhere for the people of Gaza to develop any alternative.” “By 2000, with outbreak of the second intifada, it became clear that Oslo was a hoax, intended to entrench the occupation, not to remove it.” Human Rights groups then “produced numerous reports” which “included the use of human shields by Israeli soldiers, indiscriminate bombing by drones, the use of the burning chemical white phosphorus in civilian areas, and other disturbing acts.”

This is all fertile lyric material for the neglected Zionist Rap Genre: “Get ‘em while they’re down, In their Gaza Shanty Town, Hope they have a breakdown, Beat You Like Bobbie Brown, You Clown, in Your Dressing Gown, Word.”

“The single biggest issue in the Israeli-Palestine conflict since 1948 is not Jerusalem, settlements, borders, or even security. It is the Palestinian right of return.” Note that sometimes when Israelis speak of the destruction of their state, they mean “being outnumbered by Palestinians as citizens, with the inherent political power that would entail.” “Collective punishment is always self-defeating.” “Collective punishment is a war crime.” While we in the US “do nothing, nearly two million innocent people suffer some of the worst living conditions in the world.” Democrats are slowly moving their sympathies toward the Palestinians, but those sympathizers are still in the minority thanks to enormous power of the Israel Lobby.

Meanwhile Republicans “have abandoned any pretense of interest in Palestinians.” In 2019, “Secretary of State Mike Pompeo declared that Israel’s settlement in the West Bank were legal under international law, a position shared by exceedingly few international law experts.” And it’s a rare day that any Democrat suggests Palestinians deserve the same rights as their occupiers. How bizarre that only in Israel has one group of people been denied the same rights of “freedom, justice, equality, safety, and self-determination as everyone else around the globe.” Why should only Palestinians have to justify the fight for their rights?

This was a good book, and I learned a little more about the occupation and better see why the moral blind spots of most Americans (thanks to the Jewish Lobby) have been so hard to remove. And now I return to an AIPAC approved world where I’m daily told to ONLY have sympathy for the Occupier, and NEVER for the Occupied.

[Hannah Showalter · Rating 4 out of 5]

this was really informative, particularly about the united states' HEAVY involvement in israel and palestine. i wouldn't recommend this so much if you're looking to learn about the history of palestine itself, but really would if you're looking to understand all the ways in which the united states is complicit. i also really learned a lot here about the BDS movement so i would recommend it also for more education on that topic!

[dovesnook · Rating 5 out of 5]

This was very informative and moving without necessarily appealing to ethos. If you, like me, don’t have all the knowledge but understand that Palestine must be liberated… make sure you’re speaking out while educating yourself, while contacting reps, while amplifying Palestinian voices.

[charlotte (moerreads) · Rating 5 out of 5]

EXCEPT FOR PALESTINE

Thank you to @thenewpress for the #gifted ARC!

Whenever someone asks “what’s the deal with Israel & Palestine?” I have always responded (somewhat cheekily) “do you have ten hours?” It’s always felt important to give people the history so they can fully grasp how we got to where we are. & no, not “they’ve been fighting over this for 3,000 years” history (anyone who tells you that the two don’t get along because of ‘ancient religious feuds’ should not be listened to) but rather “we need to go back to 1896, 1917, or at least 1948” history.

With this, however, Hill & Plitnick have made my answer a lot simpler. Never, and I mean never, in the seven years I’ve been learning about this topic have I read something as concise & razor-sharp as the scholarship in these 158 pages.

The beauty of this book is that you don’t *need* to know about the roots of Zionism or the details of the 1967 & 1973 wars (though it helps for sure) to recognize the single most important fact: Palestinians deserve equal rights & justice because everyone deserves equal rights & justice. & further, it is high time that people who champion these ideals stop pretending that Palestine can be the exception; there is simply no excuse. In a world where the left is fighting for LGBTQ+ rights, Indigenous land, the climate, racial equity & more, we cannot possibly continue to uphold this violent contradiction in leaving out Palestine.

This is not a “congrats, you’re liberal” feel-good text. It is a necessary reckoning with US actions & complicity--from leaders & citizens on the right & left--in the protracted suffering of Palestinians. 

The book is divided into four highly accessible topics: nationalism & the demand on Palestinians to affirm Israel’s right to exist, the Boycott, Divest & Sanction (BDS) movement & the fight to criminalize it, US policy toward Palestine over time, and the crisis in Gaza.

[Kenzie]

So, this book is ✨ L I B E R A L ✨ in a huge way that I did not expect.

Cons:
- does not critically engage with neoliberalism or neocolonialism whatsoever
- entrenches the idea neoliberalism is part of the solution
- does not engage with liberationist or decolonial ideas or theory whatsoever
- asks the question « why is Palestine an exception in liberal imagination? » and proves that this exception exists, but fails to answer the question due to the aforementioned approach

Pros:
- provides a clear image of the inconsistencies and hypocrisy in liberal/progressive approaches to Israel/palestine
- provides a compelling argument to care about Palestinian lives and challenge Zionism within a mainstream/centrist mindset - this is valuable! This makes solidarity (to a certain degree) accessible to a larger number of people without completely turning your worldview upside down.
- encourages stronger action from centrist/progressive/democratic politicians, voters, etc within the current system. Again, this is valuable. Radical revolution is a long game and reform and harm reduction has a place in the short term (though does entrench systems of power)


As I learn more about this specific conflict, I am interested in sources with deep anti-colonial, liberationist, feminist, leftist theoretical roots. However, sources that operate within a hegemonic mindset are valuable in many ways - for example, I think this book will help me discuss this topic with people who hold more centrist/liberal/progressive views, and I also think it suggests realistic paths forward within our current power systems. I also did learn a lot about the history of US involvement in Israel and Palestine.

[Salem ☥ · Rating 2 out of 5]

I dislike the way the author refuses to condemn Zionism and its apartheid state in its entirety. He focuses too much on appealing to Israelis who may or may not be reading this book, instead of the plight of Palestinians and their liberation. Instead try Perfect Victims and The Politics of Appeal by Mohammed El-Kurd.

[Dona's Books · Rating 3 out of 5]

Review to come.

[Shaimaa]

I recommend this book to those who are unfamiliar with the the double standard policy of US-Israel and Palestine.
A very important read.

[Bon · Rating 4 out of 5]

the cruel irony of the last lines insisting the U.S. could help the situation if it tried. Can't help but wonder what this book would say if written today.

[Mara · Rating 4 out of 5]

Very focused on the political philosophy & rhetoric of why Palestine is the outlier for many US progressives' positions

[Kara Babcock · Rating 3 out of 5]

This was the December pick for the Rad Roopa Book Club, where we read books aligned with social justice and antiracist thought and praxis. Except for Palestine: The Limits of Progressive Politics is an overview of the history and politics of the twentieth century and first two decades of the twenty-first century as they pertain to attitudes towards Palestine.

As a child of the 1990s, as a non-Jewish person growing up in Canada, this has always been a part of modern history that I only vaguely understood. I knew the modern nation-state of Israel as we now know it was created by European powers in 1948, and I had a vague notion about what Palestine was, who Palestinians were, and how they contested Israel’s claim to and presence on that land. But for most of my childhood and adolescence, that vague notion was all I understood. As I lay awake in the middle of the night at 14 years old, I would listen to the BBC World Service talk about Bush bombing Iraq, and these kinds of snippets of news informed my view on the Middle East. Truly, it was “somewhere over there.”

Thankfully, I have since broadened my perspective. More newcomers coming to Canada from countries in that region—some by choice, others unfortunately refugees displaced by war or other disasters—has afforded me the opportunity to meet more people and hear their stories, learn about their culture. And I’ve learned more about Israel and Palestine, though I have a lot more learning left to do. Indeed, parts of this book left me slightly confused, for I think Hill and Plitnick assume slightly more familiarity with certain names and events from twentieth-century United States politics than I have!

But the one thing that I didn’t really get was why it has been (and remains, in many ways) so taboo to talk about Palestine, even among so-called liberal or progressive groups. This is what Hill and Plitnick are getting at in this book. They do a fair job of representing different perspectives, referencing both Palestinian and Israeli sources, discussing the role of the United States and other world powers, and generally trying to inform. That being said, this is not a book that tries to “both sides” the issue—it is clearly, firmly pro-Palestinian, and its attempts to present other perspectives are there only to help us understand how we got to here, not to equivocate. The conclusion makes this clear if it wasn’t already: the authors view what is happening in Palestine right now as a human rights crisis, and this book is one way they are trying to get more people to pay attention to it as such.

My thoughts, of course, turned to Canada’s own domestic crisis of colonialism and genocide with the Indigenous peoples from whom Europeans stole this land several centuries ago. The trend right now when talking reconciliation here is to locate that harm as history. In reality, you just have to look at the actions of current governments and institutions to see that colonialism is still happening here. This helps to explain partly why Canada and other states support Israel and, by and large, don’t want to acknowledge what is happening in Palestine or to Palestinians: we are doing it here too.

Except for Palestine highlights that, until now, few world leaders have been willing to appear “anti-Israel” because of how easily this is conflated with being antisemitic. They caution us not to view President Trump’s friendship and concessions towards Israel as an incredible outlier, showing that even past Democratic presidents were generally pro-Israel, albeit in a way that walked the line more finely. So much of politics in horse trading: you give me something, and I’ll give you this back, even if it’s not really something I want to do because at least I get something I want.

Although often verging on the academic and cerebral side, this book also makes itself accessible to us through oral history. Interviews or excerpts from news reports provide context for the Palestinian experience in Gaza, the West Bank, or abroad. This book is far from comprehensive and doesn’t go too deep; however, you’ll come away with at least a general understanding of the conditions Palestinians experience today, the human rights violations, and the violence.

I would have liked the authors to cover more about how Palestine is erased from leftist discourse in general. The book mostly focuses on formal, political speech. How is Palestine ignored or erased in our pop culture? In our memes? Online? How does this connect to intersectional marginalizations—queer Palestinian experiences, disabled Palestinian experiences, etc. That’s probably a wider scope than this book could cover, but these are the questions that are coming to mind now that I’ve read it.

I would recommend this for people with an interest in politics and history. As I said at the start of this review, the book assumes a certain amount of prior knowledge that maybe I fell short of; nevertheless, I muddled through (thanks, Google!). Clearly I have more learning to do on this subject. Still, Except for Palestine is informative and deep, helping me fill in gaps in my knowledge and helping me ask that all-important question: why? The world isn’t the way it is just because; there are so many whys, and now I know some more of them.

Originally posted on Kara.Reviews, where you can easily browse all my reviews and subscribe to my newsletter.

[Suzy · Rating 3 out of 5]

thanks The New Press for the e-copy!
In four essays, Except for Palestine explores four issues: The Right to Exist, Criminalizing BDS, Trumped-Up Policy, and The Crisis in Gaza, with the overarching point of showing how the United States has continually supported Israel’s occupation, irrespective of the political party of the politicians in office.

I have a lot of conflicting feelings about this book, because I walked away from it with a lot of vocabulary and context that I was missing before, and I am glad I read it when I did. I believe that, as a whole, this provided a good overview of why more Americans should support the Palestinian cause, and how bipartisan support of Israel in the United States is clearly tied to Palestinian suffering. But, it was a frustrating reading experience for me. It did not meet my expectations based on the title and blurb, and it ultimately would have benefited from a clearer audience and purpose, and better organization.

Since it was a book of essays, they were mainly focused on giving just enough context to make the point of each essay. This meant some historical context was glossed over for later essays, even when I think the reader would have benefited from having that information at an earlier time.

Though the organization of information was unconventional, I think the main issue I had with the book was their attempt to frame this as a call for moral righteousness for liberals. Near the end, they make a claim that “our overwhelming silence is a betrayal of the noble, definitive ideals that liberals and progressives profess to hold dear.” Personally, I think this is speaking too highly of liberals (who are supporting American colonialism & imperialism in many ways!!!). And by lumping together progressives and liberals in this way, it made their claim less clear.

The book also did not go so far as to claim that we should have an internationalist approach in general. I figured a book called Except for Palestine would spend more time proving that Palestine was the exception, especially since I think it is, unfortunately, one of many examples of how people exclude other countries’ struggles based on lack of information, or unquestioning trust in the narratives we’ve been told.

[Stefanie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Not the Zionists and Israeli apologists in the reviews. This book was really well written and I enjoyed how they laid it out. Obviously there’s so much to unpack but this is great start. Very sad to think when this book was written vs now and how many Palestinian men women and children have been murdered.
Anyways read this book and Free Palestine

[Shain Verow · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting primer on US/Palestine relations, but less illuminating than some other books I’ve read on the subject. Still, I recommend it for how clear and concise it is on the “who, what, when, where, why?” questions of foreign policy history.

[Viral · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 stars, rounded up to 4 for Goodreads. Ok I have a lot of thoughts about this book.

The liberation of Palestine is unbelievably important to me. The hypocrisy of so many white American liberals and progressives about standing up for Palestinian self-determination and liberation is infuriating to me. I was really excited about this book when I learned about it. I respect Marc Lamont Hill for standing up for Palestinians, even though it was of great personal distress to him and nearly cost him his job at Temple. As a book detailing the manifold crimes Israel has and continues to commit against Palestinians, this book is wonderful.

But this book is particularly pointing to and drawing on this idea of the "Progressive except Palestine", or PEP concept, that many of us who are involved in anti-colonial and anti-imperial struggle encounter. People who are super down with opposing systems of violence and oppression, on paper, but when Palestine comes up suddenly its "oh but its complicated" and "oh but what about blahblah" "ok but security concerns" etc etc.

All progressives would tell you a border wall is unjust, and that the idea of a wall with Mexico is criminal and racist. But bring up the wall between Israel and the occupied West Bank, suddenly its "oh but all the Palestinians are terrorists, they have to build a wall they gotta keep the terrorists out". Progressives are big on ending police brutality and the carceral state. Bring up the connections between the Israeli military and US police forces, or the mass detention and surveillance of Palestinians, and suddenly you're an antisemite and "you don't understand, its complicated, they have to be kept in check, the Palestinians are all criminals". Jim Crow America and South African apartheid are evil, but point out all of the obvious connections both have with Israel and you're an antisemite and "its complicated, they have to do that, they need to protect themselves". Anyone talking about how white people in America are being replaced by brown people is rightfully labelled a racist. But when Israel talks about how there's too many Palestinian babies or that admitting Palestinian refugees would be a "demographic time bomb" for Israel, critiquing that gets you labeled an antisemite.

That's the Progressive Except Palestine argument. This book touches on some of these arguments, but it largely just focuses on the problems with Israel. That's all correct, but it's so lacking because there was a lot of original fresh ground to stake out here about calling out white liberals and progressives who refuse to stand with Palestinian liberation. Quite unfortunate, so much wasted potential here.