Palestine and the Arab Israeli Conflict

by Charles D. Smith

The enormous changes in the 1990s throughout the Middle East have necessitated this thoroughly revised edition of the standard introduction to the subject. Offering a balanced history of both Israeli and Arab goals, Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict covers the history of Palestine before Israeli independence in 1948 and brings the story forward to the breakthrough Arab-Israeli Accord of 1993 and its troubled aftermath.

Genres: History, Middle East, Politics, Nonfiction, Israel, War, Islam

343 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1988

About the author

Charles D. Smith is professor emeritus of Middle East history in the College of Middle East and North African Studies at the University of Arizona where he served as department head and director of graduate studies. A graduate of Williams College, he received his MA in Middle East Studies from Harvard and his PhD in history from the University of Michigan. Formerly a member of the history faculty at San Diego State University and head of the Near Eastern/Asian Studies Department at Wayne State University , he held visiting appointments at the University of Virginia, George Mason University, Virginia Military Institute, and was the National Endowment for the Humanities Visiting Professor of Middle East history at Virginia Commonwealth University in 1993.
A former Fulbright Scholar to Egypt, he was a research fellow at the Institute for Advanced Study at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in 1982. He is the former president of the American Research Center in Egypt, 1996-1999, having previously served on its executive board and as vice-president, from 1993-1996.
Professor Smith is the author of Islam and the Search for Social Order in Modern Egypt (1983), Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict (1988), 8th edition 2012, and with co-author Julia Clancy-Smith, The Modern Middle East and North Africa: A History in Documents (2013) . His book on the Arab-Israeli conflict was the first one-volume study to present the topic from the later 19th century onward rather than beginning treatment from World War II. He has published articles in the areas of modern Egypt, nationalism and theories of nationalism, Anglo-French imperialism and the Middle East in World War I, and on Palestinian and Arab-Israeli affairs, and is frequently consulted for his views by press and media, often overseas.
His most recent journal/book chapter publication are “The United States and the 1967 War” in The 1967 Arab-Israeli War: Origins and Consequences, Wm Roger Louis and Avi Shlaim eds, (Cambridge University Press, 2012), “The Arab-Israeli Conflict” in Louise Fawcett, editor, International Relations of the Middle East, 3rd ed (Oxford University Press, 2013), and “The Arab Spring: First Takes and Later Reflections,’ Middle East Journal (Fall 2013). Professor Smith served as commentator for the panel on the Israeli attack on the U.S.S. Liberty at the conference on the 1967 War hosted by the US State Department in Washington in January 2004. He was honored at the 2012 Middle East Studies Association of North America [MESA]meeting as the recipient of the Mentor Award for his work in advising and guiding students at the graduate and undergraduate levels; and at the 2013 MESA meeting, his co-authored book with Julia Clancy-Smith received the book award for the best book on undergraduate education.

Reviews

[Anton Himmelstrand · Rating 3 out of 5]

Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict constitutes a comprehensive and detailed account of the events preceding and following from the formation of the state of Israel and the intercommunal tensions that define these events.

Overall, Charles D. Smith's style is dry and to to-the-point, analyzing the flow of history one set of years at a time. As a history book, this is excellent and proper, but conversely, it lacks much in the way of engaging narrative or underlying thesis. It is informative, but it is not the type of summer's read that keeps you at the edge of your seat. Its purpose is not to condemn Israel or the Palestinian people -- although the author is never reluctant to point out the divide between goals envisaged and methods employed. Israelis use intimidation to enforce obedience, but simultaneously fan the flames of violence. The PLO often seeks short-term successes and prestige, compromising long-term objectives.

One particularly nice feature of the book is the number of primary sources included at the end of each chapter. To actually read the Balfour Declaration, the Likud party platform or speeches given by Arab heads-of-state adds a lot to the experience. Essentially, it is one thing to know of British imperialist ambitions, another to read diplomatic correspondences that seem “exceedingly informal, flexible and by design almost amateurish.”

I am not sure that I would recommend Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict to anyone apart from history students, but after reading the book, I at least feel more confident that I can base my opinions on facts as well as feelings.

[AbdulRahman AlHamali · Rating 5 out of 5]

Palestine, and the Arab-Israeli Conflict by Dr. Charles D. Smith is the best reference for anyone who desires to explore and understand the details of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The book starts with a quick chapter that summarizes the story of Palestine from the days of the ancient Jewish Kingdoms, until the 19th century. The book then moves to explaining in great detail the story of the Jewish people, the Palestinian people and Palestine from the 19th century until 2006. More recent editions of the book will take you further up to 2016.

What is really great about the book is the degree of detail that the author provides. Dr. Smith talks about political, economic and social aspects of the issue. He shows how domestic and foreign policy affect each other, and how a seemingly-unrelated event happening in one part of the world could affect the lives of those living in another. In addition, Dr. Smith provides historical documents at the end of each chapter. So, as you read the book, you will get to read the multiple revised versions of the Balfour Declaration, the text of the U.N. Resolution 242, the speech that Nasser gave after nationalizing the Suez Canal, etc.

It should be noted, however, that the book is not an easy read at all. It is best intended for students or for people who are really interested in the topic. If you're looking for a light and fun read, avoid this book.

Overall, the book is great. It is very informative; all I knew about this topic was the cherry-picked items that the school system wanted me to absorb. With this book, however, my knowledge of the topic has increased tremendously, and my point-of-view of many of its aspects has changed.

[Josh · Rating 2 out of 5]

I'm Jewish. I try not to let that color my opinions on the Palestine issue but occasionally I fear it does. This book tested that as few others have. Smith is equally slanted to the Palestinian plight, which I don't consider myself blind to but anytime I feel history being tampered with I take exception. His accounting of the facts in this text are methodical, he leaves few stones unturned in charting the birth of a nation and the movements, maneuverings and back door discussions that made it happen, but I found myself constantly reading between the lines in instances in which he'd be entirely too liberal with his assumptions which he states as facts, always siting favorable instances and giving justification for one side and almost never extending the same courtesy to the other. Towards the end as Israel begins to act with less and less logic or reason it became more readable for me because he no longer needs to trump up the injustice and magnify the affect of outsider politics, but as far as I'm concerned he's already blown his credibility. This book could serve as bible for college activists looking for a cause. I'm not saying they don't have one in the Israeli apartheid, but this is not the book to make your case on.

[Jay · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a very solid chronological history of Palestine which, in my opinion, covered the historical developments in an unbiased manner. The book did not favor Israel, like so many text books and television programs do, and also did not shrink from covering the category of international Zionist expansion. The strongest element contained in this book was the excerpts of original historical documents concerning Palestine and the creation of Israel. Until reading this book, I did not have accurate verification that the Zionists had a strong influence in shaping the Balfour Declaration. The availability of these historical documents, especially those produced by the British government, clearly provides proof of the strong economic influence of Zionism within the British representative parliamentary government leading into World War II.

The following excerpts were written using the Smith book as a primary source:

Churchill White Letter - July 1, 1922

The Churchill White Paper was designed to ease tensions in Palestine, especially since the area had fallen under British protectorate, which were increasing due to demographic shifts on the ground and “interpretations of the meaning of the [Balfour] Declaration favoring the establishment of a Jewish National in Palestine”[1]. It is indisputable fact that the Zionist Congress possessed heavy influence in the British Parliament during the decades leading to the establishment of the modern nation-state of Israel, no differently than Zionist pro-Israeli influence infiltrates the two Congressional bodies in the United States today. While many will attempt to argue over Churchill’s affiliation with Zionism, a statue of Winston Churchill stands in Israel today “just yards away from the King David Hotel, scene of a deadly Jewish terror attack on British military headquarters in 1946 that was to hasten the demise of mandate rule in Palestine”[2]. Churchill’s policy statement tries to clarify the Zionist position, whether falsely or unwittingly, on Palestine by reiterating claims on the “determination of the Jewish people to live with the Arab people on terms of unity and mutual respect”, only this statement can be clearly seen as false or misleading in retrospect to the establishment and expansion of the modern nation-state of Israel. [3].

Two of the most notable elements of Churchill’s White Letter are the Zionist claim that a Jewish National Home rests “upon ancient historical connection” and the issue of Jewish immigration in 1922, which would be seen again in the British policy letter of 1939 [4]. It must be stated here that implementing international political border partitions and creating new nation-states based on ancient religious text with unconfirmed authorship is irrational and, especially in cases that create mass displacement and refugees, it is internationally irresponsible. Second, even though the Churchill White Letter appears to offer reassurances of equality in Palestine, the support for the pro-Zionist immigration issue is sleekly placed within the statement “that the Jewish community in Palestine should be able to increase its numbers by immigration” [5].

A last note on the white letter content would be the staunch denial of alleged government acquisition by the Zionists. Churchill reassures the native Arabs in Palestine that “the Palestine Zionist Executive Organisation, has not desired to possess, and does not possess, any share in the general administration of the country. Nor does the special position assigned to the Zionist Organisation in Article IV of the Draft Mandate for Palestine imply any such functions”[6]. The following considerations are for speculation: Did Zionists know, through British promises that the area would eventually be partitioned and the opportunity of an independent Jewish state possible? Was the international Zionist network still in the planning stages for a Jewish state to be implanted, even by possible force at some point, in the region? Or were Zionist forces simply playing the political hand they were dealt at the time of Churchill’s letter? The influence that international Zionist capital had on empowering Jewish-Zionist networks inside Palestine to a position for establishing a Jewish state in the region is undeniable, just as international capital, both Zionist and Christian Zionist through representative democracies of the west, has made the state of Israel a regional military hegemon with international political immunity.

Peel Commission Report 1937

The Peel Commission Report by the British Government on the condition of Palestine in 1937 was the British government’s way of endorsing partition, making an easy way for the creation of the nation-state of Israel, and washing their hands of the commitments that were made to earn Arab support during the Second World War. The conclusion of the report supporting partition stated that “the Arabs must acquiesce in the exclusion from their sovereignty of a piece of territory, long occupied and once ruled by them. It means that the Jews must be content with less than the Land of Israel they once ruled and have hoped to rule again”[7]. What this position actually admits is that the century long Zionist efforts at establishing a national, or nation-state, home for Jews was about to be accomplished, with or without approval, and thereafter strengthened by the influx of international capital into the newly created government. The political insanity of this historical decision is that the partition is justified on the Zionist side by a claim that Jewish people once ruled the land of Israel, which is based off an authorless ancient text written over 2300 years ago accompanied with the misconception that the modern Jewish population is the direct blood ancestry of the Hebrew Tribes and the Kingdom of Judah (a kingdom which assimilated and converted many gentile subjects). From the Arab Palestinian perspective, modern historians could easily trace the ancestry of the majority of Arab population through the land of Palestine.

The Commission report admits that the British Government “made promises to Arabs and Jews in order to obtain their support” during World War II [8]. As if it could not be foreseen by the British government, the report perplexes over the failure for a conciliatory effect that was expected by “the material prosperity which Jewish immigration” was predicted to “bring to Palestine as a whole”[9]. This statement directly implies Jewish-Zionist capital. Realistically, Zionist immigrants and Zionist capital never cared to contribute to Palestine as a whole; the goal was a Jewish state from the beginning. In order to understand the power of international capital, we need to consider 1937 demographics in the region. At the time of the Peel Commission Report, there were approximately “1,000,000 Arabs” and “some 400,000 Jews”[10]. The Arabs were never able to be on equal economic footing with Jewish immigrants and absentee land owners die to the international capital of the Zionist network, which means Arab Palestinians were never on an equal level technologically or militarily with Jewish immigrants. The Peel Commission Report notes the rise in nationalism on both sides, but history shows that Zionism was originated on national sentiments and nationalistic goals while the growth of Arab nationalism in Palestine was “primarily political, though the fear of economic subjection to the Jews is also in Arab minds”[11]. Today, it is no different as international capital, secured by political and private sectors means, continues to flow across state borders and ensure that the nation-state of Israel maintains its military hegemony in the region.

Now let us shift focus and analyze the pro-Zionist position of the British government. The strongest pro-Zionist statement in the Peel Report states that “there is a strong British tradition of friendship with the Jewish people” and that nowhere outside of Britain is there “a more genuine desire to do what can be done to help”, and nowhere was “Zionism better understood before the war or given such practical proofs of sympathy”[12]. Analyzing these sentiments, it is not surprising that the mandate protected Jewish immigration to “admit as many Jews into Palestine as the National Home can provide with a livelihood”[13].

British Policy Letter of 1939

The proclamation of British policy towards Palestine in 1939 reflects an explosive period where Arab-Jewish tensions on the ground in Palestine, due greatly to pro-Zionist British policy since the initiation of the mandate and the British protectorate, were close to breaking into violent instability. First and foremost, especially under the realization of the Peel Commission Report that a population partition was the only solution for Palestine, the British government desired to maintain stability for economic purposes in Palestine and among neighboring Arab states. In analyzing the policy letter of 1939, it appears that the internationally preoccupied British government still viewed the possibility of an economically prosperous independent Palestinian state, shared between Arabs and Jews, as a viable outcome. The policy letter sets forth a 10 year window for establishing “an independent state in such treaty relations with the United Kingdom” which would be beneficial “for the commercial and strategic requirements of both countries”[14].

The policy letter was much too late to maintain stability in Palestine and establish a one state constitution. The British government, for the first time, recognized the ambiguities of the mandate and the Balfour Declaration on issues such as Jewish immigration, the accumulation of land by Jewish immigrants and absentee owners, and shifting demographics coupled with nationalistic sentiments in Palestine, and reactively attempted to implement restrictions to maintain stability. The British policy letter set a five year window for Jewish immigration to raise the Jewish population in Palestine to one third of the Arab-Palestinian population, which is noteworthy because the approximate numbers put forth in the Peel Commission Report had placed the population ratio at approximately 29% Jewish in 1937. The 1939 policy letter also addressed the mass land acquisition by Jewish immigrants and absentee Zionist land owners in acknowledging that “no restriction has been imposed hitherto on the transfer of land from Arabs to Jews”[15]. The British government understood the problem of Jewish land accumulation, generated by international Zionist capital, and that in some “areas such transfers of land must be restricted if Arab cultivators are to maintain their existing standard of life and a considerable landless population is not soon to be created”[16].

Regardless of the British intention for maintaining stability, Palestine was already past the point of no return in 1939. A century of Ottoman liberal immigration and foreign land purchasing and British Zionist favor in Palestine had taken deep Zionist roots. The Zionists were prepared to take arms against the Arab population and the British occupation.

Notes

[1-3] Smith, Charles D. 2010. Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History with Documents, 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, p. 155.

[4-6] Smith, Charles D. 2010. Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History with Documents, 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, p. 156.

[7] Smith, Charles D. 2010. Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History with Documents, 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, p. 160.

[8-10] Smith, Charles D. 2010. Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History with Documents, 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, p. 157.

[11] Smith, Charles D. 2010. Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History with Documents, 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, p. 158.

[12-13] Smith, Charles D. 2010. Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History with Documents, 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, p. 159.

[14-16] Smith, Charles D. 2010. Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History with Documents, 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, p. 163.

Theodor Herzl – February 18, 1898

“What is a State?”

Theodore Herzl is accredited with being the father of political Zionism and his address to a German-Jewish audience in Berlin on February 18, 1898 is noteworthy of consideration on a few levels. First, the address, and thus the origins of political Zionism, took place during a period of increasing nationalism on the international stage due to centuries of domestic oppression by European political and economic caste systems and, in cases of foreign territories that would eventually gain independence, European colonial imperialism. The first thing in Herzl’s speech that draws attention is his declaration that “there is a Palestine; it is located on the Mediterranean”[1]. The argument from the modern Zionist and pro-Israeli views that there was not a Palestine until after the beginning of the British protectorate has been long increasing in utilization and volume, yet we read contrary to this argument from the speech by the father of political Zionism himself. Apparently, Herzl viewed the national interests of the Jewish people as a hybrid form of justified colonialism, which to him reasoned as a “consequence of overpopulation” in Europe and a “policy which England” had “been pursuing for decades and which has been regarded as exemplary by many nations” [2].

While the man seemed to feel strongly concerning the establishment of a homeland for the Jewish people, especially those in Europe who were assimilating into the various Christian gentile states at the end of the 19th century, his disregard for the native population who already occupied the Palestinian land, and other colonized lands, seems naïve in his statement “What is a state? A big colony. What is a colony? A small state. “[3].

Perhaps, like many reformers throughout history, Herzl did not foresee the future international corruption that would become the international political movement of Zionism and the state of Israel. Perhaps, in retrospect of the late 19th century European Pogroms against Jews, the idea of a Jewish state, once it would become powerful, committing atrocities against another ethnic group, as was done to the Jewish people, never crossed his thoughts. After all, when Herzl gave this speech in 1898 the Ottoman Empire still possessed Palestine.

Balfour Declaration

Arthur James Balfour was the Foreign Secretary for the United Kingdom in 1917 and accredited with the infamous Balfour Declaration sent to Baron Walter Rothschild, a member of one of the wealthiest banking families in Britain, and the Zionist Federation of Great Britain. The Balfour Declaration certainly isn’t taught about in American schools prior to the private sector college level and then only if a student is specifically studying the Near East and Israel at a 300 or higher level. For as much as Israel impacts United States foreign policy, this is a designed flaw. What is most interesting about this Declaration, or political support agreement, is the fact that there were four drafts of the Balfour Declaration prior to the Final produced text in October 1917. Obviously, the first chronological draft was written by the Zionist Federation of Great Britain. Interestingly, as in any negotiation of wording, the Zionist draft states that “His Majesty’s Government” would “use its best endeavors to secure the achievement of this object”, which was “the principle that Palestine should be reconstituted as the national home of the Jewish People”[4]. Balfour’s draft from August 1917 rewords the statement to read “will be ready to consider any suggestions on the subject which the Zionist Organization may desire to lay before them” [5]. Apparently Lord Milner, who was a member of the British War Cabinet in 1916 and later was elevated to Minister of War, was the main author of the final Balfour Declaration. In the final draft of the declaration, a protection for non-Jewish people was added under the statement that with the promise of British support that it be understood “that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities” [6], This obvious commitment of respect was obviously thrown to the side after the establishment and international capital-military strengthening of the nation-state of Israel, and nowhere is the example of this blatant disregard more evident than the 1967 offensive and the modern illegal settlement building that is occurring today.

Faysal-Weizmann Agreement

Before Britain was even placed into a protectorate position over Palestine in 1920, a political agreement between Emir Faisal, brief ruler of Syria in 1920 and later king over the territory known as Iraq from 1921 until 1933, and Chaim Weizmann, who would later become President of the World Zionist Federation, emerged out of the 1919 Paris Peace Conference. While there was no Palestinian voice present at the conference, the brief leader of Syria negotiated with aspiring Zionists interests and produced the Faysal-Weizmann Agreement. Before we look at some of the articles that would impact the Palestinian population, a population poorly represented at the conference, Article IX must be noted: “Any matters of dispute which may arise between the two contracting parties shall be referred to the British Government for arbitration” [7]. Here it must be considered that almost 100 years after this agreement that Israel still turns to the United States for “arbitration”, which often bait the United States into launching economic sanctions (Iran), funding and arming rebels (Syria), and toppling and rebuilding governments (Iraq). If there are any questions as to the nation-state of Israel’s influence in these examples, those questions can be put to rest by watching archive video footage of the annual AIPAC lobbyist conferences for those specific time frames.

Reading the Faysal-Weizmann agreement, it is obvious that the (brief) Syrian leader sold the native Arab population of Palestine down the river. In article IV, Faysal agrees that “All necessary measures shall be taken to encourage and stimulate immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale” [8]. In article VII he agrees to allow the Zionist Organization into Palestine “to use its best efforts to assist the Arab State in providing the means for developing the natural resources and economic possibilities thereof” [9]. A true leader who cared for the national interests of his people (instead of being bought) should have recognized that the native Palestinian population did not have the capital or technology to compete with this foreign influx of both international capital and technology, and would eventually become bought out, closed out, owned, and at the political whim of new masters. Either Faysal was either completely incompetent in understanding capitalism or one of the largest individual sell-outs in history.

[1-3] Smith, Charles D. 2010. Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History with Documents, 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, p. 51.

[4-6] Smith, Charles D. 2010. Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History with Documents, 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, p. 97.

[7-9] Smith, Charles D. 2010. Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History with Documents, 7th ed. New York: Bedford/St. Martin’s, p. 98-99.

[Nickg · Rating 4 out of 5]

Although somewhat challenging to read, I would recommend this to anyone who is interested in learning about the history of the conflict.

[Matthew · Rating 4 out of 5]

It was great to finally finish this book that I have been "currently reading" for 8 months now. This book was a great reminder of why it's so important to study history. It is an extremely enlightening book on an intractable issue that is wrought with emotions. It was recommended to me by a Williams Professor as a book that provides the facts as opposed to an agenda for one side as bestsellers often do. The only reason I give this one 4 stars versus 5 is that it candidly is a textbook that you would read for school. That being said, for those interested in delving into the root of the conflict I highly recommend this book.

[Terese · Rating 5 out of 5]

Comprehensive yet succinct. The documents especially are a high point, though you read about them in the text, actually reading them after each chapter brings a whole new nuance and understanding. I’m sure some would say it is biased, but I would say it admirably strives to stick to just letting facts paint a picture. The presentation of those facts however, naturally, creates a narrative where the authors perspective looms in the background.

It may not be the only book you should read on the topic, but it is, without a doubt, definitely one of the books that ought to be read.

” Without a partner in peace, there can be no peace ” - Yitzhak Rabin

[AskHistorians]

This is a nice, concise history of the conflict that contains accessible documents that are relevant to the previous section. It is fairly Palestinian-leaning, but still provides a great overview in tandem with Benny Morris.

[Thomas · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well written history of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. Smith does not takes sides, he presents the information like a history book should. The story is full of intrigue, betrayal, incompetence, genius, and sacrifice, mixed with luck (good and bad) misjudgment. Some of the author's predictions and possibilities have been greatly effected by the unforseen fall of the Soviet Union just a few years after the book was published. Worth the time, check it out.

[Russell Gordon · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a must read. The history makes it incredibly clear 🍉

[Hadi · Rating 5 out of 5]

How this book treat the history of Israel/Palestine question is analysed through a PhD thesis that has been conducted under professor Ilan Pappe’s supervision in the European centre for Palestine Studies (ECPS). According to the results of the thesis, this book is the first most adopted textbook in the area of Israel/Palestine history in western universities.
This academic investigation expose how the report of the question’s history in this book is undermined by a pro-Israeli bias or resist such bias. For more information about this research you can consult with: https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/h...
An article is, also, published by Journal of Holy Land and Palestine Studies that contain the main results of that research: http://www.euppublishing.com/doi/abs/...

[Christy Bartel · Rating 5 out of 5]

An absolutely life changing read. I’m the kind of person who needs Context for everything: what happened in the past, what led us to where we are, what can we do now? When I debated the resolution “The United States should substantially reform its policy towards the Middle East” as a twelve-year-old in a homeschool Speech and Debate league, I didn’t know where Iran was, let alone anything about the Arab-Israeli issue. This book, the textbook my professor of “History of America and Britain in the Middle East” class assigned us to read, filled in all the blanks that I’ve always wanted filled. It’s dense, but it’s perfectly readable, and if you’re like me and have been curious about this area of the world but haven’t known where to start, this is the book for you.

[Ahmed Hayat · Rating 4 out of 5]

I completed the 2nd edition. I wanted neutrality with facts alongside chronoligical events and that's what I got. Smith presents the facts and the figures but seldom produces his own opinion rather he adds the odd contexual sentence. There are no mesmerising or spiritually uplifting quotes, just straight to the point no nonsense information, perfect for academic analysis. I read this book with a few reasons in mind: one of learning away from all emotion and stories I've heard, secondly for comparisons with modern day Kashmir and the parallels are clear: injustice, historical background & belonging to a land, dirty underhand politics, British meddling in everything, traitors and human rights abuses. Just facts, from start to finish, facts and more facts. I heard the latest edition is even better.

[Nick Ferraro · Rating 5 out of 5]

So unless you’ve been under a rock (and even that might not be sheltered enough), you’ve seen a large number of headlines regarding the current situation regarding Israel and Palestine. As with everything, context is key, and this book will give you plenty of it. The author does a good job of being a neutral arbiter of historical facts, providing primary source documents at the end of each chapter that can allow you to go deeper on specific treaty’s/correspondences. Regardless of where you stand, having the historical background to understand how we got here is crucial. Fantastic read if you’re willing to put in the time

[Danny · Rating 5 out of 5]

Smith's work is targeted towards students of history and thus stylistically may come off as dry to some, but it is quite detailed and deeply researched. The work is complimented with primary source that help provide a more robust understanding of the conflict and its evolution. The book was fair and balanced if not slightly leaning toward the Palestinians' account of events.

[Carole Wilder · Rating 2 out of 5]

I am reading this for a history class. I appreciate the primary sources but have never read a history book as poorly written as this. Unclear, dry, and jumps around. There must be so many better books or texts about the topic than this one.

[Eli · Rating 4 out of 5]

Difficult, dense and thorough textbook on an immensely fascinating and complex topic of modern history. Reading this and the accompanying class was a challenging and rewarding experience in my ever-ongoing and never complete historical education.

[Diana Kullman · Rating 5 out of 5]

The documents included in this book were helpful. The veracity of the political speakers proved to be questionable but that's not new. The PM's actions have been constant over the years regarding a Palestinian statehood. Zero chance.

[Faez Ahmed · Rating 5 out of 5]

Must Read

I read this book as part of my grad school reading list. It has tons of very well-verified information, and I learned a lot. It is not a short book, but that’s understandable since it discusses a considerable topic that is still developing.

[Angus J · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good academic book, perhaps not that accessible for casual readers.

[Finlay Pike · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good book. Bit dense and often goes on tangents about regional issues (not about Israel-Palestine, but the broader middle east), but overall good.

[MargCal · Rating 5 out of 5]

Reading update ... … Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict / Charles D. Smith … 15 April. 2017
9th ed.
ISBN: 9781319028053

I own the 7th and 8th editions of this book. My local library kindly purchased the 9th edition following my request.

Again I can only say, this book is essential but depressing reading. The politics of Israel and Palestine have such a massive bearing on the lack of peace in the world yet what we read in the mainstream media is so partial: partial in that it is so biased towards Israel and partial in that largely we are only given facts that support the biased view.
This is an even handed account. Both sides are criticised and their actions contrasted with their words. You can read the documents (included in the book) and there are numerous footnotes to learn more and do your own fact-checking, should you so wish.

A must read.

.................

Reading update ... … Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict / Charles D. Smith … 2 Jan. 2017
8th ed.
ISBN: 9781457613487

I read the 7th edition of this book in 2013 (see below) and finally got around to reading the update in the 8th edition which I bought ages ago. I should have waited as the 9th edition is now available.

This remains a 'must read' for anyone seriously interested in the fate of the world since so many of the world's problems emanate from the Middle East.
This is as balanced an exposition as you're likely to find of the history and the current state of what is happening in Palestine and Israel.
It is very different to what you hear, see or read in the mainstream media.

I've put in a request for my local library to buy the 9th edition!

----------------------------------------

"Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict" (7th ed.) by Charles D Smith. (read September 2013)
There is now an 8th edition that I'll have to buy to fill the 2009-2012 gap.
This is something that affects us all. What you read in the newspapers bears little resemblance to the facts. A must read for anyone interested in world peace - because without peace in the Middle East there will not be peace across the rest of the world.

[Funda · Rating 5 out of 5]

I started reading this book, because I had to translate it. Mr. Smith does an excellent job on giving the whole insight to the Palestine-Israel conflict with this book. It starts from the very beginning, from the BC, and comes to the present day with excellent details. The book also supports its ideas with real factual documents and Mr. Smith is not taking a side on the conflict and he is mostly objective. A very good book if you want to learn about the Palestine-Israel conflict and also about the Middle East. It was a pleasure translating it.

[Mike · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is incredibly in depth. You walk away having learned a great deal, but you still feel a need to research some of these questions even more in depth. This book is packed with information so approach it when you actually have some time; however, this book is something that all people that have an interest in US imperialism should read. The author doesn't really adopt that framework which proves interesting when they attempt to compare how different US presidents dealt with the situation.

[Brent · Rating 4 out of 5]

Smith does an excellent job outlining the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict from briefly surveying it's ancient roots, to jumping ahead to the modern state of Israel, and weighing each move meticulously, as he records the chronological flow from from the 20th century hitherto. With graphs, charts, and primary source documents, this books is an excellent read for the historian to the Christian pastor.
Brent McCulley (10/24/13)

[Phil · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fine, detailed history, although the 'documents' with which it claims to be accompanied are sometimes a bit thin. Like most of these histories of 20th century Palestine, there's probably an inbuilt prejudice against Zionist Jews as interlopers, although the devious practices and political machinations of various Arab pretenders to the territor are fairly comprehensively enumerated. A thorough and worthwhile contribution to Western literature of the Middle East.

[Mart · Rating 3 out of 5]

A very good introduction. However at times Smith seems to be biased towards Israel and the United States. Something he can be critical, but most of the times he oversees the part that the Palestians played. Besides the letters were too tiny and the pages were a bit funky, but that has obviously nothing to do with the content of the book.

[Amanda · Rating 3 out of 5]

In the end this turned out to be a very good survey of the issues in the Middle East. I'm not certain I would recommend it as the *best* way to get a handle on the disputes, but good for the student of history.

[Rebecca Graf · Rating 4 out of 5]

From an academic standpoint this book is great. It has loads of primary sources to help the reader understand the conflicts and the history of Palestine. If you are looking for a pleasure read, avoid it. It is dry, but it an academic book and is excellent in that role.

[Allison Burris · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of the most objective looks at the Arab-Israeli conflict. The inclusion of documents is helpful and eye-opening. The best way to get a full understanding of this conflict is to read multiple accounts from both sides- this one is a good start.