What do you think?
Rate this book
The Siege: The Saga of Israel and Zionism
In this historical analysis of Zionism and the state of Israel, a former diplomat writes sympathetically of the Jews' fierce resistance under siege to secure their nation, their heritage, and their future
798 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1986
About the author
Conor Cruise O'Brien
61 books36 followersIrish politician, writer, historian and academic.
Member of the Irish Parliament for the socialist Labour Party.
Member of the Northern Ireland Forum for the United Kingdom Unionist Party, which advocated direct rule of Northern Ireland from London.
Virulently anti-IRA.
Member of the Irish Parliament for the socialist Labour Party.
Member of the Northern Ireland Forum for the United Kingdom Unionist Party, which advocated direct rule of Northern Ireland from London.
Virulently anti-IRA.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
August 20, 2019
A decent account of the conflict between Israel and the Arab world, from the rise of Zionism to the mid-1980s.
O Brien strives to create a fair and balanced account and explains 'The Siege' as being about the question as to whether Israel has the right to exist , preceded by the question: Do Jews have the right to exist?
he honestly appraises the history of the situation as he sees it, and does not like the malevolent 'new historians' and revisionists, like Chomsky, Finkelstein, Said, Lenni Brenner, Michael Neumann and Israel Shahak, go back and rewrite history to suit their own destructive and malicious agenda against Israel.
The fact is that O Brien go's out of his way to be even-handed, which leads to a dilemma in itself.
The truth is that one cannot be objective in a conflict where it is clear to any fair-minded and honest observer who the aggressors are and always have been: The Jews peacefully returned to their ancient land, and for nearly a century the Arabs have been trying to drive them into the sea.
That is the bottom line of this conflict: The Arabs want to sweep Israel's Jews into the sea and Israel's Jews do not want to be swept into the sea.
How can you resolve a conflict like that?
He quotes Chaim Weizmann in his moment of clarity that the genuine anti-Zionists can never be appeased by any diplomatic or political formula as the objection of anti-Semites to the Jews is that they exist and of anti-Zionists that Jews exist in the Holy Land.
O Brien covers well the origins of modern Zionism and the movements of refugees from pogroms and later Nazism to the Holy Land.
The Jewish population of the Land of Israel (then Britain's Palestine Mandate) had stood at about 84 000 in 1925 and had reached around 400 000 in 1937. Half of that increase resulted from the emigration of European Jews during the first three years of Hitler's power in Germany.
O Brien does not however inform us about the hundreds of thousands of Arabs who migrated to he Holy Land, under the British Mandate of 1917- 1947.
He describes how the British in 1939 drew up the White Paper and blocked the entry of Jews into Israel, effectively cutting off the escape from the Nazi death machine. He documents the British inaction in the face of Arab pogroms against Jews in the Palestine Mandate, and the sinking of the Struma, which was filled with refugees from Nazism, and was turned back from Israel by the British, leading to it's sinking and the deaths of all aboard, except for two.
There is, however, another flaw in the book. O' Brien describes the Holocaust as mobilizing Jewish determination to create a Jewish State in the Holy Land, and how the resultant world sympathy after the Holocaust made this possible.
But was the Zionist dream REALLY in a stronger position after the Holocaust.
After all a great number of the Jews who perished in Hitler's inferno were Zionists, often members of the various Zionist youth groups.
Just imagine how many millions of potential Israelis and Zionists were cut off from making a contribution to the re-established Israel.
The State of Israel, in truth, arose, despite the Holocaust, not as a result.
O' Brien writes something of the Mufti Haj Amin El Husseini but does not fully explore the depth of his collaboration with the Nazis.
He does however inform us of the Italian broadcasts from Capri in Italy, in Arabic, to the Middle East which played a role in the Arab pogroms 0f 1936- 1939, alongside Nazi agents in 'Palestine', many of them from the German Templar communities.
O Brien also describes how the anti-Semitism of Attley and Bevin led to the British doing all they could to make sure that the State of Israel would stillborn.
Who could forget the comment that O'Brien includes her by Armine Dew to the British Foreign office in 1944 that " In my opinion a disporortionate amount of the time of this office has been waisted on dealing with these wailing Jews"- this at the height of the exterminations of Jews during the Holocaust.
He also describes the massive arming and military cover given by the British before and during the War of Independence, of 1948, to the Arbas.
Britishers carried out acts of terror against Jewish civilians such as the Ben Yehuda street bombing of February 22 1948, in which 52 Jews died.
The author also covers Israel's history from 1948 to 1985.
He describes the various wars but does not go far enough in truly depicting in the extent of Arab belligerancy before the 1967 Six Day War.
He also gives too much voice to far-left self-hating Israelis when quoting books and poetry by Israelis on the topics of Zionism and the conflict.
Merged review:
A decent account of the conflict between Israel and the Arab world, from the rise of Zionism to the mid-1980s.
O Brien strives to create a fair and balanced account and explains 'The Siege' as being about the question as to whether Israel has the right to exist , preceded by the question: Do Jews have the right to exist?
he honestly appraises the history of the situation as he sees it, and does not like the malevolent 'new historians' and revisionists, like Chomsky, Finkelstein, Said, Lenni Brenner, Michael Neumann , Max Blumenthal and Israel Shahak, go back and rewrite history to suit their own destructive and malicious agenda against Israel.
The fact is that O Brien go's out of his way to be even-handed, which leads to a dilemma in itself.
The truth is that one cannot be objective in a conflict where it is clear to any fair-minded and honest observer who the aggressors are and always have been: The Jews peacefully returned to their ancient land, and for nearly a century the Arabs have been trying to drive them into the sea.
That is the bottom line of this conflict: The Arabs want to sweep Israel's Jews into the sea and Israel's Jews do not want to be swept into the sea.
How can you resolve a conflict like that?
He quotes Chaim Weizmann in his moment of clarity that the genuine anti-Zionists can never be appeased by any diplomatic or political formula as the objection of anti-Semites to the Jews is that they exist and of anti-Zionists that Jews exist in the Holy Land.
O Brien covers well the origins of modern Zionism and the movements of refugees from pogroms and later Nazism to the Holy Land.
The Jewish population of the Land of Israel (then Britain's Palestine Mandate) had stood at about 84 000 in 1925 and had reached around 400 000 in 1937. Half of that increase resulted from the emigration of European Jews during the first three years of Hitler's power in Germany.
O Brien does not however inform us about the hundreds of thousands of Arabs who migrated to he Holy Land, under the British Mandate of 1917- 1947.
He describes how the British in 1939 drew up the White Paper and blocked the entry of Jews into Israel, effectively cutting off the escape from the Nazi death machine. He documents the British inaction in the face of Arab pogroms against Jews in the Palestine Mandate, and the sinking of the Struma, which was filled with refugees from Nazism, and was turned back from Israel by the British, leading to it's sinking and the deaths of all aboard, except for two.
There is, however, another flaw in the book. O' Brien describes the Holocaust as mobilizing Jewish determination to create a Jewish State in the Holy Land, and how the resultant world sympathy after the Holocaust made this possible.
But was the Zionist dream REALLY in a stronger position after the Holocaust.
After all a great number of the Jews who perished in Hitler's inferno were Zionists, often members of the various Zionist youth groups.
Just imagine how many millions of potential Israelis and Zionists were cut off from making a contribution to the re-established Israel.
The State of Israel, in truth, arose, despite the Holocaust, not as a result.
O' Brien writes something of the Mufti Haj Amin El Husseini but does not fully explore the depth of his collaboration with the Nazis.
He does however inform us of the Italian broadcasts from Capri in Italy, in Arabic, to the Middle East which played a role in the Arab pogroms 0f 1936- 1939, alongside Nazi agents in 'Palestine', many of them from the German Templar communities.
O Brien also describes how the anti-Semitism of Attley and Bevin led to the British doing all they could to make sure that the State of Israel would stillborn.
Who could forget the comment that O'Brien includes her by Armine Dew to the British Foreign office in 1944 that " In my opinion a disporortionate amount of the time of this office has been waisted on dealing with these wailing Jews"- this at the height of the exterminations of Jews during the Holocaust.
He also describes the massive arming and military cover given by the British before and during the War of Independence, of 1948, to the Arbas.
Britishers carried out acts of terror against Jewish civilians such as the Ben Yehuda street bombing of February 22 1948, in which 52 Jews died.
The author also covers Israel's history from 1948 to 1985.
He describes the various wars but does not go far enough in truly depicting in the extent of Arab belligerancy before the 1967 Six Day War.
He also gives too much voice to far-left self-hating Israelis when quoting books and poetry by Israelis on the topics of Zionism and the conflict
O Brien strives to create a fair and balanced account and explains 'The Siege' as being about the question as to whether Israel has the right to exist , preceded by the question: Do Jews have the right to exist?
he honestly appraises the history of the situation as he sees it, and does not like the malevolent 'new historians' and revisionists, like Chomsky, Finkelstein, Said, Lenni Brenner, Michael Neumann and Israel Shahak, go back and rewrite history to suit their own destructive and malicious agenda against Israel.
The fact is that O Brien go's out of his way to be even-handed, which leads to a dilemma in itself.
The truth is that one cannot be objective in a conflict where it is clear to any fair-minded and honest observer who the aggressors are and always have been: The Jews peacefully returned to their ancient land, and for nearly a century the Arabs have been trying to drive them into the sea.
That is the bottom line of this conflict: The Arabs want to sweep Israel's Jews into the sea and Israel's Jews do not want to be swept into the sea.
How can you resolve a conflict like that?
He quotes Chaim Weizmann in his moment of clarity that the genuine anti-Zionists can never be appeased by any diplomatic or political formula as the objection of anti-Semites to the Jews is that they exist and of anti-Zionists that Jews exist in the Holy Land.
O Brien covers well the origins of modern Zionism and the movements of refugees from pogroms and later Nazism to the Holy Land.
The Jewish population of the Land of Israel (then Britain's Palestine Mandate) had stood at about 84 000 in 1925 and had reached around 400 000 in 1937. Half of that increase resulted from the emigration of European Jews during the first three years of Hitler's power in Germany.
O Brien does not however inform us about the hundreds of thousands of Arabs who migrated to he Holy Land, under the British Mandate of 1917- 1947.
He describes how the British in 1939 drew up the White Paper and blocked the entry of Jews into Israel, effectively cutting off the escape from the Nazi death machine. He documents the British inaction in the face of Arab pogroms against Jews in the Palestine Mandate, and the sinking of the Struma, which was filled with refugees from Nazism, and was turned back from Israel by the British, leading to it's sinking and the deaths of all aboard, except for two.
There is, however, another flaw in the book. O' Brien describes the Holocaust as mobilizing Jewish determination to create a Jewish State in the Holy Land, and how the resultant world sympathy after the Holocaust made this possible.
But was the Zionist dream REALLY in a stronger position after the Holocaust.
After all a great number of the Jews who perished in Hitler's inferno were Zionists, often members of the various Zionist youth groups.
Just imagine how many millions of potential Israelis and Zionists were cut off from making a contribution to the re-established Israel.
The State of Israel, in truth, arose, despite the Holocaust, not as a result.
O' Brien writes something of the Mufti Haj Amin El Husseini but does not fully explore the depth of his collaboration with the Nazis.
He does however inform us of the Italian broadcasts from Capri in Italy, in Arabic, to the Middle East which played a role in the Arab pogroms 0f 1936- 1939, alongside Nazi agents in 'Palestine', many of them from the German Templar communities.
O Brien also describes how the anti-Semitism of Attley and Bevin led to the British doing all they could to make sure that the State of Israel would stillborn.
Who could forget the comment that O'Brien includes her by Armine Dew to the British Foreign office in 1944 that " In my opinion a disporortionate amount of the time of this office has been waisted on dealing with these wailing Jews"- this at the height of the exterminations of Jews during the Holocaust.
He also describes the massive arming and military cover given by the British before and during the War of Independence, of 1948, to the Arbas.
Britishers carried out acts of terror against Jewish civilians such as the Ben Yehuda street bombing of February 22 1948, in which 52 Jews died.
The author also covers Israel's history from 1948 to 1985.
He describes the various wars but does not go far enough in truly depicting in the extent of Arab belligerancy before the 1967 Six Day War.
He also gives too much voice to far-left self-hating Israelis when quoting books and poetry by Israelis on the topics of Zionism and the conflict.
Merged review:
A decent account of the conflict between Israel and the Arab world, from the rise of Zionism to the mid-1980s.
O Brien strives to create a fair and balanced account and explains 'The Siege' as being about the question as to whether Israel has the right to exist , preceded by the question: Do Jews have the right to exist?
he honestly appraises the history of the situation as he sees it, and does not like the malevolent 'new historians' and revisionists, like Chomsky, Finkelstein, Said, Lenni Brenner, Michael Neumann , Max Blumenthal and Israel Shahak, go back and rewrite history to suit their own destructive and malicious agenda against Israel.
The fact is that O Brien go's out of his way to be even-handed, which leads to a dilemma in itself.
The truth is that one cannot be objective in a conflict where it is clear to any fair-minded and honest observer who the aggressors are and always have been: The Jews peacefully returned to their ancient land, and for nearly a century the Arabs have been trying to drive them into the sea.
That is the bottom line of this conflict: The Arabs want to sweep Israel's Jews into the sea and Israel's Jews do not want to be swept into the sea.
How can you resolve a conflict like that?
He quotes Chaim Weizmann in his moment of clarity that the genuine anti-Zionists can never be appeased by any diplomatic or political formula as the objection of anti-Semites to the Jews is that they exist and of anti-Zionists that Jews exist in the Holy Land.
O Brien covers well the origins of modern Zionism and the movements of refugees from pogroms and later Nazism to the Holy Land.
The Jewish population of the Land of Israel (then Britain's Palestine Mandate) had stood at about 84 000 in 1925 and had reached around 400 000 in 1937. Half of that increase resulted from the emigration of European Jews during the first three years of Hitler's power in Germany.
O Brien does not however inform us about the hundreds of thousands of Arabs who migrated to he Holy Land, under the British Mandate of 1917- 1947.
He describes how the British in 1939 drew up the White Paper and blocked the entry of Jews into Israel, effectively cutting off the escape from the Nazi death machine. He documents the British inaction in the face of Arab pogroms against Jews in the Palestine Mandate, and the sinking of the Struma, which was filled with refugees from Nazism, and was turned back from Israel by the British, leading to it's sinking and the deaths of all aboard, except for two.
There is, however, another flaw in the book. O' Brien describes the Holocaust as mobilizing Jewish determination to create a Jewish State in the Holy Land, and how the resultant world sympathy after the Holocaust made this possible.
But was the Zionist dream REALLY in a stronger position after the Holocaust.
After all a great number of the Jews who perished in Hitler's inferno were Zionists, often members of the various Zionist youth groups.
Just imagine how many millions of potential Israelis and Zionists were cut off from making a contribution to the re-established Israel.
The State of Israel, in truth, arose, despite the Holocaust, not as a result.
O' Brien writes something of the Mufti Haj Amin El Husseini but does not fully explore the depth of his collaboration with the Nazis.
He does however inform us of the Italian broadcasts from Capri in Italy, in Arabic, to the Middle East which played a role in the Arab pogroms 0f 1936- 1939, alongside Nazi agents in 'Palestine', many of them from the German Templar communities.
O Brien also describes how the anti-Semitism of Attley and Bevin led to the British doing all they could to make sure that the State of Israel would stillborn.
Who could forget the comment that O'Brien includes her by Armine Dew to the British Foreign office in 1944 that " In my opinion a disporortionate amount of the time of this office has been waisted on dealing with these wailing Jews"- this at the height of the exterminations of Jews during the Holocaust.
He also describes the massive arming and military cover given by the British before and during the War of Independence, of 1948, to the Arbas.
Britishers carried out acts of terror against Jewish civilians such as the Ben Yehuda street bombing of February 22 1948, in which 52 Jews died.
The author also covers Israel's history from 1948 to 1985.
He describes the various wars but does not go far enough in truly depicting in the extent of Arab belligerancy before the 1967 Six Day War.
He also gives too much voice to far-left self-hating Israelis when quoting books and poetry by Israelis on the topics of Zionism and the conflict
July 21, 2014
This book should be avoided like the plague. It is a vile piece of pro-colonial propaganda by an author who had earlier (in his Fontana Modern Masters study) criticised Camus's orientalist presentation of Arabs. Like all ideological turncoats, Cruise O'Brien goes overboard in extolling the virtues of his new-found love object. The very title testifies to the inversion of reality this entails: Israel, the occupier of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip (and, at the time, of Lebanon) is described as being "under siege" - one of the first and most prominent examples of the framing of rapist as victim. A despicable book.
July 26, 2011
This is the best history of Israel I have read. It's long -- waaaaay long, at 650+ pages -- but it takes you thoroughly from the beginnings of 19th century Zionism through the mid-80s (when it was published), and it is RIGHT ON THE MONEY -- it's overall sympathetic to the Jewish perspective, but thorough in its account of competing and conflicting attitudes, and offers, at the end, a penetrating analysis and prediction of the future course of events (which has been borne out almost precisely by the 25 years since its publication, with the possible exception of the Oslo accords -- which he probably would not have predicted could have occurred so soon, but which he rightly would have predicted would have fallen apart as they are currently doing ....)
Anyone interested in the history of israel from the Jewish perspective -- READ THIS BOOK.
Anyone interested in the history of israel from the Jewish perspective -- READ THIS BOOK.
September 17, 2008
An "outsider's" history -- as the writer admits -- but by virtue of that fact, the closest thing you're going to get to an unbiased history on this subject. O'Brien is a great writer, with an eye for telling and memorable anecdotes. Only goes up to the mid-1980s, though.
June 13, 2026
As much as one can like a book such as this, I really do like it. Because it is, necessarily, a work of historical research, it isn't really a page-turner, as such, but it is certainly something that needs to be read by anyone who wants to express an informed opinion on the ongoing volatility that is the Middle East, and Israel in particular. There were sections that I found very enlightening, simply because I had only a passing knowledge of the pertinent facts. As an example on this point, I knew that Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, was a pro-Hitler politician, but I wasn't aware of the details and extremes to which that remarkably odious man was determined to go to eradicate all Jews from what was then the Palestinian Mandate. (On a trivial note here, I also didn't know that he was, unlike an overwhelming majority of his fellow Arabs, very Aryan in appearance: blond and blue-eyed. Well, no wonder Hitler found him a useful tool.)
Back to O'Brien's tome. Starting at the end, his epilogue, which is subtitled "Territory For Peace?" is really a rhetorical question, or at least a cynical question, he is definitely not at all optimistic about any sort of peaceful resolution to the conflict. And, given that I just framed the problem that way, it would be useful to clarify what the conflict actually is.
Ahem.
From the Israeli point of view, the state of Israel has a right to exist, because it was determined that it should come into being as a result of a United Nations vote and the objective of the British Empire to rid itself of any obligations at all in the Middle East, after they had scooped up what looked like promising resources in the aftermath of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire following World War One. It needs to be added that Jews have always resented the fact that, as a visible (and often troubled and troublesome) minority, they have continuously been subjected to subjugation (at best) and ouster (at worse) and extirpation (at worst) by the nation in which they have been that minority. The formation of Israel is, therefore, an existential necessity for them; it is a place from which they can't be removed except by force. That is, by the way, the essential definition of Zionism, current manipulations and distortions to the contrary.
From the point of the view of the opponents to Israel--which has included, over the years, pretty much everyone else on the planet--the state of Israel is an imposition on the Arabs in the region. One particularly loathsome commentator is cited as saying that Jews have always created dissent and violence everywhere they have been found, so it would be a shame if they were to continue that tradition in Palestine, maliciously ignoring the obvious fact that this violence is almost always imposed on the Jews by the locals who don't want them around. That bone-deep anti-Jewish sentiment is, as O'Brien records over and over, pervasive and continuous and, sadly, not at all surprising. He says at one point, after commenting on Hitler, that "the Holocaust is not an aberration. It is a vast paroxysm of a deep-seated and apparently incurable disease: Gentile rejection of Jews" (316). Another, less basically hateful observer, is quoted as a representative of the Western sympathy for the underdog, which continues to this day and is used very cynically by Hamas, among others: "As one young officer in Palestine put it, 'The Jews are so clever, and the Arabs so stupid and childish, that it seems only sporting to be for the Arabs'" (140).
The Arabs are just plain opposed to Israel existing at all, and they have been absolutely consistent in their position over the years, although they have also been really really bad at getting along with each other in pursuit of their common goal. O'Brien's discussion of the War of Independence after Israel's formation on May 14, 1948, makes it clear that the new country would almost certainly have been destroyed within weeks if the Egyptians, Jordanians, Iraqis and Lebanese forces had in any way coordinated their attacks and been less obstinately focused on their own separate goals.
The Nakba, which has been subtly adjusted in its definition to refer to the dispossession of the resident Arab population of their homes, is pretty clearly equating the "catastrophe" of the term with the simple existence of Israel at all. O'Brien alludes on several occasions to the religious basis for this, but never outright states that Islamic fundamentalism is at its core incompatible with the state of Israel. That is a necessary conclusion, however, especially when such people as Haj Amin and Yasir Arafat have made use of Islamic doctrine to promote their anti-Jewish causes; the fact that there is an abundance of anti-Jewish doctrine in Quran and the Hadiths to draw upon is, to some apologists, just an inconvenient truth. Here is O'Brien on the connection of radicalized Jew hatred on the part of Arabs and Islamic fundamentalism: "Haj Amin...had some reason to fear being outflanked by members of a rising and more militant generation. By now [1935] fifteen years of Western-endowed education, interpreted by Arab teachers who were mostly nationalists, had radically politicized a large section of the young. At the same time, a more militant mood declared itself among devout Muslim fellahin in some regions of Palestine, mainly as a result of the preaching of the fierce and saintly Sheikh Izz al-Din al-Qassam (1871-1935).
Al-Qassam was president of the Young Men's Muslim Association in Haifa, and became, in 1932, acting president of the national conference of the Y.M.M.A. in Palestine. He combined this role with being the head of a secret terrorist society against Jews and Jewish settlements in the north. In the course of one such operation, he and his band were surrounded in the Jenin hills in November 1935. Refusing to surrender, they fought to the death. On each body, a Koran was found. The martyred al-Qassam immediately became a hero to the Muslim youth and center of a cult....
al-Qassam's heroic death greatly increased the pressure on Haj Amin to raise the standard of the Muslim revolt. It was to be Muslim this time, rather than Pan-Arab" (209).
Haj Amin would double down on this position during the Second World War, going so far as to issue a fatwa [judicial ruling on a point of Islamic law] that declared "jihad (holy war) against Britain. The British, according to the fatwa, 'have profaned the el-Aqsa Mosque and have declared the most unyielding war against Islam, both in deed and in word. The Prime Minister at that time [presumably Neville Chamberlain] told Parliament that the world would never see peace as long as the Koran existed. What hatred against Islam is stronger than that which publicly declares the Sacred Koran an enemy of human kind?'" (250). That sort of hysterical lying is shameful, of course, and it should do no credit to anyone who says such nonsense, but it seems to play well to the faithful, which is, of course, the point.
So, after that long interlude on the reasons for the conflict, it can be reduced to this: Israel maintains its right to exist because the alternative is its utter destruction; the Arab world maintains its dedication to Israel's destruction, mainly because of its fundamentalist religious beliefs. Again, the apologists for the anti-Israel side claim that it is Israel that is being intransigent, and that is true, but it is not because of an unwillingness to negotiate; it is because of the recognition that there is, as O'Brien makes clear in his conclusion, nothing for which a secure state of Israel can negotiate. O'Brien adds that the Arab side is careful to present itself as being reasonable and diplomatic when it suits them, but every time there is an opportunity to achieve a significant peace it is thwarted or, as in the case of Anwar Sadat, punished. He says, somewhat caustically, "would the Palestinian State be based on compromise with Israel, or would it be a springboard for the overthrow of Israel? 'Compromise,' said the Arab advocates of the Palestinian State in their dialogue with the West, generally conducted in private; 'springboard,' said the same people in inter-Arab discussions" (547).
That sort of essential duplicity demonstrates two things: the Arab awareness of the need to mollify the liberal West and their unswerving commitment to the eradication of Israel.
No wonder O'Brien is so pessimistic in his conclusion.
From the vantage of fully forty years along, there is even less reason to be optimistic. What is remarkable is how little the tactics have had to change in playing to a significant (and, sadly, growing) population in the West that continues to favor the side that they see as the underdog while demonizing Israel, no matter what the circumstances are. Listen to O'Brien's observations about the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 (a war that was undertaken to remove the P.L.O. as a hostile neighbor that had effectively usurped Lebanese sovereignty in the interests of prosecuting assaults against Israel):
"The war in Lebanon was a war which aroused international horror and indignation...in a way that none of Israel's previous wars had done. There are a number of different reasons for this, and it is necessary to distinguish between them. The main reason--and one which some Israelis are rather too quick to discount--is that this was, intrinsically, an especially terrifying war. Israel's armed enemies, whom the I.D.F. was trying to destroy or drive out, were ensconced in built-up areas in the midst of civilian populations, so that civilians, including women and children, got killed or wounded. The I.D.F. did what it could to minimize civilian casualties--but these measures were only partly effective (though more effective than was sometime realized).
The second reason, less important than the first, was that this, unlike other terrifying wars, in the region and elsewhere, could be seen on television. Those who saw it--civilians in their own homes, among their families--identified with the civilian victims of the war....
Those were primary, human reactions of people with no particular views on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Those reactions of sympathy with the Palestinians--usually envisaged just as civilians--inevitably produced hostile feelings toward Israel. There were other reasons, of a more complex kind, which worked to turn those feelings into total, unqualified condemnation of Israel, with an equally unqualified rejection of the idea that Israel had any solid reasons whatever for going into Lebanon to get rid of the P.L.O.
Among unsophisticated people, with little interest in international politics, but under the shock of televised violence, there was, I believe, little realization that the P.L.O. was what this was all about, or awareness even of what the P.L.O. was in relation to Israel. Without such realization or awareness, the war seemed just a brutal and unprovoked attack by a powerful state on a harmless and defenseless neighbor, Lebanon. This impression of wanton barbarity on the part of Israel was reinforced by the frequent references to Israeli attacks on 'refugee camps.' There was very little realization, among the general public, that these refugee camps--in fact, urban areas inhabited by Palestinians--were also military and paramilitary bases, containing people dedicated to the eventual destruction of Israel, and the present destruction of individual Israelis, wherever possible. If you didn't realize that, then a country that kept on attacking 'refugee camps' sounded like a monster of a country" (632-33).
Although that is a lengthy quotation, it is a necessary one to make the point that nothing has changed, even in the tactics of the ostensibly pro-Palestinian side that is really manipulating the "unsophisticated people" around the world who are easily shocked by grim images of dead civilians but never seriously investigate who might be responsible for them. Substitute "Hamas" for "P.L.O." and "Gaza" for "Lebanon" and don't substitute anything for "Israel" and "I.D.F." and we have precisely the same situation in the modern day--certainly since October 7, 2023--as we had in 1982.
O'Brien even observes that, at that time, many critics of the Israeli government found it distressingly easy to resort to calling them "Nazis," which is a particularly odious accusation, obviously. He quotes a writer in The Spectator who is on the record as saying "Americans are coming to see the Israeli Government as pounding the Star of David into a swastika" (634). So it's not a contemporary trend to wallow in that sewer, but I don't think it's very reassuring.
Finally, O'Brien's whole exercise is about providing information, and he tries to be objective in his analysis, but it is impossible to avoid the conclusion, as he makes clear himself, that "What is not in sight is an end to the siege" (662).
Back to O'Brien's tome. Starting at the end, his epilogue, which is subtitled "Territory For Peace?" is really a rhetorical question, or at least a cynical question, he is definitely not at all optimistic about any sort of peaceful resolution to the conflict. And, given that I just framed the problem that way, it would be useful to clarify what the conflict actually is.
Ahem.
From the Israeli point of view, the state of Israel has a right to exist, because it was determined that it should come into being as a result of a United Nations vote and the objective of the British Empire to rid itself of any obligations at all in the Middle East, after they had scooped up what looked like promising resources in the aftermath of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire following World War One. It needs to be added that Jews have always resented the fact that, as a visible (and often troubled and troublesome) minority, they have continuously been subjected to subjugation (at best) and ouster (at worse) and extirpation (at worst) by the nation in which they have been that minority. The formation of Israel is, therefore, an existential necessity for them; it is a place from which they can't be removed except by force. That is, by the way, the essential definition of Zionism, current manipulations and distortions to the contrary.
From the point of the view of the opponents to Israel--which has included, over the years, pretty much everyone else on the planet--the state of Israel is an imposition on the Arabs in the region. One particularly loathsome commentator is cited as saying that Jews have always created dissent and violence everywhere they have been found, so it would be a shame if they were to continue that tradition in Palestine, maliciously ignoring the obvious fact that this violence is almost always imposed on the Jews by the locals who don't want them around. That bone-deep anti-Jewish sentiment is, as O'Brien records over and over, pervasive and continuous and, sadly, not at all surprising. He says at one point, after commenting on Hitler, that "the Holocaust is not an aberration. It is a vast paroxysm of a deep-seated and apparently incurable disease: Gentile rejection of Jews" (316). Another, less basically hateful observer, is quoted as a representative of the Western sympathy for the underdog, which continues to this day and is used very cynically by Hamas, among others: "As one young officer in Palestine put it, 'The Jews are so clever, and the Arabs so stupid and childish, that it seems only sporting to be for the Arabs'" (140).
The Arabs are just plain opposed to Israel existing at all, and they have been absolutely consistent in their position over the years, although they have also been really really bad at getting along with each other in pursuit of their common goal. O'Brien's discussion of the War of Independence after Israel's formation on May 14, 1948, makes it clear that the new country would almost certainly have been destroyed within weeks if the Egyptians, Jordanians, Iraqis and Lebanese forces had in any way coordinated their attacks and been less obstinately focused on their own separate goals.
The Nakba, which has been subtly adjusted in its definition to refer to the dispossession of the resident Arab population of their homes, is pretty clearly equating the "catastrophe" of the term with the simple existence of Israel at all. O'Brien alludes on several occasions to the religious basis for this, but never outright states that Islamic fundamentalism is at its core incompatible with the state of Israel. That is a necessary conclusion, however, especially when such people as Haj Amin and Yasir Arafat have made use of Islamic doctrine to promote their anti-Jewish causes; the fact that there is an abundance of anti-Jewish doctrine in Quran and the Hadiths to draw upon is, to some apologists, just an inconvenient truth. Here is O'Brien on the connection of radicalized Jew hatred on the part of Arabs and Islamic fundamentalism: "Haj Amin...had some reason to fear being outflanked by members of a rising and more militant generation. By now [1935] fifteen years of Western-endowed education, interpreted by Arab teachers who were mostly nationalists, had radically politicized a large section of the young. At the same time, a more militant mood declared itself among devout Muslim fellahin in some regions of Palestine, mainly as a result of the preaching of the fierce and saintly Sheikh Izz al-Din al-Qassam (1871-1935).
Al-Qassam was president of the Young Men's Muslim Association in Haifa, and became, in 1932, acting president of the national conference of the Y.M.M.A. in Palestine. He combined this role with being the head of a secret terrorist society against Jews and Jewish settlements in the north. In the course of one such operation, he and his band were surrounded in the Jenin hills in November 1935. Refusing to surrender, they fought to the death. On each body, a Koran was found. The martyred al-Qassam immediately became a hero to the Muslim youth and center of a cult....
al-Qassam's heroic death greatly increased the pressure on Haj Amin to raise the standard of the Muslim revolt. It was to be Muslim this time, rather than Pan-Arab" (209).
Haj Amin would double down on this position during the Second World War, going so far as to issue a fatwa [judicial ruling on a point of Islamic law] that declared "jihad (holy war) against Britain. The British, according to the fatwa, 'have profaned the el-Aqsa Mosque and have declared the most unyielding war against Islam, both in deed and in word. The Prime Minister at that time [presumably Neville Chamberlain] told Parliament that the world would never see peace as long as the Koran existed. What hatred against Islam is stronger than that which publicly declares the Sacred Koran an enemy of human kind?'" (250). That sort of hysterical lying is shameful, of course, and it should do no credit to anyone who says such nonsense, but it seems to play well to the faithful, which is, of course, the point.
So, after that long interlude on the reasons for the conflict, it can be reduced to this: Israel maintains its right to exist because the alternative is its utter destruction; the Arab world maintains its dedication to Israel's destruction, mainly because of its fundamentalist religious beliefs. Again, the apologists for the anti-Israel side claim that it is Israel that is being intransigent, and that is true, but it is not because of an unwillingness to negotiate; it is because of the recognition that there is, as O'Brien makes clear in his conclusion, nothing for which a secure state of Israel can negotiate. O'Brien adds that the Arab side is careful to present itself as being reasonable and diplomatic when it suits them, but every time there is an opportunity to achieve a significant peace it is thwarted or, as in the case of Anwar Sadat, punished. He says, somewhat caustically, "would the Palestinian State be based on compromise with Israel, or would it be a springboard for the overthrow of Israel? 'Compromise,' said the Arab advocates of the Palestinian State in their dialogue with the West, generally conducted in private; 'springboard,' said the same people in inter-Arab discussions" (547).
That sort of essential duplicity demonstrates two things: the Arab awareness of the need to mollify the liberal West and their unswerving commitment to the eradication of Israel.
No wonder O'Brien is so pessimistic in his conclusion.
From the vantage of fully forty years along, there is even less reason to be optimistic. What is remarkable is how little the tactics have had to change in playing to a significant (and, sadly, growing) population in the West that continues to favor the side that they see as the underdog while demonizing Israel, no matter what the circumstances are. Listen to O'Brien's observations about the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982 (a war that was undertaken to remove the P.L.O. as a hostile neighbor that had effectively usurped Lebanese sovereignty in the interests of prosecuting assaults against Israel):
"The war in Lebanon was a war which aroused international horror and indignation...in a way that none of Israel's previous wars had done. There are a number of different reasons for this, and it is necessary to distinguish between them. The main reason--and one which some Israelis are rather too quick to discount--is that this was, intrinsically, an especially terrifying war. Israel's armed enemies, whom the I.D.F. was trying to destroy or drive out, were ensconced in built-up areas in the midst of civilian populations, so that civilians, including women and children, got killed or wounded. The I.D.F. did what it could to minimize civilian casualties--but these measures were only partly effective (though more effective than was sometime realized).
The second reason, less important than the first, was that this, unlike other terrifying wars, in the region and elsewhere, could be seen on television. Those who saw it--civilians in their own homes, among their families--identified with the civilian victims of the war....
Those were primary, human reactions of people with no particular views on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Those reactions of sympathy with the Palestinians--usually envisaged just as civilians--inevitably produced hostile feelings toward Israel. There were other reasons, of a more complex kind, which worked to turn those feelings into total, unqualified condemnation of Israel, with an equally unqualified rejection of the idea that Israel had any solid reasons whatever for going into Lebanon to get rid of the P.L.O.
Among unsophisticated people, with little interest in international politics, but under the shock of televised violence, there was, I believe, little realization that the P.L.O. was what this was all about, or awareness even of what the P.L.O. was in relation to Israel. Without such realization or awareness, the war seemed just a brutal and unprovoked attack by a powerful state on a harmless and defenseless neighbor, Lebanon. This impression of wanton barbarity on the part of Israel was reinforced by the frequent references to Israeli attacks on 'refugee camps.' There was very little realization, among the general public, that these refugee camps--in fact, urban areas inhabited by Palestinians--were also military and paramilitary bases, containing people dedicated to the eventual destruction of Israel, and the present destruction of individual Israelis, wherever possible. If you didn't realize that, then a country that kept on attacking 'refugee camps' sounded like a monster of a country" (632-33).
Although that is a lengthy quotation, it is a necessary one to make the point that nothing has changed, even in the tactics of the ostensibly pro-Palestinian side that is really manipulating the "unsophisticated people" around the world who are easily shocked by grim images of dead civilians but never seriously investigate who might be responsible for them. Substitute "Hamas" for "P.L.O." and "Gaza" for "Lebanon" and don't substitute anything for "Israel" and "I.D.F." and we have precisely the same situation in the modern day--certainly since October 7, 2023--as we had in 1982.
O'Brien even observes that, at that time, many critics of the Israeli government found it distressingly easy to resort to calling them "Nazis," which is a particularly odious accusation, obviously. He quotes a writer in The Spectator who is on the record as saying "Americans are coming to see the Israeli Government as pounding the Star of David into a swastika" (634). So it's not a contemporary trend to wallow in that sewer, but I don't think it's very reassuring.
Finally, O'Brien's whole exercise is about providing information, and he tries to be objective in his analysis, but it is impossible to avoid the conclusion, as he makes clear himself, that "What is not in sight is an end to the siege" (662).
August 5, 2022
This book reveals Cruise O'Brien at his best and worst. On the plus side, there have been few more accomplished stylists in the world of political and historical writing and here he continues to impress. He has a clear eye for the great sweep of history, the utter cynicism and self interest of all power brokers, and the strategic context in which the great battle(s) for the area that was once Palestine were fought.
It is lightened, though, by frequent vignettes showing how those who live through such events and appreciate their importance are no less human and no less humorous when considering the absurdities they encounter.
Examples include some delightful anecdotes from his time as an Irish representative at the United Nations where he first encountered Israelis and Arabs. Indeed, his intimate encounters were enabled, if not enforced, by the fact that delegations in the UN council chamber sit in alphabetic order, so that when Ireland joined in the 1950s, the two countries who had to shift space to allow room for their new colleagues were Israel to one side and Iraq to the other.
O'Brien's surprised delight at the genuine warmth of greeting he received from both his neighbours was quickly tempered by the realisation that they were actually both most pleased about no longer having to sit beside each other!
Also retold with amusement and affection was the reaction of his Israeli neighbour to an unfortunate malapropism by the US ambassador in a speech where he meant to denounce Fidel Castro's "circumscription" of the rights of Cuba's Catholics.
This is an Irishman's view of the story of Zionism and Israel's first 35-40 years, and as he makes clear it carries much of the baggage, perspective and indeed prejudices of a life experienced coping with Ireland's own intercommunal struggles. The British get a pasting throughout the book (not without justification of course). There can be few more lucid descriptions of the self-interested calculation underscoring the issue of the Balfour Declaration than that of post war British negotiators proclaiming to Zionists and their allies what "His Majesty's Government views with favour" while reassuring the Arabs what the same declaration "clearly understood". A Jewish state in the former case; Arab hegemony in the latter. Somebody, as he says, was bound to be disappointed.
One of O'Brien's big weaknesses though, and it permeates this book, is an overemphasis on the role played by potentates as opposed to the aggregate effect of multiple connected events. Burned into his psyche is his own torrid experience as a UN Special Envoy to the Belgian Congo in the early 1960s, where he was--as he saw it--fatally undermined by the larger powers saying one thing in the council chambers and doing the opposite on the ground. As a result, he is susceptible to blaming significant events on the conspiratorial behaviour of powerful individuals.
So he spends a lot of time trying to convince the reader that the Yom Kippur War of 1973 was largely instigated by Henry Kissinger urging Sadat to "heat up" the military situation just to create an opportunity for America to become more closely involved. Personally, I don't think the Goblins of the Pentagon are any more able to manipulate the world according to their interests than are the mythical Gnomes of Zurich or Elders of Zion. Or, in an up to date context, the Pizza Eating Paedophiles of Qanon. They're just not that clever.
However, the book is as comprehensive and lucid an account as one is likely to find of the intellectual and social currents that saw Zionism take hold, especially among the persecuted Jews of the Russian Empire. Another weakness, though, is a failure to acknowledge the hostility of the indigenous Arab population to the ongoing Israeli occupation and expansion of territory way beyond that originally allocated to a Jewish state. The Palestinian cause is no more than what he calls "the Shirt of Uthman", a mere totem brandished by neighbouring tyrants and dictators for their own ends rather than a struggle for recognition and sovereignty as pressing as that which brought Israel into being in the first place.
Of course, outside interested parties will exploit the situation for their own ends (it was ever thus, viz the Balfour Declaration and the putative Skyes-Picot Agreement) but the real issue is that between the people who co-inhabit the same space. But then, the narrative in this book stops before the Intifadas of the 1990s.
Worth reading if only to marvel at O'Brien's stylish use of the English language.
It is lightened, though, by frequent vignettes showing how those who live through such events and appreciate their importance are no less human and no less humorous when considering the absurdities they encounter.
Examples include some delightful anecdotes from his time as an Irish representative at the United Nations where he first encountered Israelis and Arabs. Indeed, his intimate encounters were enabled, if not enforced, by the fact that delegations in the UN council chamber sit in alphabetic order, so that when Ireland joined in the 1950s, the two countries who had to shift space to allow room for their new colleagues were Israel to one side and Iraq to the other.
O'Brien's surprised delight at the genuine warmth of greeting he received from both his neighbours was quickly tempered by the realisation that they were actually both most pleased about no longer having to sit beside each other!
Also retold with amusement and affection was the reaction of his Israeli neighbour to an unfortunate malapropism by the US ambassador in a speech where he meant to denounce Fidel Castro's "circumscription" of the rights of Cuba's Catholics.
This is an Irishman's view of the story of Zionism and Israel's first 35-40 years, and as he makes clear it carries much of the baggage, perspective and indeed prejudices of a life experienced coping with Ireland's own intercommunal struggles. The British get a pasting throughout the book (not without justification of course). There can be few more lucid descriptions of the self-interested calculation underscoring the issue of the Balfour Declaration than that of post war British negotiators proclaiming to Zionists and their allies what "His Majesty's Government views with favour" while reassuring the Arabs what the same declaration "clearly understood". A Jewish state in the former case; Arab hegemony in the latter. Somebody, as he says, was bound to be disappointed.
One of O'Brien's big weaknesses though, and it permeates this book, is an overemphasis on the role played by potentates as opposed to the aggregate effect of multiple connected events. Burned into his psyche is his own torrid experience as a UN Special Envoy to the Belgian Congo in the early 1960s, where he was--as he saw it--fatally undermined by the larger powers saying one thing in the council chambers and doing the opposite on the ground. As a result, he is susceptible to blaming significant events on the conspiratorial behaviour of powerful individuals.
So he spends a lot of time trying to convince the reader that the Yom Kippur War of 1973 was largely instigated by Henry Kissinger urging Sadat to "heat up" the military situation just to create an opportunity for America to become more closely involved. Personally, I don't think the Goblins of the Pentagon are any more able to manipulate the world according to their interests than are the mythical Gnomes of Zurich or Elders of Zion. Or, in an up to date context, the Pizza Eating Paedophiles of Qanon. They're just not that clever.
However, the book is as comprehensive and lucid an account as one is likely to find of the intellectual and social currents that saw Zionism take hold, especially among the persecuted Jews of the Russian Empire. Another weakness, though, is a failure to acknowledge the hostility of the indigenous Arab population to the ongoing Israeli occupation and expansion of territory way beyond that originally allocated to a Jewish state. The Palestinian cause is no more than what he calls "the Shirt of Uthman", a mere totem brandished by neighbouring tyrants and dictators for their own ends rather than a struggle for recognition and sovereignty as pressing as that which brought Israel into being in the first place.
Of course, outside interested parties will exploit the situation for their own ends (it was ever thus, viz the Balfour Declaration and the putative Skyes-Picot Agreement) but the real issue is that between the people who co-inhabit the same space. But then, the narrative in this book stops before the Intifadas of the 1990s.
Worth reading if only to marvel at O'Brien's stylish use of the English language.
May 1, 2024
I read this to broaden my understanding of Israel after reading Tweets from Zionists quoting this book. I began this book during the gruesome coverage of the “genocide “ & ended on the night of the witch’s’ Beltane, when UCLA & Columbia protests escalated. I am writing this on May Day, International Workers Day.
First, the editors did a wonderful job, placing the photo pages throughout the book instead of putting them all in the middle or end. This made reading more interesting.
Second, the eye-opening beginning ;history of Russian pogroms set a sympathetic/empathetic foundation/explanation for the beginning of a Zionist Movement
However, he doesn’t get full blown Philo Zionists; he analyzes the situation from the outside ; what were the reasons for the siege from Israel’s neighbors POV , & the siege mentality of Zionists to this day . He ends the book in the mid 80s predicting the siege will continue.
He delves into the Israeli Wars & massacres, strategies & tactics, outcomes
He describes the different characters’ involved in Israel’s government administrations, their strategies, their personality differences strengths & weaknesses, clashes & how they affected policies.
As a former UN delegate from Ireland, he described his relationship with other members of the assembly, the process & politics related to the General Assembly & Security Council. I laughed at his comments about some members of the general assembly being windbags , & the way the US & other super powers began using the 5 member security council to pass resolutions by the 1970’s , bypassing the 127+ members of the general assembly, who he described as rabble rousers.
From another perspective, the 1970s was a time when many 3rd world countries became members of the UN. Not a good time for Israel
“The Transfer Agreement “ by Edwin Black was published in 1986, 2 years before this book. Black’s perspective is a little different from O’Brien’s . The Israeli Connection by Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi ;1987. The 80’s saw many important books about Israel , published just after the 1st Lebanese War. FIDF also began fundraising inside US borders in 1981
First, the editors did a wonderful job, placing the photo pages throughout the book instead of putting them all in the middle or end. This made reading more interesting.
Second, the eye-opening beginning ;history of Russian pogroms set a sympathetic/empathetic foundation/explanation for the beginning of a Zionist Movement
However, he doesn’t get full blown Philo Zionists; he analyzes the situation from the outside ; what were the reasons for the siege from Israel’s neighbors POV , & the siege mentality of Zionists to this day . He ends the book in the mid 80s predicting the siege will continue.
He delves into the Israeli Wars & massacres, strategies & tactics, outcomes
He describes the different characters’ involved in Israel’s government administrations, their strategies, their personality differences strengths & weaknesses, clashes & how they affected policies.
As a former UN delegate from Ireland, he described his relationship with other members of the assembly, the process & politics related to the General Assembly & Security Council. I laughed at his comments about some members of the general assembly being windbags , & the way the US & other super powers began using the 5 member security council to pass resolutions by the 1970’s , bypassing the 127+ members of the general assembly, who he described as rabble rousers.
From another perspective, the 1970s was a time when many 3rd world countries became members of the UN. Not a good time for Israel
“The Transfer Agreement “ by Edwin Black was published in 1986, 2 years before this book. Black’s perspective is a little different from O’Brien’s . The Israeli Connection by Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi ;1987. The 80’s saw many important books about Israel , published just after the 1st Lebanese War. FIDF also began fundraising inside US borders in 1981
May 9, 2024
“[T]he Arabs loved their country as much as the Jews did. Instinctively they understood Zionist aspirations very well, and their decision to resist them was only natural. Every people fought immigration and settlement by foreigners, however high-minded their motives for settling. There was no misunderstanding between Jew and Arab, but a natural conflict. No agreement was possible with the Palestinian Arab; they would accept Zionism only when they found themselves up against an iron wall, when they realized they had no alternative but to accept Jewish settlement.” -p.175
September 5, 2020
This is a great book about Israeli history looked through a diplomatic lens. O’Brien tells a story that sticks. Showing uneasy decisions and strategic maneuvers that the key figures of Israeli politics took and why. I wish the book covers the last three decades as well. The story of “return”, all contradictions and complexity involved is to be continued.
March 25, 2025
Although this book was purchased in 1986, its analysis and relevance holds up surprisingly well. It traces the roots of Zionism to longstanding antisemitism in all places where Jews have lived. It presents the dialectic surrounding the conflict over the competing claims of Jews and Arabs over the land that comprises the modern State of Israel in a sober and balanced manner.
March 18, 2023
fascinating & engagingly written
May 22, 2024
Read half of it. Very good!
March 10, 2011
This is the best account I have read of the history Zionism, Israel, at least covering up until the 1980's. It is important to note that it doesn't have anything past the 1980's for two reasons, the first is obvious in that it is lacking major historical events, and the second is that it is written without the knowledge of those historical events which I believe would change the telling of earlier events. Anyway, that doesn't matter because The Siege is a great read and probably the most un-biased telling of this particular story that you will ever get. When people ask me for a good historical book on Zionism, this is always the book I recommend.
June 21, 2014
I don't know how long this 30 year old book has been on my "to read" list but I guess history never gets old, just not updated. Unabashedly pro Israel by a non-Jew it was a relief to read after so many recent soul-searching and self flagellating books. As the name implies, it is a history of Israel around the theme that Israel really is a country under siege - and the "siege mentality" outsiders see reflects more than just a psychological condition. Well written with cutting editorial barbs to the British, old as it is, it was still worth the read.
November 3, 2015
I've read several books on Israel including Benny Morris' 1984 (which I sadly did not finish) and found The Siege to be vastly easier to read and absorb, in spite of its hefty girth. I never thought I would have been interested in Russia and the Tsars around the 1800's but O'Brien does an excellent job in delivering a quite complicated and messy subject in an easy to read manner.
July 18, 2014
Usually this would not be a book I'd find myself reading but I promised a dear friend and I always keep my word for my word is the most important of things I possess. It's interesting, gained a lot more significant knowledge of Israel. I'm glad I read this book.
Currently Reading
June 26, 2008this is the one I'm reading to supplement the fiction books
September 1, 2014
A great history of Zionism and Israel.
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews