The Question of Palestine

Rating:
Summary: Review on "The Question of Palestine"
Review: In "The Question of Palestine" author Edward W. Said analyzes the complexity in recognizing the Palestinian plight that has plagued a society since the establishment of Israel. Said eloquently illustrates a different perception to the omnipresent and biased understanding of the Palestinian/Israeli issue. It was enlightening to analyze Said's version on the international conflict, not simply because I am sympathetic to a society under foreign occupation and in exile, but rather because it is a perspective not often pursued by the American general public.
"The Question of Palestine" depicts the effects of Zionism and how its blatant disregard of Palestinians is culpable for the ongoing strife in the region. Said describes the historical context in which the existence of Palestinians was disregarded from the very onset of Israel's creation. The author explains that his purpose in writing this book was to illustrate how the Palestinian's perceive Zionism.
Although Said is clearly an enthusiast for the Palestinian cause, he credits Israel's political organization, cultural achievements, and economic stability as the strength behind Israel's permanence. What I find fascinating about this book is that it addresses issues often ignored by America's biased media. American society has yet to adequately analyze the inhumane political and social injustices suffered by the Palestinians. In fact, often is the case that news coverage of Arabs in the region reinforce an already inbred stereotype of Middle Eastern society, that chaos and violence is a standard practice.
Said also emphasizes on how Israel, once a victim of oppression, has evolved into an oppressor. In "The Question of Palestine," Said explains how Palestine has been plagued by acquisition and occupation. In his book, Said describes his view of Israel as an imperialistic society. He also addresses the issue that the Palestinians were not consulted when their land was given to a new society for development. In essence, Said explains how the existence of the Palestinians was thought of as a minimal complication that will dilute with time. However, the reality of the matter is that the identities of the Palestinians are far from accepting defeat.
In "The Question of Palestine" Said describes how nearly 4 million Palestinians are scattered throughout the world. In this book Said questions how nothing is said when it is irrefutable that Israel is responsible for the deportation, torture, and transfer of population of millions of Palestinian Arabs. Said gives his readers an account of the Palestinian reality -- a struggle in which the natives are the disadvantaged.
Fundamentally, the purpose of Said writing this book was to bring attention to a vaguely commented issue - the reality of the Palestinian refugees. An issue that Said describes as ignored, or willfully misrepresented is no longer so. "The Question of Palestine" provokes its readers to question an issue that would not commonly be addressed. I recommend this book to anyone interested in Middle Eastern politics and to any individual on gaining insight on an issue that is unfortunately not often discussed.


Rating:
Summary: Ignored or Denied
Review: In this book Edward Said presents an argument for the right of Palestinians to the land known as Palestine. Since the 7th century Palestine had been predominantly Arab. For example a 1922 census showed that 78% of the population was Arab. With the creation of Israel in 1948 by the UN, these Arabs were dispersed quite often by force. Ironically 1948 is the same year that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declared that everyone has the right to return to his own country. The right of the Palestinians has been ignored or denied. Not even a plebiscite represents their point of view.

His argument is compeling. Edward Said writes logically and with insight. If finally the reader does not agree with him, the reader will surely think long and hard about it.

Rating:
Summary: Anti-Israel diatribe from Academia
Review: Said makes a powerful and convincing indictment of Western analysis of the Palestinian question, basically saying the West has bought the Zionist line that the Arabs in pre-1948 Palestine were so few and backward they weren't worth thinking about when the state of Israel was created. However, despite promising throughout that he will present a picture of what Palestinians (i.e., Arab Palestinians) are, he never quite gets there. More details of the lives of actual Palestinians would have been helpful. Nevertheless, the book is worthwhile from the standpoint of documenting the injustice that was done and generating sympathy for the Palestinians. He is forthright in blaming the surrounding Arab countries as well as the Israelis (and the U.S.) for many of the Palestinians' difficulties. There are several problems that detract from Said's argument and may make the book somewhat ineffectual in convincing Western readers. One is that it is written in that pretentious, hyperintellectual, leftist, pseudophilosophical style that was popular in the 60s but seems dated now. You know, belaboring the fact that there are hidden assumptions foisted upon us by the media that govern our thoughts, references to imperialism, colonialism, putting down liberals and bourgeois thought, etc.
Also, the extreme anti-Israel bias leads Said to make statements that are going to leave most Westerners shaking their heads in wonder: the takeover of the West Bank in 1967 by Israel did not take place in a defensive war? It is wrong to call Palestinians who deliberately kill noncombatant Israelis with no military targets terrorists? He casually dismisses the idea that Jordan is part of Palestine - this is certainly worth some discussion. The horrible injustice of expelling Arabs from Israel is the main topic, but the expulsion of Jews from the Arab countries is not mentioned. The principal drawback from my point of view is the absence of any mention of the fact that Israel needs to control part of the West Bank, at least for now, just to ensure its survival. The pre-1967 borders are ludicrous in terms of military defense, and Israel is surrounded by millions of Arabs who passionately desire its demise, regardless of what a few moderate leaders precariously holding on to their positions might say to the Western press. Of course, the West Bank is constantly referred to as the Occupied Territories without reference to the fact that the pre-1967 borders were simply a reflection of a pause in the continuing war between Israelis and Arabs. However, when it comes to political books on the Middle East, I have a feeling the choices are mainly between those that are extremely biased toward Zionism and those that are extremely biased against Israel. In that context, this book is recommended.

Rating:
Summary: Biased Story
Review: Said's book presents valid arguments and discusses the anti-Arab prejudices of the West, and the corresponding support for Zionists in their expansionist mindset toward Palestine, but as Said states, "The reader will quickly discover, I hope, that what is proposed in this book is not an 'expert' view nor, for that matter, personal testimony. Rather, it is a series of experienced realities, grounded in a sense of human rights and he contradictions of social experience, couched as much as possible in the language of everyday reality. (xv)." Said pronounced from the start that this is a subjective explanation of the conflict, and that his partisan stance may be jaded by his Palestinian experience.

Just as the Middle East dialogue is short-sided for its Zionist lens, Said commits the same fault of conditioning his book through one-sided Palestinian eyes. In spite of this point Said continues to valiantly defend Arab morals and society, while portraying Palestinian as 'outlaws of sorts' to the West, seemingly for liberal identification and sympathy. The belittled Palestinians are defined as a nation of 'others,' deriving their national identity as an opposition to Zionists. The suffering of the Israelis at the hands of Arab terrorists is ignored at best and is at points condoned as desperation in this time of frustration for Palestinian nationals.

The major fault with Said is that he attempts to polarize the issue, which is the same fault he has against the Western World. As the Western world portrays the Arab as criminal, backward, and uneducated, Said dresses the West and Zionists in a 'white man's burden' suit without regard for what they characterize as 'backward beliefs and customs' of the Arab world. Said paints a picture of a bullying Zionist and West mentality where the Zionists and West are said to believe that they have the Arabs' best interests at heart in their conquest of the Middle East. The imposing Zionists are sketched as overbearing, without any regard for Palestinian autonomy and rights. The Palestinians are nothing more than victims, and the Zionists are the perfect perpetrator of the Western crime.

The second major, yet related fault of Said, is that he is consistently referring to Western sources for his information and his history of Palestine and the conflict; the same fault he attaches to the Western-Zionist imperialists. Said fails to elucidate the profound impact of the Western World on Zionism; no where in the work does Said realize that Zionism, as an outgrowth of romantic European nationalism, never existed or promoted injustices performed against the Palestinians. The Western world may have been influential in its disregard or ignorance of Palestinians, but there was never overt or covert mention in early Zionist documentation of the need to make the Palestinians disappear. There are shaky quotations from Herzl and Begin, but in all the quotations attributed to these people there is never quality translations as evidenced in his lack of footnotes for Begin and his subjective and exclusionary citing of Herzl.

The two-state solution seemed probable with the signing of the Belfour Declaration. Palestine has always been a land of two people, and Said's answer is a two-state solution. However, in 1947 Arab leadership rejected a UN resolution for a two-state solution. Said contends the expansion minded Zionists then took Israel and exiled the Palestinians. He cites between 700,000-800,000 Palestinians were forced from their homes, but he does little to refute the Israeli claim that Arab leadership supported this move as evidenced by the War for Independence in Israel the day after Israel was granted statehood. In this war the Israelis were attacked by seven Arab countries, and defended themselves. Why would the Arab nations attack if not for the land? Would these Arab lands still have attacked with 750,000 Arabs still living there? I find it rather difficult to make the argument that the Palestinians were forced out and there was no leadership of prior knowledge of an Arab strike against Israel.

When morality hits reality Said struggles. The Middle East conflict is not simply a matter of divergent values and morals with the subjugation of the Palestinians to the Israelis. The truth is that both people identify with the land, and his reduction of this conflict of Western values clashing with Orientalism negates the realities surrounding the situation. Jews had always wanted to return to Israel, Ottoman Empire mandate only allowed certain immigration, as did all prior empires in Israel. The Zionists never left Israel they were forced out, but for all of Said's purposes the Palestinians were always there and never left.

It takes two for a conflict, and the closest Said can come to assigning any blame to Palestinians is when he reminiscence. He thinks of his childhood in Palestine and the notion that the encroaching Zionists would be beaten in war, not through politics or negotiations. If brutality is not the Arab mentality, and the political shortcomings of Palestine is a result of their lack of adopting Western values, how were the Palestinians supposed to behave in the early 20th century? Should they have not signed the Belfour Accord of 1917 in the Zionists move toward a state of their own, or should they have continued to have Massacres like the ones in Hebron in 1929? Or should they have done nothing, or could they have done nothing, as Said is most likely to respond. It is hard to believe that a couple hundred thousand Jews in Europe were able to overpower the Palestinians in all four of these aspects.

The Question of Palestine is a valuable book in creating a unique Palestinian voice, but it polarizes the Middle East conflict to such a degree that it seems that Israel, and the West for that matter, have decided to set the standard, rules, negotiations, and terms without any repercussions, because they know best.

Rating:
Summary: The Question of Palestine
Review: The cover of my book has a quote from the NY Times that says books like this one need to be "read in the hope that understanding will provide a better chance of survival." That quote couldn't be more accurate. The Question of Palestine is a cry for understanding of Arab culture and history, and subsequently a more balanced view of the conflict today (or 1979, when it was published. But that doesn't matter because it is still applicable today).

The Q of Palestine is divided into two main sections, the history of the ignorance of Araba culture and the true nature of Zionism, and how the Palestinians are mobilizing today. Said describes Zionism as both a colonial adventure with little regard for the Arab natives, and the subsequent effort to create facts to make it more acceptable. Said does a remarkable job of describing how the U.S., Israel and the rest of the western world have misperceived the entire conflict because we see the conflict through a western lens. Through this lens, the Arabs are for the most part, innocently ignored. His attempt, then, is to try and give a view that is NOT through this western lens. He shows that yes, contrary to popular opinion, the Arabs DO have a history and culture that have both been destroyed by Zionists. He shows that no, contrary to popular opinion, they will not just get up and leave after being hit on the head enough times. They have a very strong nationalistic pride, and it will only get stronger.

I highly recommend this book. It is definately not aimed at filling the niche of "historically objective, comprehensive history of the conflict" (for that see Benny Morris's "Righteous Victims"). So if you are new to the subject, probably start with something else. But it does fill a necessary roll of a look into the existence and the understanding of a distinct Palestinian pride and culture. Only when enough people start recognizing some of the things Said talks about will the leaders of Israel and the PLO ever find some common ground on which to move toward peace. Essential Reading!

Rating:
Summary: Overcharged with ideology
Review: The good thing about the book is that it is very well written and in a clear fashion. This renders such a diffucult topic understandable.

But the content is completely ideological and does not present the facts. It blames the corruption in arab's leadership for the suffering of the palestinians, but suggests this corrpution exists and was encouraged as a reaction to european orientalsm and zionist "occupation".

So at first the book starts with somewhat of a critic to arab leadership, but ends up suggesting zionism and related ideologies as "sources of arab corrpution".

This point is not new. It rather the norm in Edward Said's works. And the people who know the goodwill of jews know that the point he tries to make falls by its own contradictions.

Rating:
Summary: Garbage
Review: The Question of Palestine comes down to this, when will the Palestinians stop the killing and move forward.

The Palestinians have given nothing to the world except for the concept of suicide bombers.

They need to grow up and stop their complaining.

Of course, they find it easier to kill innocent people than to try to build a nation.

Rating:
Summary: No Answer to the Question!
Review: The Question of Palestine is best viewed in two distinctive parts. Part One deals with the historical narrative, the ideas and events that ultimately led to the establishment of the State of Israel on most of Palestine in 1948. The Second part deals mostly with the Palestinian Resistance post 1948 focusing on the Peace Process and the Camp David Accords.

The first part of the book is essentially a narrower version of Edward Said's famous work "Orientalism". Whereas Orientalism attempted to cover misrepresentation of the history and culture of the mostly Islamic Near East by "Orientalists" over many centuries, the Question of Palestine focuses on this "misrepresentation" as it related specifically to Palestine and how it ultimately led to wide support in the west to the Zionist ideas and the creation of a Jewish home land in Palestine. The language and style of this book is certainly easier to follow than the more scholarly Orientalism.

A most fascinating and enlightening analysis of the support that Zionism received from progressive writers and thinkers of the late 19th Century act as key foundation in Said's narrative. Said proposes that a culture that totally accepted the views of the Orientalist saw itself as inherently superior to the "natives" and thus viewed the Zionist project as a brave mission to bring civilization to inferior cultures / places. Said Portrays a Zionism admired as a more committed and liberalizing colonial movement that actually attracted wide admiration. Said offers a Palestinians version of events that led to the Balfour Declaration in 1917 that is entirely backed entirely by contemporaneous authoritative western and Zionist sources, all meticulously analyzed and referenced.

Said's Narrative places Zionism squarely within a "Western" colonial strategy and places the responsibility for the neglect of the rights of the "natives" on Balfour and Britain, as he cites Balfour's elaborating on the impact of his Declaration, clearly aware of the inevitability of displacement of the "natives". While Said made a very strong case for the historical responsibility of Britain towards the Palestinians, he did not seem to develop his ideas into any form of political agenda towards Britain

Said's account suggests that the transformation of Zionism from a secular colonial movement to one that aims to appeal to religious Jews caused considerable friction within the movement with often strong opposition from the original founders to any action or people who would negatively impact the "liberalizing" "pioneering" image of the movement, the image that idealized the movement to the liberals of the late 19th Century.

Overall, the first part of the book, which is nearly two thirds of it is well argued and well referenced and indeed as said earlier builds on the huge amounts of work Said had done in Orientalism. While Said unabashedly acknowledged at the start of the book his desire to present the whole "Question" from a Palestinian perspective, he hardly relied on Palestinians sources and based his entire narrative on western & Zionist sources. In doing so he gave him self the freedom to offer a partisan version of history yet succeeded in making it appear as an exhaustive and balanced review that makes his case very well and convincingly.

The second part of the book aimed primarily at the history of the struggle between the state of Israel and the PLO and the Palestinian people. Here, Said was offering a political commentary of events that he personally has witnessed first hand or indeed participated or took part in. Said's usual rigorous review and analysis of sources was naturally absent. His views of the PLO appeared largely romantic and he seemed to find excuses for its many failings. His disagreements with Sadat and the Egyptian position on Camp David totally failed to see the Egyptian Israeli dispute as a distinct (yet related) conflict to the Palestinian Israeli conflict. Said's tendency to overlook the different historical narratives within the middle east in Orientalism carried over into his analysis of the contemporarily Middle Eastern political affairs.

Edward Said's Question of Palestine is an excellent source for understanding the very sad history of the Palestinians and their blight. His inability to see an intellectually acceptable way forward, his rejection of Camp David and the Oslo Peace Process reflect both his intellectual honesty and political naiveté. Said's more recent writings in The Nation and Al Ahram weekly seem to reflect some changes his views. It is however Ironic that the failure of the peace process that we witness now in 2002 may actually vindicate some of Said's views of Oslo and the whole concept of a "two states" solution.

I have awarded this book "4 stars" based on the strength of the first part. The Second Part is 1 - 2 stars at best!

Rating:
Summary: A very thoughtful introduction
Review: This book is a very considered and informative guide to Palestine and its colonisation. For me, though, this book perhaps spends too much time on the ideology of Zionism rather than spelling out some of the basic facts of dispossession and oppression. Still, it is salutary to be reminded of Zionisms ideological origins in European Romantic nationalism, with its notions of "People" and "Homeland" (which very much took root of course in Germany - the crucible of much Zionism). It is useful too to be reminded how the rhetoric of Zionism is uncannily similiar to other colonialist rhetoric, in particular the notion of the "land without a people". That is to say, as Said points out, colonial powers have ALWAYS attempted to justify their settlements, their forcible dispossession of indigeneous peoples by insisting that the target land was barren or underdeveloped, that the people currently residing there were in no fit state to look after the land - and so on and so on. We can see from Said's book that Zionism, far from being some unique self-expression of "Jewish Destiny" is wholly consistent with and emerges out of this larger intellectual tradition. Ultimately, the Zionists who settled in Palestine were European nationalists.

What is also very illuminating here, is that Said reveals just how candid Zionist polititians and military leaders/ agitators were about their aims and objectives and about the dispossession of the native Palestinian population. Figures such as MOshe Dyan, the book shows, were perfectly upfront about this being an Arab country which they - the Zionists - were taking over. Said quotes Dayan as follows: "We came to this country which was already populated by Arabs, and we are establishing a Hebrew, that is Jewish state here.. There is not one place built in this country that did not have aformer Arab population." American supporters of Israel will I think be shocked reading amny passages of this book, and will find that many cherished beliefs are in fact convenient myths reproduced by the American Zionist doctrinal system.

Rating:
Summary: One of the better books on the subject
Review: This book is an excellent primer to understanding the conflict. Edward Said gives a careful and concise history of the origins of the conflict.

This book is especially powerful as an antidote to the biases of the New York Times, Washington Post, and other mainstream news media outlets which tend to have a shortsighted and wrongminded approach to the conflict. Either their reporters have not read works like Said's, or they know the truth and wilfully suppress it.