Rating: 
Summary: Beyond Reality
Review: This book mainly discuses in details the Arab-Israeli conflict and also discuses the roots of Zionism and the writer of this book knew that he'll face the heat because of this book but he wrote it anyway and I respect him for that because I think it's about time the western people in the more civilized countries take a look from a deep perspective upon what's going on here in the forgotten land and I mean the middle east of course, I say forgotten and I mean forgotten to those who still doesn't want to believe that the only threat in this area is the Israeli threat because Palestinians aren't strong enough to make a threat unless you considered their rocks that even started to vanish gradually is the threat!
This book is called "Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict", but what I really see while reading this book is beyond reality as we all know what's going on in Palestine, we all know about the assassinations and the slaughtering that's happening on daily bases with no logical reason, unless you considered the "Safety of Israel" is the reason, but may I ask what about the safety of the helpless Palestinians? Aren't they humans like all of us needs to feel safe and secured, or may be they are not classified as humans in the western agenda and that's why no one cares.
Rating: 
Summary: A complex read but quite good.
Review: This book seems to be really a set of five or six papers on the Arab-Israeli conflict cobbled together into one volume so it kind of lacks a common thread of argument, but it's still quite good.Most meticulous (and viscous) is the chapter debunking Joan Peters' book. But the parts I found most convincing were the chapters on the 1973 war and on Benny Morris's theory of the Palestinian refugee problem. It does seem to ring intuitively true that given that there was motive (a Jewish state requires Jews to be in a signficant majority there), it should be followed to its logical conclusion. Very few still believe the canard that masses of Arabs packed up and left either (i) in preparation for war or (ii) in obedient compliance with Arab radio broadcasts. But the notion that the Israelis were largely responsible for the expulsion of the Arabs has been given surprisingly scant treatment. All part of the obloquy attached to casting suspicion on a 'victim' group, I suppose. What I find interesting is the way that Finkelstein and others are criticised for being 'anti-Zionist', without further comment. It is as though this is enough to discredit them. Given the plain truth that Zionism was effectively the endeavour to steal a country out from under its inhabitants, it's hardly morally odious to be 'anti-Zionist'. Critics of Finkelstein, Chomsky et al would have a lot more credibility if they either qualified their use of this pejorative or dropped it altogether. A lot of this is not by any means leisure reading - even Chomsky's book is more readable. But if you really want to get to the nitty-gritty of the issues, it's quite scholarly.
Rating:
Summary: Among the Best on This Topic
Review: This book was one of the first that I read after starting to read up on the Israel-Palestine conflict, and I still regard it as one of the best. Prof. Finkelstein's analytical powers are as great as anyone writing on this topic. He goes deeper than most authors would care to: Watch him disect Joan Peter's book
"From Time Immemorial", which claimed that the Palestinian residents of the area were "newcommers".
After reading this book, there are dozens of others that also reveal facts that are well hidden from Americans. One perhaps surprising source is the Israeli newspaper "Harratz", which has some liberal writers on its staff. (Freedom of speech is still in effect there, at least more so than in the US.)
Finally, I suggest trying out some of pro-Israeli books so that you can say you've heard both sides of the story.
I don't think there are any truly "neutral" writers. (For example, how many neutral observers were there during the war in Vietnam?)
Rating:
Summary: One of the best
Review: This courageous book is one of the best I have read about the Israel-Palestine conflict. The book's strength is how thoroughly researched and documented it is. Finkelstein uses numerous direct quotes and footnotes from a vast variety of sources, ranging from official records to the personal diaries of Israeli leaders. He does not spare anyone, and he debunks quite a few popular myths about Israel's birth. This book is thought-provoking and while some of the chapters can hardly be called an easy read, it a must read for anyone who is interested in the truth about the Middle East.
Rating: 
Summary: The Fink goes into bat for Palestine
Review: This is a book by Norman Finkelstein who is a left wing academic teaching at New York University. Although he is Jewish his reputation is that of being a strong supporter of the Palestinians. This rather short book is no exception. Finkelstein?s main thesis is that Zionism arose in the 19th century in response to nationalist ideas that were fashionable at the time. These ideas stressed that the basis of a nation state was a population that had a common identity and strong cultural links. (This contrasts with the modern idea of a country as having citizens who may be different but who have common rights which derive from their citizenship) The 19th Century notion of nationalism was one of the main reasons for the rise of anti-Semitism as a political idea. Jews were seen to be foreign to the identity the various national states in which they lived. Finkelstien has suggested that the idea of Zionism springs from this idea and as a result suggests that a Jewish state should be established to be a home to the Jews as they will be rejected by other states. Further that the character of this state should be defined as being Jewish, that is consisting of a majority of one group. In Europe this idea has been rejected and the notion of citizenship and acceptance of diversity means that modern countries are more polyglot in nature. Finkelstien sees Israel as a curious survival of a bygone age and mode of thought. The book is very short and consists of six essays which deal with topics based on the idea of Israel and also aimed at exploding some of its foundation myths. The essays do not contain much in the way of new material but are examinations of some of the existing literature which suggest an interpretation of Israeli history which is very different from what we have come to expect. The first essay is about the notion of nationalism and fleshes out the ideas outlined above. The second essay is a demolition of Joan Peters book From Time Immemorial. Peters book has now been subject to so much criticism it is probably requires no further attacks as it is pretty much discredited as a serious work. This book was written in 1994 and at that time people probably did not know as much about Peters work. The second essay is a discussion of Benny Morriss book on the Origin of the Palestinian refugee crisis. Finkelstien does not produce any new material but contrasts Morriss conclusions with the evidence he presents. Finkelstien suggests that force was used in a systematic way by the IDF to move Palestinians out of what was to become the state of Israel. Interestingly Morris in an Essay published last year has come to some extent to accept this. The most interesting essay is a critique of another book by former Israeli ambassador Abba Eban. In this essay Finkelstein suggests that the 1967 Arab Israeli war was not provoked by the Egyptians as usually suggested but a clear case of Israeli aggression. His basis for suggesting this is the fact that Israel made a number of high level threats to invade Syria early in the year. Egypt was an ally of Syria and the movement of its troops into the Sinai in 1967 the thing which is usually credited with setting of the war was in Finkelsteins view a measured response to assist its ally. Recent material which has been released suggest that the orders given to the Egyptian troops were consistent with a defensive arrangment of their troops. It was also clear to all parties that the Arab nations would be defeated easily if it came to war. The book is interesting but it is written in a rather dry academic style and it is based largely on interpreting material rather than producing more material. Yet it is interesting to compare what it says with other material on the conflict.
Rating:
Summary: The best book on the Conflict
Review: This is easily the best-written and most-informative work on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Dr. Finkelstein incisively analyzes all of the relevant arguments from both sides and shows their relative strenghts and weaknesses. In the end, we see that the Zionist arguments amount to little more than propaganda.
Rating:
Summary: detailed insight which is never discussed in the media
Review: This work is very important for people to read as it provides a worthwhile alternative view to Israeli history. I can't determine from my own research whether the author is totally right or wrong in his thesis, but the one thing that I can say is that like all history, it is important to hear all sides of a story. Anyone who believes (as portrayed in the mainstream media) that Israel is the font of reason and love in the middle east and simply wants to be left alone to exist, and that it is the Arab States (and Palestinians) which cause all the problems in the area must read this book simply to inform themselves of other perspectives. To believe what is said in the media these days, you would never know about the history of land encroachment etc by Israel. The settlements which are still expanding to this day were going on since 1948! These things came as news to me, and simply points to the need to inform oneself about history from both sides, including the Arab side. You very rarely (never?) see or hear this side of the argument in the US. It is that very fact which should indicate that reading this version of history is important - ignorance is the foundation of an unfair world. Read this book!
Rating:
Summary: Good arguments
Review: While the book is highly critical of Israel (and only Israel) and might seem a bit one-sided, I found his analysis of the accepted history of the region as quite refreshing. He provides a wealth of evidence and sources to back himself up and his explanations seem quite genuine. I regret the fact that it only goes up until the Yom Kippur war though, he would be well advised to make some more additions to this otherwise interesting book.
Rating:
Summary: Not Biased, simply the truth
Review: why is it when someone criticize israel, he/she is always blasted with being anti-semite or biased. well this book is not written by Edward said, its written by Norman Finkelstein who is a Jew. This is an excellant book that i recommed to anyone who want to learn about the conflict in the middleast. And most of all to people who wants to know the truth.
Rating: 
Summary: Finkelstein's Image VS. Reality
Review: [Note: This review refers to the 1994 edition.] This is a book dedicated to the proposition that Zionism and the state of Israel are evil incarnate. The author makes no bones about his intent from the start, so people who call this book 'balanced' are going to have to explain what they mean by that. In and of itself, the book is of little value, often resting on anti-Israel secondary sources such as the works of Avi Shlaim, Simha Flapan, Alexander Cockburn, with at least one reference to Alfred Lilienthal. Finkelstein mostly brings only such evidence as supports his view of things, while ignoring or belittling contradictory evidence. For example, in mentioning the numerical estimate of Palestinian refugees, he mentions sources which support very high estimates, yet he doesn't mention Walter Pinner's study, which arrived at a much lower estimate, and incidentally called into question the accuracy of the UN estimates which Finkelstein presents. Even Yehoshua Porath, whom Finkelstein quotes to debunk Joan Peters, in his own critique of the book in the New York Review of Books, unequivocally disagrees with Finkelstein on this point, stating that: "Most serious students would accept that the number of Arab refugees from Israel during and after 1948 claimed by Arab and UN sources ' some 600,000 to 750,000 ' was exaggerated. It is very easy to refute this estimate and many have already done it". Finkelstein doesn't mention him or Pinner. Consequently, you would never know from the book that there was anyone except the easily dismissed "Israeli government" who disagreed with Finkelstein. Finkelstein grasps at any hint of a massacre committed by Jews, yet not a word is made of massacres committed by Arabs against Jews (more on that below). Many of the other "facts" he states have long since been debunked or challenged. For example, the standard account of Deir Yassin, which Finkelstein faithfully presents, has been called into question by Dr. Uri Milstein's study and ZOA's "Deir Yassin: History of a Lie". The discussion of "transfer" in 1937 among the Zionist leadership, which Finkelstein cites as evidence of the Zionist's evil intentions to expel the Arab population, has long since been put in its proper (very limited) context by Efraim Karsh in Fabricating Israeli History. Finkelstein quotes from Theodor Herzl's diary to prove that the Zionists wanted to "spirit away" the Arab population (and this was probably out of context), yet Aryeh Avneri's book The Claim of Dispossession demonstrates that this was not so in practice. The list goes on, as one can clearly see. The author pooh-poohs the existential threat (i.e. threat of massacre) that the yishuv and its members faced during the war of '48, ignoring the conduct of Palestinian units toward Jews, such as during the massacre of over 100 prisoners of war at Kfar Etzion or the Hadassah convoy massacre [1], events (and others like them) which Finkelstein would apparently prefer to ignore. These acts, and the fact that Arab-held territory became "judenrein" [2], are a clear indication of what probably would have happened had the Arabs had the upper hand (expulsion or massacre). Finkelstein apparently can't abide by the notion that the Palestinians were anything other than helpless victims, instead of active participants in a disaster of their own making. That there would not have been a war or a refugee problem if the Palestinians had accepted the Partition plan instead of rejecting it and threatening to 'drive the Jews into the sea' seems not to have crossed Finkelstein's mind. One could write a book just listing Finkelstein's selective mention of facts and numerous omissions. It is a poor work, bordering on outright propaganda, and cleverly disguising itself as dispassionate scholarship. The author's work is mostly dedicated to demonstrating that works on Zionism (and sympathetic to it) are biased, factually inaccurate and apologetic. In light of Finkelstein's own performance, however, the author's malevolent attacks seem to resemble that of the proverbial pot calling the kettle black. [1] Porath, Yehoshua, War and Rememberance, Azure no.13
[2] ibid.
| 
