The Question of Palestine

Does the fact that I am an Israeli Jew living in Israel mean that I should reject this book ? Does the fact that I think the book is crucially important mean that I am "taking sides" ? I believe otherwise. I found this book to be very important, as it is an account of a Palestinian - an admittedly interested party in the conflict. Said knows about the Jews and Zionism much more than most Israeli Jews know about the Palestinians. But of course - Said is never "objective" - he himself is a refugee, who describes the side of Zionism as he and many others like him experienced. Said shows surprising understanding of Zionism - he even says that one cannot compare the situation in Israel to that which existed in South Africa. He says that things here are more complicated. Said acknowledges the achievements of Zionism as far as Jews are concerned, another surprise. I felt a deep passion for peace and compromise in this book - I believe that the author accepts the reality of a Jewish state in Israel. However, Said points out that no such peace can be achieved as long as Palestinian dreams are constantly shattered or ignored. There are two sides to this story - I am on one and Said is on the other. Still, this book is important because it acknowledges the existance of two sides, and thus provides a road to conciliation that is so important to all of us. I think every Jew and every Paelstinian should read this book, and so should evreybody with a serious interest in our troubled piece of land.

What is most striking regarding Said's 1979 account is that for all the naked truth he reveals, and in face of the most totalitarian colonial regime ever imposed, he never loses its humanism and optimism. His 1992 Preface and Epilogue still show his unbending humanism, though toning down the optimism and raising the level of irony, at all times the only weapon that remains to the utterly powerless. If you stare into the abyss too long, writes Nietzsche, the abyss will stare at you, too. Somehow Said is immune from this abysmal stare: he has stared into the abyss longer than most, but he has not, a will not, allow it to stare at him, too. This book is a monument to humanism.

Every Westerner who professes an opinion on Israel and Palestine must read this book. It will clear the mind of them indoctrination, whether in Hebrew School or from the US government, western intellectuals and the mass media. Israel is clearly the Last Colonial Project of the dying imperial West, and Israel was never "a land without a people for a people without a land." Said recognizes the facts on the ground, both in them original edition and this books preface and epilogue. Israel is not going anywhere, but neither is the Palestinian nation. Their must be land for peace in a movement toward conciliatory coexistence untinge by racist or religious hatred.

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!

Excellent book. Central to all his essays and books regarding the Palestinian tragedy, this book sets forth a number of quite logical arguments which aim to support in 1979, the the human and civil rights of the Palestinians. Though written in 1977-8, and published in 1979, Said's arguments and reasoning are totally relevant for today. Since 1948, since the beginning of the State of Israel, he argues, the Palestinians have been systematically denied the most basic human and civil rights within that State, and even more, made invisible as a people, whose appeals and claims for equity and simple decency are, still, marginalized if not ignored by most of US politicians and media executives. I recommend this book for anyone who wishes to become acquainted with the Palestinian people, and their still-defied appeals for humane treatment, as human beings and co-citizens with Jews, in the State of Israel.

There’s so much information that I didn’t know and I thought I was a good student of Middle Eastern history. This is a must read.

The late Edward Said's masterwork on the subject, this book is must reading for those who still believe that finding a solution is not only possible, but imperative. The two state solution is not a solution, but rather an unfeasible distraction. Vassal status in a nonviable state is a rabbit hole that promises to create a greater Gaza - not a true Palestinian nation. A one state solution, providing for democratic (1 person, 1 vote) rule is the only viable way out of the morass, and will sorely test the opposition of those whose commitment to democratic ideals is trumped by religious or racial exclusivism. Factor in a right of return and compensation for the dispossessed and you have the framework for a just and lasting peace.

Worth the price! Make me understand more about Palestine.

Scientific Standard does apply. Read and Understand.

Sober treatment of a festering sore. If only more Americans, particularly Congressmen, would read it. It was written in 1979 but the problems are more immediate than ever. Why is the USA bewitched by Israel?

Excellent book on the subject.

Promptness.

An important read.