Friends Journal
Except for Palestine: The Limits of Progressive Politics and
By Marc Lamont Hill and Mitchell Plitnick. The New Press, 2021. 240 pages. $25.99/hardcover or eBook.
Reviewed by Steve Chase
November 1, 2021
Buy from QuakerBooks
Except for Palestine: The Limits of Progressive Politics and
By Marc Lamont Hill and Mitchell Plitnick. The New Press, 2021. 240 pages. $25.99/hardcover or eBook.
Reviewed by Steve Chase
November 1, 2021
Buy from QuakerBooks
Beyond the Two-State Solution
By Jonathan Kuttab. Nonviolence International, 2021. 110 pages. $13.95/paperback; $3.99/eBook; free PDF download at nonviolenceinternational.net.
Buy from QuakerBooks
People who consider themselves liberal or progressive routinely espouse a commitment to equality, social justice, and human rights for all. Yet, according to Marc Lamont Hill and Mitchell Plitnick, many progressives in the United States do not apply these “universal humanistic values” in a “consistent manner” when it comes to Israel–Palestine. In their challenging new book, these coauthors explore this moral inconsistency among many U.S. progressives; ask their readers to take a closer, more critical look at the situation in Israel–Palestine; and make the case to reject all U.S. policies that financially, ideologically, or diplomatically support the Israeli system of apartheid within historic Palestine.
Their book is well-written and well-researched, yet I suspect it resonates so strongly with me because it parallels my own life experience. In my 2017 Pendle Hill pamphlet, Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions? A Quaker Zionist Rethinks Palestinian Rights, I detailed my own long-standing moral inconsistency of being a “progressive Zionist” (due to my horror at the Holocaust and antisemitism, which I still stand by) and my ignorance of the on-the-ground reality of the U.S./Israeli policies of ethnic cleansing, military occupation, and discrimination against Palestinians, which I now reject. Indeed, only after being pushed by progressive Jewish friends to look more critically at Zionist propaganda and its denial of Israel’s unjust treatment of Palestinians, and ultimately becoming willing to listen to the perspectives of Palestinian human rights activists, did I even begin to move toward a more balanced and ethical position.
Hill and Plitnick’s book may play the same role in the lives of other confused progressives who unwittingly support the U.S.-backed system of apartheid in Israel–Palestine, while also espousing “anti-racist, anti-imperialist, humanistic, and intersectional values.” In contrast to this morally muddled outlook, Hill and Plitnick urge people to reject both the apartheid status quo that oppresses Palestinians today as well as any vengeful or antisemitic fantasies like “the unthinkable annihilation” or “reprehensible ejection, of Israeli Jews.” A truly progressive stance, they argue, means working to create a liberating alternative embodying the principles of justice, equality, and human rights for all in Israel–Palestine.
The good news is that there are signs that this outlook appears to be growing among U.S. progressives. As the authors point out, for many decades “taking substantive action to pressure Israel into changing its behavior toward the Palestinians was the view of a small, fringe minority within the Democratic Party.”
Buy from QuakerBooks
People who consider themselves liberal or progressive routinely espouse a commitment to equality, social justice, and human rights for all. Yet, according to Marc Lamont Hill and Mitchell Plitnick, many progressives in the United States do not apply these “universal humanistic values” in a “consistent manner” when it comes to Israel–Palestine. In their challenging new book, these coauthors explore this moral inconsistency among many U.S. progressives; ask their readers to take a closer, more critical look at the situation in Israel–Palestine; and make the case to reject all U.S. policies that financially, ideologically, or diplomatically support the Israeli system of apartheid within historic Palestine.
Their book is well-written and well-researched, yet I suspect it resonates so strongly with me because it parallels my own life experience. In my 2017 Pendle Hill pamphlet, Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions? A Quaker Zionist Rethinks Palestinian Rights, I detailed my own long-standing moral inconsistency of being a “progressive Zionist” (due to my horror at the Holocaust and antisemitism, which I still stand by) and my ignorance of the on-the-ground reality of the U.S./Israeli policies of ethnic cleansing, military occupation, and discrimination against Palestinians, which I now reject. Indeed, only after being pushed by progressive Jewish friends to look more critically at Zionist propaganda and its denial of Israel’s unjust treatment of Palestinians, and ultimately becoming willing to listen to the perspectives of Palestinian human rights activists, did I even begin to move toward a more balanced and ethical position.
Hill and Plitnick’s book may play the same role in the lives of other confused progressives who unwittingly support the U.S.-backed system of apartheid in Israel–Palestine, while also espousing “anti-racist, anti-imperialist, humanistic, and intersectional values.” In contrast to this morally muddled outlook, Hill and Plitnick urge people to reject both the apartheid status quo that oppresses Palestinians today as well as any vengeful or antisemitic fantasies like “the unthinkable annihilation” or “reprehensible ejection, of Israeli Jews.” A truly progressive stance, they argue, means working to create a liberating alternative embodying the principles of justice, equality, and human rights for all in Israel–Palestine.
The good news is that there are signs that this outlook appears to be growing among U.S. progressives. As the authors point out, for many decades “taking substantive action to pressure Israel into changing its behavior toward the Palestinians was the view of a small, fringe minority within the Democratic Party.”
This minority is growing, however, and becoming much more mainstream within the grassroots of the Democratic Party, and its outlook is even growing among progressive elected officials in the U.S. Congress. A number of Independents also support this more consistent ethical framework. If this perspective continues to grow, the status quo in Israel–Palestine could ultimately change for the better. As the authors conclude: “We have seen how much influence the United States can wield in creating injustice. Now is the time to see how much power we have to dismantle it.”
For all its strengths, Hill and Plitnick’s book doesn’t articulate a detailed progressive vision for the future of Israel–Palestine beyond mentioning the possibilities of either a two-state or one-state solution.
For all its strengths, Hill and Plitnick’s book doesn’t articulate a detailed progressive vision for the future of Israel–Palestine beyond mentioning the possibilities of either a two-state or one-state solution.
The first alternative represents the long-standing international consensus that envisions a free and democratic Palestinian state made up of Gaza and the West Bank, with East Jerusalem as its capital. The vision includes this Palestinian state living in peace with an Israeli state that confines its population within its internationally recognized borders, which are those that existed before the state of Israel militarily occupied all of historic Palestine in 1967 and started illegally colonizing it by creating Jewish-only settlements. While resisted by both Israeli and Palestinian leaders committed to mutually exclusive ethno-nationalisms, such a two-state compromise would undoubtedly be more fair than the present apartheid status quo. For a time, it was also the preferred vision of both Palestinian and Israeli progressives.
This was certainly true of Jonathan Kuttab, the Palestinian human rights lawyer who headed the legal committee negotiating the Cairo Agreement between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization in the early 1990s. For years, Kuttab worked hard to envision and implement a two-state solution for Israel–Palestine that was consistent with this broad international consensus. As he puts it:
The outrages of the Holocaust and the desperate need of a Jewish population for a safe haven, which led to the creation and acceptance of the state of Israel, as well as the needs of the Palestinians for a state of their own both seem to be met by the two-state solution.
Kuttab’s position has shifted, however, and he has now joined other Palestinians, Israelis, and a growing number of U.S. Jews and others in supporting the even more progressive vision of a single democratic state in historic Palestine that guarantees religious liberty, equality, justice, and human rights for all Palestinians and Israeli Jews. In his new book Beyond the Two-State Solution, Kuttab details this more progressive vision of justice for all in Israel–Palestine. It is a vision worth considering.
For one thing, as Kuttab rightly notes, the decades-long expansion of U.S.-backed Jewish-only settlements in the occupied territories as well as Israel’s ultimate sovereignty over all of historic Palestine and its inhabitants have created “facts on the ground” that make the two-state solution increasingly impossible.
For another, such a solution doesn’t address the internationally recognized right of return for those Palestinians who were ethnically cleansed from what became Israeli territory after the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. These people were forced from their homes and land so that Israel could settle Jewish people there, and allowed to resettle only within the occupied territories of Gaza and the West Bank.
This was certainly true of Jonathan Kuttab, the Palestinian human rights lawyer who headed the legal committee negotiating the Cairo Agreement between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization in the early 1990s. For years, Kuttab worked hard to envision and implement a two-state solution for Israel–Palestine that was consistent with this broad international consensus. As he puts it:
The outrages of the Holocaust and the desperate need of a Jewish population for a safe haven, which led to the creation and acceptance of the state of Israel, as well as the needs of the Palestinians for a state of their own both seem to be met by the two-state solution.
Kuttab’s position has shifted, however, and he has now joined other Palestinians, Israelis, and a growing number of U.S. Jews and others in supporting the even more progressive vision of a single democratic state in historic Palestine that guarantees religious liberty, equality, justice, and human rights for all Palestinians and Israeli Jews. In his new book Beyond the Two-State Solution, Kuttab details this more progressive vision of justice for all in Israel–Palestine. It is a vision worth considering.
For one thing, as Kuttab rightly notes, the decades-long expansion of U.S.-backed Jewish-only settlements in the occupied territories as well as Israel’s ultimate sovereignty over all of historic Palestine and its inhabitants have created “facts on the ground” that make the two-state solution increasingly impossible.
For another, such a solution doesn’t address the internationally recognized right of return for those Palestinians who were ethnically cleansed from what became Israeli territory after the 1948 Arab–Israeli War. These people were forced from their homes and land so that Israel could settle Jewish people there, and allowed to resettle only within the occupied territories of Gaza and the West Bank.
Neither does the two-state solution deal with the ongoing discrimination against the Palestinians who still live in Israel. This small minority of the Israeli population is made up of those Palestinians who were not forced out of Israel in 1948. A single, democratic state in historic Palestine with guarantees of equality for all Palestinians and Israeli Jews might do a better job.
To flesh out this alternative, Kuttab outlines what he sees as the minimum necessary needs of both communities for security, equal rights, and democracy.
To flesh out this alternative, Kuttab outlines what he sees as the minimum necessary needs of both communities for security, equal rights, and democracy.
He then constructs a “vision for a new state that addresses the needs both of Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs.” There is not enough space here to explore Kuttab’s specific proposals for military security, public safety, religious liberty, desegregation, freedom of movement, reparations and compensation, or the “recognition of the historic and cultural connection of both Jews and Arabs to the Land.” We also don’t have the space to discuss the specific provisions he proposes for “an iron-clad constitution that is deliberately crafted to ensure majority rule, but which will safeguard basic freedoms of the individual, as well as minorities from the caprice of the majority.” Yet all of his proposals are visionary, ethically consistent, and worth debating and refining.
To his credit, Kuttab is wise enough to realize that “there will be those on both sides, not to mention numerous actors from outside the area, who will oppose this vision and work to prevent it from gaining any legitimacy or acceptance.” Yet he also argues that it may become the visionary alternative supported by more and more people of good will with a stake in a future of peace and justice for Israel–Palestine. I, for one, hope he is right.
Steve Chase is a member of Friends Meeting of Washington (D.C.) and the author of the book Letters to a Fellow Seeker: A Short Introduction to the Quaker Way (QuakerPress of Friends General Conference).
To his credit, Kuttab is wise enough to realize that “there will be those on both sides, not to mention numerous actors from outside the area, who will oppose this vision and work to prevent it from gaining any legitimacy or acceptance.” Yet he also argues that it may become the visionary alternative supported by more and more people of good will with a stake in a future of peace and justice for Israel–Palestine. I, for one, hope he is right.
Steve Chase is a member of Friends Meeting of Washington (D.C.) and the author of the book Letters to a Fellow Seeker: A Short Introduction to the Quaker Way (QuakerPress of Friends General Conference).
====
Except for Palestine: The Limits of Progressive Politics Hardcover – 26 April 2021
by Marc Lamont Hill (Author), Mitchell Plitnick (Author)
4.7 4.7 out of 5 stars 172 ratings
A bold call for the American Left to extend their politics to the issues of Israel-Palestine
argues that progressives and liberals who oppose regressive policies on immigration, racial justice, gender equality, LGBTQ rights, and other issues must extend these core principles to the oppression of Palestinians. In doing so, the authors take seriously the political concerns and well-being of both Israelis and Palestinians, demonstrating the extent to which U.S. policy has made peace harder to attain. They also unravel the conflation of advocacy for Palestinian rights with anti-Semitism and hatred of Israel.
Hill and Plitnick provide a timely and essential intervention by examining multiple dimensions of the Israeli-Palestinian conversation, including Israel’s growing disdain for democracy, the effects of occupation on Palestine, the siege of Gaza, diminishing American funding for Palestinian relief, and the campaign to stigmatize any critique of Israeli occupation. Except for Palestine is a searing polemic and a cri de coeur for elected officials, activists, and everyday citizens alike to align their beliefs and politics with their values.
Read less
Report incorrect product information.
Print length
240 pages
26 April 2021
Product description
Review
Praise for Except for Palestine:
Winner of the Palestine Book Awards" Counter Current Award
"A remarkable little book. . . . Except for Palestine should be read by anyone interested in events in Israel/Palestine--and obviously in particular, anyone claiming to be progressive and liberal."
--Palestine Chronicle
"[A] principled cri de coeur to progressives everywhere. . . . Except for Palestine is a crucial and ultimately hopeful tool that better equips progressives to combat injustices within their own political circles."
--Mondoweiss
"For too long, many have championed the rights and liberties of oppressed peoples here and abroad, but remained silent on Palestinian freedom, or even worse, supported U.S. policies that render Palestinian humanity and suffering invisible. This clear and courageous book is a clarion call for moral integrity and political consistency."
--Cornel West, Union Theological Seminary
"Hill and Plitnick deliver a thoughtful and incisive analysis of how progressive commitments to racial and social justice are undermined by the 'Palestinian exception.' Building the civil rights movement for the twenty-first century in America requires an international intersectionality that necessarily includes advocating for the rights and dignity of Palestinians and Israelis alike. Except for Palestine is timely and vital."
--Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib, Michigan's 13th Congressional District
"Except for Palestine calls on progressives to apply the same principles to Israel-Palestine that they apply to the U.S. It's a simple, radical, and deeply important argument, which anyone who cherishes justice should not ignore."
--Peter Beinart, author of The Crisis of Zionism
"Hill and Plitnick have produced a timely and powerful indictment of decades of U.S. policy exceptionalizing Israel at the expense of progressive values. Their thorough examination of American progressives' intellectual and moral hypocrisy when it comes to defending Palestinians' human rights, civil rights, and right to challenge Israeli occupation is a valuable resource."
--Lara Friedman, president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace
"This book explores some of the most fundamental contradictions confronting liberal spaces in the U.S. and makes a powerful case for the progressive core values of humanity, justice, and dignity to finally include the Palestinian people."
--Ahmad Abuznaid, executive director of the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights
"Except for Palestine cogently explores the reasons for the silence of so many progressives and liberals when it comes to the unceasing violations of the rights of the Palestinian people. Hill and Plitnick dismantle one by one the arguments used to justify this shameful silence, and in doing so provide an eloquent, balanced, and hard-hitting analysis of why ending an egregious exception to accepted norms of justice and equality is so imperative."
--Rashid Khalidi, author of Brokers of Deceit: How the U.S. Has Undermined Peace in the Middle East
"A timely and compelling treatise on the moral failings of U.S. policy and American politics in relation to Israel/Palestine."
--Khaled Elgindy, Responsible Statecraft
"An accessible, in-depth analysis that takes U.S. politics to task for normalising both Israel's colonial violence and, as a result, the oppression of the Palestinian people."
--Middle East Monitor
About the Author
Marc Lamont Hill is an award-winning journalist and the Steve Charles Professor of Media, Cities, and Solutions at Temple University. He is the author of multiple books, including the New York Times bestselling Nobody. He lives in Philadelphia.
is the president of ReThinking Foreign Policy and a frequent writer on the Middle East and U.S. foreign policy. He is the former vice president at the Foundation for Middle East Peace, director of the U.S. Office of B’Tselem, and co-director of Jewish Voice for Peace. He lives in Maryland.
Product details
Publisher : The New Press (26 April 2021)
Language : English
Hardcover : 240 pages
Customer Reviews: 4.7 4.7 out of 5 stars 172 ratings
About the author
Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.
======
Top reviews
Top reviews from Australia
There are 0 reviews and 0 ratings from Australia
Top reviews from other countries
T. Stone
5.0 out of 5 stars Logical arguments with factual back up
Reviewed in the United States on 22 April 2021
Verified Purchase
Extremely thorough and logical in terms of its review of both US policy on Israel as well as the role of US Zionist agenda. The reviews that give it 1 star I find to be disingenuous. One reviewer claims that this is not a good book, bc it doesn’t outline the atrocities from Iran or in Syria - that is totally disingenuous as a common what-about-ism that I hear from many folks who criticize an anti-Zionist state. The whole point of this book is that many progressives are progressive...except for Palestine. This book fully acknowledges that that Israel was created by western powers post holocaust, it does not lay “blame” to the Jewish people (in fact demonstrates many Zionists are in fact not Jewish also). Human rights abuses are regularly denounced everywhere; the concern here is that there appears to be a blind eye for progressives in particular (who are quick to denounce human rights abuses everywhere including in Saudi Arabia AND the United States) except for Palestine. BDS is another point brought up in a different review as anti-Semitic. The authors are clear that there has been laws in congress that were trying to be passed (by folks like Marc Rubio) to criminalize support for BDS. That is clearly against the first amendment and freedom of expression. The emphasis is not to make the US engage in BDS (it’s less than 1% of the Israel GDP and has a negligible impact in any case currently) but there are states and even potentially pushed federally to criminalize private company support for BDS, which is a totally different ballgame. I wonder if the 1 star reviewers actually read the book. I could go about and pick apart each of the arguments one by one in the other reviews, but to be honest, the 1 star reviews demonstrate CLEARLY one of the main theses in the book - that zionists oftentimes conflate anti-Zionism with anti-semitism and there is no distinction there. So if there is some type of pronouncement of solidarity with Palestinians (even in cases like Jewish voices for Peace, or Noam Chomsky or even Natalie Portman who herself is Israeli) there is a denouncement of anti-semitism or about “self-hating” Jewish people.
The authors are very clear in the first chapter that they believe there is a real uptick of anti-semitism, the massacres at synagogues and specific anti-Jewish rhetoric in places like Charlottesville clearly demonstrate that and the authors make it clear this is important to understand, be aware of and acknowledge. It’s unfortunate the folks yelling that these authors are bigoted and anti-Semitic failed to read the book and try to understand the perspective they were coming from.
Read less
29 people found this helpful
Report
M. A. Ahmed
4.0 out of 5 stars Clearly states the double standard the left and the US as a whole, as when it comes to Palestine
Reviewed in the United States on 6 September 2022
Verified Purchase
As the title implies, this is a comprehensive (at least as far as the last 20 or so years goes) discussion and explanation with defense, that even the most progressive group of politicians in the US, strongly side with the status quo when it comes to the subject of Palestine and it's inhabitants, while abiding by these principles in most if not all, other situations on the world scale. They don't stick to democratic or more importantly, human principles when it comes to this long-standing issue. Not only that, we see that the biased player, the US, actively tried and tries to undermine the rights of Palestinians, whether in public or behind the scenes when there are flare-ups in violence. A large part of the central argument that both conservatives and progressives use is Israel's "right to defend itself" without any regard for what happens to Palestinians. In fact, as Hill argues, this argument is quite an empty one.
Hopefully, if you pick up this book, you are someone with an open mind to accept the blatant facts of humanity and justice. Or maybe, you can let a friend who is willing to listen, borrow this book from you and spread the word, that this status quo, this double standard, needs to end if some progress is going to be made.
7 people found this helpful
Report
PsychMD
5.0 out of 5 stars Brilliant! Must read.
Reviewed in the United States on 18 May 2021
Verified Purchase
We already know Marc Lamont Hill is brilliant. CNN choosing to fire him after his factual remarks on Palestine-Israel at the UN was cowardly, shameful and ultimately their own loss. He proves his bold stance and displays his knowledge of facts and politics in this excellent book. Must read for anyone who is interested in learning real facts about this widely misrepresented topic that most are too afraid to broach.
8 people found this helpful
Report
Hussain Abdul-Hussain
1.0 out of 5 stars Needs serious fact-checking, gets the issue wrong
Reviewed in the United States on 19 February 2021
Verified Purchase
Marc Lamont Hill and Mitchell Plitnick think that America’s progressive movement cannot claim to “understand racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBTQIA hate, and other prejudices” without recognizing “how these systems of oppression inform our foreign policy.”
An end to oppression means that Iran should stop its racial discrimination against non-Persian minorities, including its four million Arabs. It also means an end to the world’s biggest genocide since WWII, in Syria, where Bashar Assad has not only attacked Syrians with chemical weapons, but also thrown barrel bombs on their hospitals, schools and bakeries, and displaced over five million of them, embarking on a campaign of ethnic cleansing and demographic change. But this injustice is not in the book. Instead, Hill and Plitnick argue that “a progressive political outlook — one rooted in anti-racist, anti-imperialist, humanistic, and intersectional values,” means that America “must begin to prioritize the freedom, dignity, and self-determination of Palestinians.”
Ending the unethical Israeli military rule of Palestinians in the West Bank is important, but the problem should be put in context. Compare Israel’s killing of 27 of the six million Palestinians, in 2020, to the 198 homicides in DC, where only half a million people live. In Syria, over 1,500 non-combatants were killed during the same year. While every death is horrible, the Israeli Palestinian conflict does not look as pressing.
Hill and Mitchell describe their book, Except for Palestine, as a “major work of daring criticism and analysis,” one that targets US “elected officials, activists and average citizens.” The authors claim that their goal is to correct America’s “Orientalist perceptions.” Yet it is hard to find any Arabic or Hebrew sources in their endnotes. The book could also use fact-checking. For example, the authors argue that the Israelis agreed to peace talks with Palestinians only after fearing that President George HW Bush had opened secret channels with late Palestinian President Yasser Arafat.
But in reality, it was the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990, and that of Arafat’s regional ally Saddam Hussein of Iraq, a year later, that weakened Arafat and made him sue for peace. At first, the Israelis did not reciprocate. When Bush organized the Madrid Peace Conference, the Palestinians were not invited because Israel’s Right wing government refused to recognize the existence of the Palestinian people. But when the Left won Israel’s election and Bill Clinton succeeded Bush in America, Israel took Arafat’s hand and jointly produced the Oslo Peace Accord in 1993.
The book has other mistakes. It claims that America introduced the “language of (Palestinian) recognition (of Israel)” for the first time “in the mid-1970s.” In reality, after Egypt’s Gamal Abdul-Nasser lost the 1967 War to Israel, he retaliated with the Khartoum Peace conference, in which the Arab League issued its famous “Three No’s” statement that said “no reconciliation, no recognition, and no negotiations” with Israel. Nasser then sponsored the “War of Attrition,” and the rise of armed Palestinian non-state actors, the most famous of which was Arafat. The goal was to destroy Israel and replace it with Palestine. This is why “recognition” became the cornerstone of any peace settlement.
Oslo’s two-state solution was not invented by Arafat. At the Arab League summit in Fez, Morocco, in 1981, Saudi Arabia first proposed that if Israel withdraws to its internationally recognized borders of 1948, the Arab countries will sign on peace and normalization. The league’s summit in Beirut, in 2002, reiterated the Arab commitment to peace, as approved by Arafat, then under siege in Ramallah. Radical Arab regimes, like Assad and Saddam, tweaked the Arab Peace Initiative by adding an article that demanded Israel to allow the return of the 1948 refugees, not to the future Palestinian state, but to Israel. Hence — per the initiative — there would be two states: One Arab and the other half-Arab half-Jewish. Assad and Saddam made sure that the initiative would be unacceptable to Israel and that wars, which they thrive on, will continue.
The book makes the return of 1948 Palestinians a non-negotiable right, which is presumably enshrined in UN Resolution 194. But do not expect the authors to explain that 194 was approved by the UN General Assembly (UNGA), whose resolutions — unlike those of the UN Security Council (UNSC) — are non-binding.
Hill and Plitnick also argue that “ignoring the right of return is impractical.” But in reality, it is return that is impractical, or near impossible. In 1948, the Palestinians who left Israel were 750,000. Seventy-two years later, they number some five million. Moving those into Israel is not only a logistical ordeal, but millions flooding into any state would shake it, or even force it to collapse.
A more “practical” step would be a land and population swap within the two state solution to ensure that one state is only Arab, without Jewish settlers, and the other is only Jewish, without Arab-Israelis. Such swap is currently demanded by far Right Israelis, and hence anathematized.
However, it sounds more practical than exchanging 10 million people, given that Jewish Arabs would have to make space for the returning Palestinians, and would have to abandon the democratic state of Israel, where they enjoy full rights, and go to countries where their ancestors came from — such as Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon and Syria — and where they would live as minorities in non-democracies, with minimal rights.
Without polls to substantiate its claim, the book says that “Palestinians are not seeking resettlement, but repatriation to the land that was taken from their families in 1948 and 1967.” Had Hill and Plitnick had a whiff of exposure to Palestinians outside their “binational state” circle of Palestinian Americans, they might have learned that most Palestinians have settled wherever they ended up in 1948.
In her interview with a Palestinian who lives in the Yarmouk refugee camp in Syria, Anaheed Al-Hardan quotes Palestinian Syrian Hassan Hassan as saying this: “I love it [Yarmouk Camp] a lot. I love its details. I love living in it. I don’t know why. I hope to never leave it, I hope to remaining (sic) living in it. I hope my circumstances become better and I remain living in it. I only want to remain living in this place.”
Perhaps Diaspora Palestinians do not open up to Americans, even anti-Israel ones like Hill and Plitnick. But when Arabs talk amongst themselves, it becomes clear that — like Syrians, Iraqis and other Arab refugees who resettled in their new countries — 1948 Palestinians have moved on.
Unlike what the book says, Israel is not a state “that privileges Jews.” It is a state created by the Jews, for the Jews, in a world where ethnic states are the norm, not the exception. The authors argue that in “Israel, the assault on Palestinian identity has intensified.” But even in the coveted Nordic countries, naturalization requires passing tests that certify fluency in the Danish language, culture and history. Naturalized Danes, even those who maintain their heritage, pledge allegiance to the flag, which is what Arab-Israeli Palestinians do not do, and rather mix between their legitimate insistence on keeping their Arab heritage and their unacceptable demand of using their heritage as a political identity, which would undermine the Israeli-ness of the state.
Hill and Plitnick probably want to be fair. After all, there are hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who live in miserable conditions because of a conflict that Israel has been part of. Yet it is a conflict that Israel cannot solve alone, without a Palestinian will to preserve Jewish sovereignty in Israel, while simultaneously constructing Arab sovereignty in Palestine next to it. Raising maximalist demands, like Palestinian return to Israel, and describing them as inalienable rights, will only prolong the conflict.
Hill and Plitnick tried to explain “Palestine,” but instead ended up offering one radical Palestinian view. Perhaps if they were not aliens to the Middle East, they would have had a better understanding of the conflict, and of what Palestinians want. They would have also known that the Dome of the Rock is not a “place where, as recounted in the Quran, Muhammad ascended to heaven.” The Quran does not say Muhammad ascended anywhere. If Hill and Plitnick could not get the Quran right, what else on Israel and Palestine did they get wrong?
Read less
68 people found this helpful
Report
LWS
5.0 out of 5 stars Brilliant, Cogent and Meticulously Cited Analysis
Reviewed in the United States on 29 May 2021
Verified Purchase
This book is a must-read for anyone who wants to understand what’s behind the news headlines in Israel and the Palestinian Territories and for anyone who wants to understand America’s role in the violence. Plitnick and Hill’s book is meticulously and painstakingly cited with hundreds of footnotes and references. It’s dispassionate and factual. It provides an accurate portrayal free from prejudice or preconception. I recommend it wholeheartedly.
6 people found this helpful
Report
See more reviews
====
Displaying 1 - 10 of 148 reviews
Sleepless Dreamer
865 reviews261 followers
Follow
June 8, 2021
Marc Lamont Hill's I/P conflict takes are usually tone-deaf so my hopes for this book were low but this wasn’t as bad as other stuff he's said in the past. I'll start off with some general comments before getting into everything, let’s go!
Except for Palestine claims that American progressives treat Palestinians exceptionally by allowing unprogressive policy towards them. However, when I think about the entire MENA region and American policy, it seems progressives pay more attention to the I/P conflict than to other conflicts. Not updated to 2021, but who's really exceptional here for progressives?
Either way, approaching American policy in regards to I/P without discussing American policy in the Middle East seems wrong. America doesn't inherently care about the lives of Palestinians or Israelis. This is about power, it's about Russia and China and Iran. It's about the Cold War and radical Islam and imperialism and oil and capitalism. Which, okay, Israel gains by being "on America's side" in the Middle East but analyzing American foreign policy about I/P without looking at the broader connection to the Middle East seems misleading and methodologically flawed. Why is support for Israel mostly bi-partisan? That can't be answered without looking at American interests in the entire MENA region.
Beyond this, it's unclear who’s the target audience. It seems like it's meant for American progressives who don't know much about Palestine but the authors assume much prior knowledge. How many Americans know what big historical event happened in 1973, what the second intifada was and why Oslo failed? Heck, how many know where the Golan is?
For those who are familiar with the conflict, this book just doesn't say much. I honestly expected the takes here to be spicier (like Hill’s interviews). This is as bland as Democrat economic policy. My Shabbat dinners have edgier takes.
As always, it becomes painfully clear that Israelis weren't really spoken to. So here I am, ready to explain what this book misses, chapter by chapter (there are only four so it’s feasible). Putting it in spoiler tags to make it more organized!
Israel's Right to Exist
Essentially, the argument in this chapter is that Israel's demand of Palestinians to recognize its existence is merely a tool in order to avoid solutions and is unfair towards Palestinians.
As they write, we must define what recognizing Israel means. Truly, it's not about recognizing that Israel exists (cause you know, it simply does) or about rights to Israelis. The authors conclude that it's about legitimizing Israel's behavior towards Palestinians.
I disagree (of course I do). Take a look at Fatah's insignia or every Palestinian tiktok where they delete Israel off the map. Recognizing Israel means recognizing that Jews have a claim to the land too. It means recognizing that Israel, as a Jewish country, has a right to exist. Not that it exists, but that it should exist. The recognition of Israel is meant to be a promise of coexistence which is essential for a two-state solution.
Are there issues with a Jewish country? Sure. Such issues need to be resolved (equal funding, recognition of non-Orthodox Judaism, fighting racism, etc). However, just as America's systematic racism doesn't mean America should cease to exist, the line between criticizing Israel's politics and claiming the country itself isn't legitimate is precisely why this gets spoken about.
They ask why Israel is so invested in getting recognition from Palestinians and no one else, almost as if there isn't, you know, a conflict going on. I don't care if Malaysia doesn't recognize Israel because there isn't a conflict.
Recognizing Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state doesn't take away the Palestinian right for a Palestinian state to exist. It is through such acknowledgements that some kind of co-living can begin. Which is why Israel recognized the PLO in return for the PLO's recognition of Israel. What were they expecting? For the IDF to disband cause wow, Palestinians recognize Israel?
Americans should ask themselves what can be done to further mutual recognition, rather than claim that recognition isn't important. The lack of recognition flows both ways ("Israelis are European colonizers", "Palestinians are just Arabs") and it is equally harmful. If we don't believe the other side deserves to live here, how can we live together?
Criminalizing BDS
I didn't disagree with everything that was written here, it's a miracle! Clearly, the hasbara has stopped working (whoever translated hasbara as propaganda has a very weak grasp on Hebrew and I hate that it's become a given that that's what it means).
So this chapter claims that criminalizing BDS is wrong because BDS isn't run by a foreign country but by civil society. Additionally, the authors try to claim that BDS is merely trying to fight for equal rights. Supporters of Israel dislike it because it raises uncomfortable questions.
So I fully agree that criminalizing BDS isn't right. As a progressive, I do believe people can do whatever they want with their money- it's not up to the state to decide. Moreover, fighting BDS through the court is not the way to go. We shouldn't silence those who challenge us but face them (I got a BDS supporter the other day to say that she's equally against a Palestinian country so I'm definitely spending my study time right).
I have an actual list of reasons why BDS is problematic but the character limit is a thing so I'll sum it up by saying that BDS is problematic because it (1) fails to fight against antisemitism done in its name (2) negatively impacts people living in the land by taking jobs away from Palestinians and hurting the weakest in Israeli society (3) doesn't offer any kind of feasible solution that could work and (4) hurts the ability of Israelis and Palestinians to lead the way together.
The authors don't discuss these points because it would force them to acknowledge that BDS isn't black and white. It's not just a civil rights movement and there are valid reasons for Israeli opposition that aren't just "nooo, don't talk about Palestinians".
American Policy
This chapter lacks content the most. The argument is that Trump's Israel/Palestine policy changes weren't a big change from other American politicians, they were just less subtle. From moving the embassy to viewing the Golan as part of Israel, there is bipartisan support.
However, this feels like beating around the bush. I don't care where the embassy is (though, ugh, Tel Aviv) or if America recognizes the Golan. This isn't the heart of anything, it’s just pure politics.
I don't know what America could actually do to further reconciliation. I'm more of a Politics than an International Relations kind of guy. However, symbolic changes aren't it. At a guess, I'd say putting pressure on Israel and Palestine to get the Palestinian leadership problem solved, furthering Israeli-Palestinian cooperation in civil society (and not just conflict based), letting go of the two-state plan, throwing away the one-state plan and starting new peace talks with new solutions (*cue me screaming, "CONFEDERATION!!!!!).
Heck, more deliberative democracy and power to civilians. Small steps, rather than big grandiose plans. Have a constant back-up plan for when things inevitably go wrong. Accept that trust will have to be built slowly. Get the people of each society on board, rather than the politicians. Recognize that we are traumatized and skeptical of foreign involvement. There is much that can be done and none of it is being done by pro-Palestine or pro-Israel foreign activists.
On the Golan, briefly. The Golan is 1,800 square kms, smaller than West Sussex or the Virgin Islands. On the very long list of problems Syria has, is this really the hill American foreign policy should die on? It's like how Assad recently assured Syrians that he won't make peace with Israel or legalize gay marriage, as if that's what Syrians care about right now. Yeah, it sucks that Syria lost wars with Israel but you'll forgive me for not particularly feeling sad that they lost a bit of land and weren't willing to discuss any kind of resolution with Israel (fun fact, the Wikipedia page for Syria-Israel independent peace efforts include Israel's 2000 Eurovision entry, I kid you not).
And a word on UNRWA. I will never ever speak against helping refugees. That said, UNRWA's inability to help refugees get settled seems counteractive. I'd like to believe one day an Israeli leader and a Palestinian leader will sit at the table and talk about the Right of Return but with how things look now, that day seems so far and in the meantime, these people continue to live in refugee camps. It is bizarre that these organizations have a political interest to keep their refugee status as descendants, that finding these people homes isn't a top priority. Everyone is tossing around responsibility and ultimately, UNRWA seems to be keeping things as is, rather than fixing the lives of those they claim to help.
Ultimately, Jerusalem, UNRWA, the Golan, they're all just symbolic, it's bandaids on a gun wound. Not giving UNRWA funds won't solve the refugee problem. Moving the embassy won't solve the Jerusalem problem (what can we do, Jerusalem is so great that everyone wants it). Sure, it's for the "Israeli side" but in the long run, it's for no one. Let's stop framing this as "Israel vs Palestine" and start considering what's good for all of us.
Gaza
This chapter is the best written. The authors describe the history of Gaza, from the Egyptian occupation to the disengagement plan to Cast Lead and Protective Edge (all the operation names sound cooler in Hebrew ngl, I would not translate eitan as protective).
On a public policy level, this chapter is unfair (look at me talking about public policy instead of writing the report that I very much have to hand in, anyway, don't do internships, kids). When we're discussing policy, analysis can't be so biased. We should separate the facts from their motive and from their various impacts.
For example, the Gaza disengagement plan. It is a fact that Israel unilaterally dismantled all settlements and stepped out of the land. Did Sharon do it as a step for peace or because he was setting Palestinians up for failure? That's analyzing the motives and can't be portrayed as a yes or no question, as they do. Was it a good idea? That's a normative question and requires looking at the impact for everyone.
Things in Gaza are not good, despite how wild it is to see YouTube videos like this one. However, the issues Gaza faces are beyond the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If I have to pick a field in Economics, def going with Development Economics to understand how a country gets back on its feet. It's nice to say that if Israel were to open the border, Gaza would be okay but this is naïve. Gaza is systematically struggling and requires a rebuilding of everything from the ground up, from the leadership to the economics, this is not just Israel's doing.
As a side note, why was the great march of return frightening for Israelis? Is it because of Israeli fear of the Right of Return, as they claim? Take a look at the map and you can see that right next to Gaza's border, you have civilians. Now, during those marches, you had as many as 50,000 people. Israel may have used too much force but let's not pretend those 50,000 people weren't any kind of threat. I shudder to think of what would happen if 50,000 Mexicans tried walking towards the US border, even if it was fully peaceful (which the march of return was not).
Conclusion
They sum up the book by saying that it is changing and that Republicans are now more "Pro-Israel" while Democrats are more "Pro-Palestinian". A mere page before the authors point out that Israeli policy in Gaza hasn't been helpful for anyone. Now, if policy making hasn't been good for all of us, not just Palestinians perhaps it's time to let go of "Pro-Palestinian" and "Pro-Israeli" and start adopting the mindset that there can be solutions that are pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian.
Republicans and Democrats turning this into a partisan issue is dangerous for us all. (At this point my Palestinian friends would probably say that no one in the American political scene truly represents their interests, even Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib). To me, it feels like Americans almost turn this into a sporting event, a competition. It is not Israelis who wave the Israeli flag in radical right wing rallies and it is not Palestinians who vandalize synagogues with "Free Palestine". We should not be a foreign background for American inner struggles.
They criticize the idea that Palestinian rights must be defended because it'll be better for Israelis. And yeah, sure, everyone deserves equal rights as a means to its own end but the idea here is that Palestinians and Israelis are intertwined. There is no Palestinian liberation without Israeli liberation. Our economies, our history, the environment, the culture, we share so much so it's in all of our benefits when things improve.
Finally, they offer the usual empty ideas. Ending the blockade on Gaza and ceasing settlements. Wow. Insightful. Truly, none of us have thought about this before. Thank you, Americans, for showing us Middle-Easterners the light (how obvious is it that I'm really angry and horrified at what the US is doing in Afghanistan right now).
Here's my take on this: both the 1947 and the 1967 borders mean nothing. Clearly, both Israelis and Palestinians aren't on board with them. We must acknowledge that there is a Jewish/Israeli claim to Hebron, just like there's a Palestinian claim to Acre. With this in mind, our thinking can't be about drawing borders but rather about building a political system that gives each people sovereignty and allows for people to settle everywhere. Basically, both the one-state and the two-state solution aren't going to be enough. We need to stop fooling ourselves and start looking at reality lucidly.
In conclusion, can the British come back?
What I'm Taking With Me
- they also blame Israel for the bad relations with various Arab countries?? Tell me, what has Israel done to Libya? The Arab League has been boycotting Israel far before the 1967 occupation and frankly, doesn’t care about Palestinians.
- Also, it's pretty much a given that Israel cooperates with Egypt and Jordan far more than is publicly known.
- I like writing these long reviews cause looking back at this is going to be a lot of fun. Also, way better than doing math.
- I suspect Plitnick reined in some of Hill's ideas and added the academic nuances.
- I wonder if anyone got through reading the entire review and if one day I'll work in politics and feel everything here is wrong.
63 likes
Like
Comment
Kevin
533 reviews115 followers
Follow
August 11, 2021
“U.S. policy in Israel-Palestine rests upon decades of decisions that have been supported, either through active endorsement or silent complicity, by the American Left. No American president has been an exception in this regard.” (pg 8)
Hill and Plitnick are obviously writing to a well informed demographic in the U.S. which, I’m sorry to say, is very, very small. This book, as wonderfully written as it is, seems to be anchored on two rather shaky assumptions. The first is that the average American has at least a rudimentary knowledge of Israel’s socio-economic framing and, secondly, that American support for Israel comes from a place of empathy and Semitic concern. I’m not sure either of those suppositions are entirely accurate.
There are, however, two important points that Hill, Plitnick, and I agree on. The first is that, when it comes to support for the Palestinian people, the American far-right is a lost cause. The second point of congruence is that liberal and progressive Americans have been shamefully apathetic.
“With the rise of anti-Semitism in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere, Jewish people everywhere need and deserve solidarity with liberals to survive. But if that solidarity comes at the expense of another people, it is ultimately self-defeating.” (pg 158)
goodreads-giveaways history non-fiction
...more
30 likes
Like
Comment
BooksAmyRead
74 reviews30 followers
Follow
December 8, 2020
I had the chance to read an advanced copy of this book thanks to #netgalley and I'm so thankful I did. The book is so well researched, straight to the point and asks the most daring of questions; why is it that the liberals of the US, both private citizens and public officials alike, call for justice and peace everywhere in the world "Except for Palestine". Why is it that when it comes to the lives and basic human rights of Palestinians does the world suddenly turn a blind eye? My personal opinion is that Israel can give master classes in spinning realities and controlling the public narrative but after reading the book you may have your own opinions on the subject but one thing is for sure, it won't leave you indifferent to the topic. This book forms a bold call to action, a wake up call of sorts, to the realities of people who were made into refugees on their own land. Hats off to Marc and Mitchell on this work!
28 likes
Like
Comment
Tara
571 reviews8 followers
Follow
October 18, 2023
Longer review to come but everyone should read this, it’s short, concise, but super informative.
This is a great introduction and overview of how the United States is heavily involved in relations between Israel and Palestine, presented by showing how progressives abandon their principles when it comes to Palestine. This isn't a comprehensive history of relations, but it's a concise look at some of the main areas where progressives would normally support Palestine, but instead agree with the conservative view.
The main areas the book looks at: 1. The Right to Exist- a really great look at the issue inherent in arguing over Israel's right to exist and demands that Palestine recognize it. 2. Criminalizing BDS- an overview on how the boycott movement has escalated to criminalizing it which is at odds with progressive values and freedom of speech. 3. Trumped Up Policy- an overview of the damage Trump did in office, but how it wasn't actually a departure from previous Presidents. 4. The Crisis in Gaza- an overview of how progressives have abandoned the humanitarian crisis for years- very informative on how we got to where we are today, sadly.
All of these chapters give a overview of relations and the heavy US involvement and explain a lot of talking points that are brought up when people argue about Israel and Palestine. And it lays out how progressives SHOULD support Palestinian rights based on their supposed values as progressives.
This book is only 158 pages and it really packs in a lot of information, but it's concise and direct- while that can get a bit info dump, it really can get you up to speed on a lot of history in a short time so I highly recommend picking this up. It's written by Marc Lamont Hill who is a journalist and Mitchell Plitnick who used to be a co-director of Jewish Voice for Peace.
I listened to the audiobook on scribd and followed along to highlight in my physical copy. The audiobook is read by Paul Boehmer- who I guess does a lot of audiobook work, but I did struggle with his robotic narration and was glad to have the physical book to go with.
2023 audiobooks non-fiction
16 likes
Like
Comment
David Wineberg
Author 2 books747 followers
Follow
April 11, 2022
The Palestinians have been refugees for so long, the world has tired of them and pays no attention to their plight. People may be shocked at the treatment of the Rohingya expelled from Burma, or the innumerable escapees from various African horrors, everyone trying desperately to get into Europe, with little or no success. And lately, the Ukrainians have taken top of mind as the latest collection of millions looking to flee a tyrant. The Palestinian problem is an old story, seemingly without solution, but is in many ways worse than the others. Marc Lamont Hill and Mitchell Plitnick try to renew the Palestinians' place in our psyche with their book Except For Palestine.
It is a largely straightforward and top-line history of the founding of Israel and the roadkill that has become the fate of the natives, the Palestinians. It breaks neatly into four chapters, which are telling all by themselves. The first wraps and warps the world around Israel's neurotic "right to exist", which does not apply to Palestine. The second follows the global movement of boycotts, which, naturally are antisemitic despite all logic, law and human rights. The boycotts are often uniquely outlawed by one-of-a-kind laws for that reason. The third collects the madness of the Trump era. It was when all progress was ditched in favor of the US embassy moving to Jerusalem and all pretense of the occupied territories ever returning to their owners evaporated in the desert heat. Lastly, the current state of affairs, as bad and worse than it has ever been, with the usual political hypocrisy stalling any kind of solution at all.
At first, in 1948, the Palestinians were shuffled off their properties and gathered in what amounted to refugee camps in their own lands. As time went on, they lost more and more rights - the right to travel in Israel and visit family, the right to work there, the right to any kind of quality of life and the right to negotiate a free and fair conclusion to their plight. Today, they are worse off than ever, and as long as Israel is sitting across the table with the USA behind it, it will never be resolved.
It might be hard to swallow, but the Palestinians have been in a refugee camp called Gaza for 70 years now. Whole generations have come and gone, lived and died there, unable to go anywhere else. They are stateless, without passports, and no one speaks for them, supports them or is allied with them. From tens of thousands in 1948, there are now about two million in Gaza, in what is always in the top three most densely populated places on Earth (11,702 per square mile - compared to less than 300 for the rest of Israel).
Unemployment is 50%. Only 4% of the water is drinkable. Electricity is rationed for four hours a day. Every time they build up the infrastructure, the Israelis smash it. Every time the United Nations passes a resolution condemning Israel for this treatment of innocent bystanders, it simply ignores it. With solid backing from America, they have no fear. The USA has vetoed 44 resolutions calling Israel to let those people go. And many more have never made it to the voting stage because of the foregone conclusion.
The original problem still holds: to Israelis, this is a zero-sum game, the authors say. Any rights the Palestinians have mean less rights for Israelis. So all rights must be taken away from the natives in order for Israelis to be free. Just this year, it downgraded Arabic from its standing as equally important as Hebrew. Those Palestinians not in the camps are second class citizens in their country. They can be removed from their lands at any time, in favor of Israeli settlers. It is as bad as what America did to its indigenous peoples, isolating them and pushing them away. There is an odious correlation between the two. Others compare it to Apartheid. Both are apt and accurate comparisons in their own way.
The book recounts various failures over the decades, each one a setback for the Palestinians, who call the advent of the Israelis the Nakba - the Disaster. Some of them still hold onto the keys to their old homes in the pointless hope they will be allowed to return and pick up where they left off. The trends and events covered include the infighting among political factions of the Palestinians, borne of the frustration of getting absolutely nowhere regardless of who represents them. Whether they represent peace talks or violence, the result is the same - fewer rights for Palestinians.
On the Israeli side, the oft-ruling Likud Party has a plank in its platform strictly against giving the Palestinians their own state. This despite the public mouthings of its leaders claiming to support it (because the USA requires it). This is why it goes precisely nowhere.
It is also redolent of the mouthings by lawmakers regarding nuclear weapons. "Everyone knows" Israel has nuclear weapons, but no one is allowed to say so (though it slips out from time to time) because of an American law forbidding aid to nations harboring nuclear weapons. It often seems the whole country is built on deceit. With Palestinians at the bottom.
Palestinians cling to UN principles, treaties and rules like Human Rights and the Right of Return, which Israel will do everything in its power to prevent, because it might diminish the colonizers as a Jewish nation-state. The Israelis consider peaceful co-existence too much of a gamble and it is out of the question. So what else is there? For Israel it seems to be a matter of keeping everyone caged, shrinking their space and rights, and hoping the world is too weary to care. So far so good.
Taking a small step towards showing their real opinions, the authors discuss the constant bleating by Israel for everyone to acknowledge its right to exist. No other nations do this, even under fire. It is self-obvious, they say, that countries have the right to exist. But insecure Israel is forever demanding that Palestinians formally agree, and keep requiring it over and over as part of every discussion or negotiation. Failure to agree can get the other party branded as antisemitic. The authors label this a set-up and intellectually dishonest. It reminds me of white women breaking down in tears when accused of racism. That too, works.
There is a by now old saying that Capitol Hill is Israeli-Occupied Territory. It was never more the case than when Trump was president. Not only did he move the American embassy to Jerusalem, but he blessed Israel's permanent takeover of the Golan Heights, which belong to Syria. Naturally, the Israelis moved right in. (Not to put too fine a point on it, the Israelis immediately built a suburban community in the Golan Heights, called Ramat Trump - Trump Heights - and the US Ambassador inaugurated it.) For good measure, Trump cancelled food and social services aid to Palestinians while increasing military aid to Israel. Whatever became of the Palestinians, Trump obviously did not care. Then, at the end of his term, Trump's son-in-law published his long-awaited roadmap to peace in the middle east. It basically gave Israel everything it wanted, and gave nothing at all to the Palestinians. The best that can be said about the roadmap is that it has been entirely forgotten. It neatly wrapped up the anarchy of the Trump presidency.
So while Except for Palestine might seem biased, the truth is it has been a linear one-way slide to oblivion. There have been no bright spots, no reversals of fortune, no rights recovered thanks to some enlightened leader. There have been none. It is a constant beating, and the book reflects it well.
David Wineberg
15 likes
Like
Comment
Wick Welker
Author 6 books396 followers
Follow
February 23, 2022
Israel is an apartheid state.
There is much to be said about Israel and Palestine. It's not a battle that's been raging for hundreds of years but only since the 1940s. There are many interested parties, ideologies, religions and view points in looking at the conflict. If you are to truly step back and consider the problem from an objective stand point I think the conclusion is unassailable: Israel is an apartheid state. Palestinians live in an open air prison in Gaza and are victims of crimes against humanity. That's all there is to it. The Israeli government enjoys broad control over the Palestinians and does so with impunity because fo the direct support of the US government. The US and Israel share similar features in that they can act unilaterally, breaking international law, and pay exactly zero consequences.
This book covers a lot you need to know if you're not familiar: The Oslo Accord, The Antifadas, The BDS boycott movements, the propaganda of Israel to constantly victimize itself and we get commentary up to Trump stating Jerusalem as its capital.
Please read this and other books like it. Abject human rights violations are happening in Israel while the entire world looks away. History will not be kind to the current Israeli government.
nonfiction nonfiction-favorites politics
...more
13 likes
Like
Comment
Traci Thomas
610 reviews10.6k followers
Follow
October 26, 2023
I learned a lot here but found the audio narrator very boring and took me out of the book. It’s pretty academic and struggled a bit to keep track of every person, location, and event.
11 likes
Like
Comment
Carolynn Jimenez
27 reviews21 followers
Follow
May 13, 2021
This book is not comprehensive, but if you are looking for something that gets to the point and want to know more about the occupation of Palestine, this is the right book for you. It’s 4 chapters, and each one will give you pretty salient takeaways. The last chapter on Trump’s foreign policy is worth it alone.
10 likes
Like
Comment
charlotte (moerreads)
150 reviews
Follow
March 2, 2021
EXCEPT FOR PALESTINE
Thank you to @thenewpress for the #gifted ARC!
Whenever someone asks “what’s the deal with Israel & Palestine?” I have always responded (somewhat cheekily) “do you have ten hours?” It’s always felt important to give people the history so they can fully grasp how we got to where we are. & no, not “they’ve been fighting over this for 3,000 years” history (anyone who tells you that the two don’t get along because of ‘ancient religious feuds’ should not be listened to) but rather “we need to go back to 1896, 1917, or at least 1948” history.
With this, however, Hill & Plitnick have made my answer a lot simpler. Never, and I mean never, in the seven years I’ve been learning about this topic have I read something as concise & razor-sharp as the scholarship in these 158 pages.
The beauty of this book is that you don’t *need* to know about the roots of Zionism or the details of the 1967 & 1973 wars (though it helps for sure) to recognize the single most important fact: Palestinians deserve equal rights & justice because everyone deserves equal rights & justice. & further, it is high time that people who champion these ideals stop pretending that Palestine can be the exception; there is simply no excuse. In a world where the left is fighting for LGBTQ+ rights, Indigenous land, the climate, racial equity & more, we cannot possibly continue to uphold this violent contradiction in leaving out Palestine.
This is not a “congrats, you’re liberal” feel-good text. It is a necessary reckoning with US actions & complicity--from leaders & citizens on the right & left--in the protracted suffering of Palestinians.
The book is divided into four highly accessible topics: nationalism & the demand on Palestinians to affirm Israel’s right to exist, the Boycott, Divest & Sanction (BDS) movement & the fight to criminalize it, US policy toward Palestine over time, and the crisis in Gaza.
8 likes
Like
Comment
Becca
22 reviews9 followers
Follow
June 2, 2021
Marc Lamont Hill and his co-author might claim to be "progressive" - except they aren’t when it comes to Palestine. Then they become a reactionaries. The central thesis of the book is bait and switch.
The book begins with a checklist of items for progressives, opposition to “racism, sexism, religious bigotry, anti-LGBTQIA hate... “. The problem – the society they are attacking, Israel, opposes these prejudices, and the one he is defending, Palestine, maintains them. Queer Palestinians, facing death threats from relatives at home, flock to progressive Israel for sanctuary. Israel is a democracy as its many elections and political parties can attest to. Hill falsely claims that it is not. Not only is it a democracy at the top level, that democracy extends to below the municipal level to a high degree of participation in community councils The last Palestinian election was in 2007 and was marked by members of Fatah and Hamas throwing each other off of rooftops in Gaza.
Progressives support giving refugees asylum and citizenship. But when it comes to Palestinians living in refugee camps in Arab countries for several generations they switch gears and advocate “sending them back where their ancestors came from”, rather than integration into the countries in which they were born.
Palestinian President-For-Life, Mahmoud Abbas is now in the 14th year of a 4 year term and, along with his cronies rules the Palestinian Authority, which is a cover for Fatah. The EU funded parliament building in Abu Dis, as AFP reported last year, lies most empty. For those unfamiliar with the geography of Jerusalem, and Hill can count himself in among them, this location, first proposed by Palestinian ally Saudi Arabia 2 decades ago is the same distance from Al Aqsa/the Temple Mount as the Knesset is, but in the opposite direction. Where do they expect the capital to be built – in the Old City on top of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre or in the Jewish or Armenian Quarters? Or perhaps inside the Al Aqsa Mosque or the Dome of the Rock?
They also falsely claim that the move of America’s embassy and official recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital “caused great controversy”. It didn’t. The Washington Post and New York Times wrote a couple of editorials as did the Guardian. Abbas threatened Arab uprisings across the middle east. No one cared. The PA got a few dozen people to rally in Ramallah. Hamas "Great March" was unrelated - it started several months earlier.
Like the PA, Gaza has been ruled by Hamas’s inner circle which decides their own leadership, sans vox populi. Both are guided by Sharia Law, the PA by Basic Law #4 which also enshrines Arabic (and only Arabic) as the official language, and Hamas by their 1988 Covenant and by their 2017 “new charter” which still calls for the destruction of Israel through violent struggle. In contrast Israel’s framework of Basic Laws are secular in nature and enshrine both Hebrew and Arabic as official languages.
Hill and Plitnick expect an eventual Palestinian state to be both democratic and secular, respecting the rights of women, LGBTQ+ people and minorities. This doesn’t happen elsewhere in the Middle East which is largely governed by conservative Islamic views, and is not matched by polls conducted by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research. If it was going to happen then it would have happened already, and it hasn’t. As oppressive as these societies can be, what is waiting in the wings tends to be more of the same. Real progressives would be able to recognize this.
In blaming Israel the authors are targeting the wrong party. They make the wrong choice, typical in books of this kind, in thinking that to be pro-Palestinian one has to be be anti-Israel. Nowhere do they praise Israel’s attempts to make peace or efforts to aid and support Palestinians or Arab Israelis. Rule 1 in seeking peace - focus on the positive to bring people together. Preaching hate, as the authors do, will accomplish the opposite.
Aside from dissing Abu Dis, the flim flam men are not very good or truthful with the facts. Perhaps that comes from Hill’s Media Studies background where facts are less important than the perceptions one can create. It’s an unbelievable coincidence that the borders of “ancient Palestine” match that drawn up by the League of Nations. The fact: “Palestine” was a Roman and Christian perception of the territory of ancient Israel and pre-Mandate maps show it to include what is now Jordan and parts of Syria. In Jordan 50-60% of the population including Queen Rania are Palestinian, with 2.1 million considered “refugees” and denied basic rights, which the flim flam men ignore. Similarly Palestinians in the west bank were stripped of their Jordanian citizenship by King Hussein in 1988 – except for top PLO officials who were exempted. Fiction: Palestinians are routinely denied building permits. The fact: In Gaza and in Areas A and B it is Hamas and the PA that issue permits, not Israel, and that covers 95% of Palestinians in the territories. In Area C and in Jerusalem many avoid applying for permits and wind up in violation of municipal guidelines. Of those who do apply for permits the rejection rate is the same for Arabs and non-Arabs. The fiction: Hill plays the race card by claiming that Israeli Jews “fears black and brown hordes”. The fact: nearly 50% of Israelis are as dark or darker skinned than most Palestinians. Because they and their parents came from Arab/Muslim counties where they experienced prejudice and ethnic cleansing, they tend to be conservative in outlook while Jews who migrated from western Europe tend to be more left wing and liberal. The two groups are intermarrying at a high rate so eventually there will be little distinction. America’s problems with race do not translate to Israeli society.
Myth: Israel has faced no existential threat since 1973. The facts: Iran’s IRGC has repeatedly published genocidal threats to destroy Israel in minutes, a threat that can only be carried out using nuclear arms. Hezbollah, Iran’s proxy in Lebanon has promised the same. Iran’s Ayatollah Khameini inaugurated a countdown clock of 25 years to Israel’s destruction. More recently Turkey, which has been building up its military ihas threatened to reconquer Jerusalem. Nor can one dismiss the possibility of new regimes in Jordan and Egypt renouncing their peace treaties or the potential threat of Saudi Arabia which possesses the 5th largest armed force on the planet. Egypt is 6th and Israel is 17th. And then there is Hamas and the PA who have threatened yet another intifadeh, an existenstial threat through asymetrical war.
Myth: Anti-boycott legislation “criminalizes” BDS (Blame, Distort and Slander). The fact: BDS advocates seek to make the US government complicit in their anti-Israel campaign. It has nothing to do with free speech. Personally you may boycott Israeli produces, as wrongheaded as this may be. If your business excludes Jews or Israelis or employs guilt by association with companies that do business in Israel you won’t be prosecuted in criminal court – you’ll be denied access to government contracts. Ironic – those who would boycott cry “foul” when they in turn are boycotted.
Myth: BDS opposes violence and is not antisemitic. The facts: At the Sept 2018 USCPR Conference Hill endorsed terrorism “Leilah Khaled style” - she was convicted of hijacking two civilian passenger airplanes, Hill also claimed (falsely) that Israel was “poisoning the water” of Palestinians a classic antisemitic allegation. He endorsed terror by stating that “we can’t fetishize that (non-violent) strategy”. He gaslights readers by claiming that the phrase “from the river to the sea” does not mean Israel’s destruction.
BDS advocates have targeted and terrorized Jewish student directly by posting mock eviction notices on their dorm rooms and by scheduling divestment votes on Jewish holidays and the Sabbath, often on short notice and at times that when observant Jews would be unable to attend and voice their opinion. BDS routinely lies by claiming “victories” such as when Renaldinho and his Brazilian team mates backed out of a 2018 exhibition match in Israel due to death threats against the players. The event was rescheduled and took place in October 2019.
Hill and Plitnick also promote the “deadly exchange” conspiracy theory that Israeli police anti-terrorism training exchanges, which has nothing to do with arrest procedures such as those that led to the death of Geroge Floyd. The program has been highly praised for its emphasis on community relations.
If one were to refute all the mistakes it would take twice as many pages as the book contains. But one doesn’t need to go that far. The very first misrepresentation is in the dedication.
To Ahmed Erekat, a beautiful spirit stolen from the world two weeks before his wedding.
Erekat was killed after ramming his car into an Israeli checkpoint on June 23rd, 2020. Instead of pulling over when flagged by the female officer he increased his speed, swerved, and tried to kill her. Undeniable. Recorded on video.
If the flim flam men are committed to non-violence – they hide it very well.
6 likes
Like
Comment
=====
Sorry, You Can’t Be “Progressive Except Palestine”
BY
HADAS THIER
07.27.2021
https://jacobin.com/2021/07/left-progressive-palestine-israel-bds-lamont-hill-plitnick-except-for-palestine-book-review
American liberalism has long had a curious quirk: that of the liberal who is progressive on every issue except Palestine. But as the brutality of Israel’s occupation becomes impossible to ignore, that position is increasingly impossible to hold.
Israeli soldiers stand behind razor wire near the Palestinian village of Bil'in in the West Bank. (Getty Images)
Our new issue, “Aging,” is out now. Follow this link for $20 introductory print subscriptions!
Silvio Berlusconi Was the Iconic Political Figure of Our Times
DAVID BRODER
When Sinatra Sang for His Life
ALEXANDER ZAITCHIK
Inside the Teamsters’ Preparations for a UPS Strike
ALEX N. PRESS
Trump’s Kryptonite: How Progressives Can Win Back the Working Class
EDITORS
Review of Except for Palestine: The Limits of Progressive Politics by Marc Lamont Hill and Mitchell Plitnick (New Press, 2021).
Israel’s new president, Isaac Herzog, warned last week of a “new kind of terrorism” menacing the Jewish state. Perhaps a new weapon or strategy employed by Hamas? Or some Iranian-backed conspiracy within Israel’s borders?
No. Israel has now stretched the term “terrorism” to include Ben & Jerry’s recent promise that they will stop selling ice cream to Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
To be clear, Ben & Jerry’s never said that they would withdraw sales from Israel as a whole, only to Israeli settlements in the occupied territories — settlements that are in violation of international law. It’s a minimal but symbolically meaningful concession. But that hasn’t stopped the hysterical backlash and threats coming from the Israeli state. Or from some US politicians, including, most comically, New York City’s liberal mayor Bill de Blasio, who scolded the company and announced that he won’t be eating Cherry Garcia anymore in protest.
Why is it that a company that has long been a supporter of liberal causes, issuing recent statements in favor of “dismantling white supremacy,” defending transgender people, and speaking up for the rights of refugees, is now suddenly in the crosshairs? The answer can be explained in part by a political approach that has long afflicted the US progressive left, so much so that it has its own term: “progressive except Palestine” (or PEP). It is the politics of those who emphatically support immigrant rights, LGBTQ and gender equality, racial justice, and who oppose the crimes of US empire, but are silent about Israel.
Is it possible, asks Chris Hedges, “to define oneself as a liberal or a progressive while making excuses for Israel’s occupation, religious chauvinism, anti-Arab racism, selective application of human-rights standards, and flagrant disregard for international law?” Marc Lamont Hill and Mitchell Plitnick take up this question and expose the damaging disconnect of “progressive except Palestine” in their recent book, Except for Palestine: The Limits of Progressive Politics.
Hill and Plitnick paint for us a picture in 2018, when President Donald Trump deployed thousands of troops against an “invasion” of migrants at the southern border, and progressives responded with that familiar American refrain: “This is not who we are.” Yet that same summer, when Trump cut off funding for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency — which provides emergency food, shelter, and medicine to Palestinian refugees, and prompted a major human rights disaster — the decision was largely greeted with silence from liberal quarters.
The double standard was thrown into even sharper relief when Trump suggested that US troops respond with live fire against anyone from the Central American caravan throwing rocks. Most Americans, and virtually all liberals, were outraged that the president would call for such disproportionate use of force against unarmed people. Yet Israel has responded for many years in this very manner. Recent years in the Gaza Strip have seen hundreds of Palestinian shot with both rubber-coated bullets (which can be lethal) and live ammunition, despite presenting no immediate threat to any Israeli soldier or civilian.
Hill and Plitnick explain that questioning the United States’ lockstep support of Israel “in any but the mildest terms,” has long been a political third rail, greeted by charges of singling out the world’s only Jewish state, and allegations of antisemitism. “Against the backdrop of these realities, the American political left has normalized a world in which it is acceptable, through words and policies, to embrace the ethical and political contradiction of being ‘progressive except for Palestine.’”
While in most parts of the world, solidarity with the Palestinian struggle is a no-brainer for anyone who considers themselves “left,” the American left has been inconsistent at best, conspicuously silent at worst. Within the context of a deeply asymmetrical conflict, silence or “neutrality” in effect lends support to a violent status quo — one in which Israel, a highly militarized state actor, maintains its control over a stateless population, systematically stripped of all social, economic, and physical rights.
A Bipartisan Consensus on Palestine
As Mehdi Hasan put it, progressives’ hearts “bleed for Syrians, Libyans, Afghans, Iraqis, Rwandans, Kosovars . . . but not for Palestinians.” When Israeli forces shot 773 Palestinians during the first Great March of Return on March 30, 2018, Hasan asked: “Where are the righteously angry op-eds from Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times, or Richard Cohen of the Washington Post, or David Aaronovitch of the Times of London, demanding concrete action against the human rights abusers of the IDF?”
While in most parts of the world, solidarity with the Palestinian struggle is a no-brainer for anyone who considers themselves ‘left,’ the American left has been inconsistent at best, conspicuously silent at worst.
The failure of American progressivism on the question of Palestine reflects long-standing bipartisan support for the state of Israel, as well as the extent to which liberal politics are constrained by what is deemed acceptable by the Democratic Party.
Thus, the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act, introduced after Hamas’s 2006 democratic electoral victory, was cosponsored by 294 members of the House of Representatives. The accompanying bill in the Senate was cosponsored by ninety out of one hundred senators.
“Even opponents of the bill were less than forceful,” Hill and Plitnick argue. “Rep. Betty McCollum, for example, who has a well-earned reputation as one of the most principled defenders of Palestinian rights in Congress,” stated that the language contained in the somewhat milder Senate version of the bill accurately reflected her position.
In Except for Palestine, Hill and Plitnick take aim at the weakest links of the liberal ideological chain: (1) That whatever you might say about the worst of Israeli aggression, its “right to exist” must be defended. (2) That the movement to boycott, divest and sanction Israel is inherently antisemitic. (3) And that insofar as the US government has played a negative role in the oppression of Palestinians, this has to do with Donald Trump’s term, rather than a historic and unconditional commitment to the Israeli state.
Supporters of Israel frequently accuse its critics of “singling out” Israel for its crimes. This is factually untrue. Supporters of Palestinian rights are typically the same people who oppose oppression and imperialism everywhere. Yet there are aspects of Israel’s colonial-settler setup, and its relationship with the United States, that are indeed unique. Among them is the insistence that its occupied people, the Palestinians, must recognize Israel’s “right to exist.”
Hill and Plitnick point out that states do “recognize the territorial integrity of [other] states within internationally recognized borders and acknowledge (or deny) the legitimacy of the current government.” But no other state is recognized for its self-defined characterization of itself. Iran is not recognized as an Islamic Republic. Saudi Arabia is not recognized as an absolute monarchy.
But the demand made upon the Palestinians (and upon no one else) to recognize that Israel not only has a right to exist but that it must exist as a Jewish state, permanently maintaining a demographic Jewish majority, is a demand for Palestinians to surrender claims to their own rights of self-determination. It is “in fact a demand that Palestinians legitimize their own dispossession.”
To recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish ethnonationalist state is to effectively give up both the right of return and equal democratic rights for Palestinians living in Israel.
A central demand of the Palestinian movement — the right of return of dispossessed Palestinian refugees to the territory that Israel stole from them — is recognized by international law, but it endangers Israel’s Jewish demographic majority. So too does the natural population growth of Palestinians currently living within Israel. To recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish ethnonationalist state is to effectively give up both the right of return and equal democratic rights for Palestinians living in Israel.
The question “Does Israel have a right to exist?” is therefore not an abstract question of Jewish self-determination. “The issue is not Jews’ right to constitute a nation, or even to pursue a homeland,” but whether that homeland has the “right” to exist on the basis of the dispossession and ongoing denial of democratic rights to Palestinians.
The Roots of PEP
Refusing to surrender these basic demands is what has landed the movement for boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) within the crosshairs of Israel’s supporters. In 2005, a large coalition of over 170 Palestinian civil society organizations called for BDS “until Israel meets its obligations to recognize the Palestinian people’s inalienable rights to self-determination and fully complies with the precepts of international law by:
Ending its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands and dismantling the Wall [the giant separation barrier built by Israel running through the West Bank].
Recognizing the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality.
Respecting, protecting, and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194.
Were Israel not an ethnonationalist state, these demands would be quite basic: Democratic rights of citizens, an end to a decades-long occupation, the internationally recognized right of refugees to return to their homes. What’s more, the call for BDS is an explicitly nonviolent strategy. Whatever squeamishness might exist among liberals about the right of oppressed people to resist by any means necessary, BDS’s nonviolent means for their demands to inalienable rights should add up to a no-brainer for progressives.
But each of BDS’s demands, and particularly the last two, fundamentally undermine Israel’s ability to maintain a Jewish demographic majority. “Raising the issues of the Palestinian refugees and Arab citizens of Israel,” Hill and Plitnick note, “was a deliberate indication that the call [for BDS] was not going to focus only on grievances rooted in Israel’s occupation of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967, but would speak to the full Palestinian experience.”
Yet progressive politics in the US seem to hit their limit at the “Green Line,” the armistice line demarking Israel’s establishment on Palestinian land before Israel occupied the West Bank, Gaza, and Golan Heights in 1967. It may be fine in some liberal quarters to support the rights of Palestinians living in the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza (at least until these rights come up against the rights of Jewish settlers to eat Cherry Garcia) or to call for a two-state solution on the basis of those borders (however ill-fated that solution may be). But to question the foundation of the Israeli state, built upon ethnic cleansing, ongoing colonization, and denial of democratic rights, is certainly off-limits.
Discussion of why exactly that is, and the historical roots of “progressive except for Palestine,” doesn’t feature prominently in the book. PEP’s origins likely lie within the longstanding weakness of the American left on issues of foreign policy, and a slide within the labor movement toward nationalism since the 1940s. Living inside the belly of the imperial beast raises frustrating political challenges, all the more so because the Left’s political vision has so often been circumscribed by what is acceptable to the Democratic Party’s leadership. The United States’ two major parties are in lockstep agreement about the goal of US imperial hegemony around the globe, even if they have at times differed on tactics.
The topic of Israel and Palestine in particular is doubly obfuscated by the paralyzing overhang of the Holocaust and the active manipulation of the Holocaust’s legacy by the propaganda arm of the Israeli state. Back in 1988, the late Palestinian intellectual Edward Said complained of the general attitude of the American left: “A combination of ignorance, piety toward the cant about Israel and its being a bastion of democracy and being a place for the remnant of the Holocaust has limited the reaction of the American left both politically and intellectually to an astonishing degree.”
Today, the continued escalation of Israel’s brutality, the shifts in US public opinion, and the growing rift within the Democratic Party should be taken, as Hill and Plitnick argue, as signs “that the current political moment is ripe for moving beyond the limits of orthodox political discourse, which has long framed any call for support of Palestinian rights as an exception to progressive values.” It is no longer possible to be “progressive except Palestine.” In fact, it never was.
CONTRIBUTORS
Hadas Thier is an activist in New York, and the author of A People's Guide to Capitalism: An Introduction to Marxist Economics.
FILED UNDER
=====
Beyond the Two-State Solution By Jonathan Kuttab.
=====
Beyond the Two-State Solution Paperback – January 14, 2021
by Jonathan Kuttab (Author)
4.6 4.6 out of 5 stars 25 ratings
4.7 on Goodreads 21 ratings
See all formats and editions
Kindle
from $3.99
Read with our free app
Paperback
$5.99
1 Used from $5.99
3 New from $13.95
Beyond the Two-State Solution, by Jonathan Kuttab, is a short introduction to the ongoing crisis in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Zionism and Palestinian Nationalism have been at loggerheads for over a century. Some thought the two-state solution would resolve the conflict between them. Kuttab explains that the two-state solution (that he supported) is no longer viable. He suggests that any solution be predicated on the basic existential needs of the two parties, needs he lays out in exceptional detail. He formulates a way forward for a 1-state solution that challenges both Zionism and Palestinian Nationalism. This book invites readers to begin a new conversation based on reality: two peoples will need to live together in some sort of unified state. It is balanced and accessible to neophytes and to experts alike.
Report incorrect product information.
Print length
110 pages
Language
English
Publication date
January 14, 2021
Dimensions
5.5 x 0.28 x 8.5 inches
ISBN-13
979-8579653918
Next page
What do customers buy after viewing this item?
Highest rated
in this set of products
The Truth Shall Set You Free: The Story of a Palestinian Human Rights Lawyer Working for Peace and Justice in Palestine/Israe
The Truth Shall Set You Free: The Story of a Palestinian…
Jonathan Kuttab
5.0 out of 5 stars 4
Paperback
5 offers from $17.00
This item:
Beyond the Two-State Solution
Beyond the Two-State Solution
Jonathan Kuttab
4.6 out of 5 stars 25
Paperback
4 offers from $5.99
Customers who bought this item also boughtPage 1 of 3Page 1 of 3
Previous page
The Truth Shall Set You Free: The Story of a Palestinian Human Rights Lawyer Working for Peace and Justice in Palestine/Israe
The Truth Shall Set You Free: The Story of a Palestinian Human Rights Lawyer Working
Jonathan Kuttab
5.0 out of 5 stars 4
Paperback
5 offers from $17.00
Nine Quarters of Jerusalem: A New Biography of the Old City
Nine Quarters of Jerusalem: A New Biography of the Old City
Matthew Teller
4.2 out of 5 stars 48
Hardcover
$15.70
Get it as soon as Monday, Nov 13
$20.15 shipping
Only 1 left in stock - order soon.
Palestine Hijacked: How Zionism Forged an Apartheid State from River to Sea
Palestine Hijacked: How Zionism Forged an Apartheid State from River to Sea
Thomas Suárez
3.5 out of 5 stars 20
Paperback
7 offers from $20.48
Yet in the Dark Streets Shining: A Palestinian Story of Hope and Resilience in Bethlehem
Yet in the Dark Streets Shining: A Palestinian Story of Hope and Resilience in Bethlehem
Bishara Awad
4.9 out of 5 stars 87
Paperback
6 offers from $16.00
Decolonizing Israel, Liberating Palestine: Zionism, Settler Colonialism, and the Case for One Democratic State
Decolonizing Israel, Liberating Palestine: Zionism, Settler Colonialism, and the Case for One Democratic State
Jeff Halper
4.5 out of 5 stars 29
Paperback
17 offers from $8.53
A Walk in Jerusalem: Stations of the Cross
A Walk in Jerusalem: Stations of the Cross
John Peterson
4.7 out of 5 stars 33
Paperback
$14.90
Get it as soon as Tuesday, Nov 21
$26.18 shipping
Only 1 left in stock - order soon.
Our Vision For Liberation: Engaged Palestinian Leaders & Intellectuals Speak Out
Our Vision For Liberation: Engaged Palestinian Leaders & Intellectuals Speak Out
Ramzy Baroud
4.9 out of 5 stars 18
Paperback
$29.95
Next page
Product details
ASIN : B08T5WGFZ6
Publisher : Independently published (January 14, 2021)
Language : English
Paperback : 110 pages
ISBN-13 : 979-8579653918
Item Weight : 5.3 ounces
Dimensions : 5.5 x 0.28 x 8.5 inches
Best Sellers Rank: #264,492 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
#484 in Middle Eastern Politics
Customer Reviews: 4.6 4.6 out of 5 stars 25 ratings
Videos
Help others learn more about this product by uploading a video!
Upload your video
Important information
To report an issue with this product, click here.
Sponsored
How would you rate your experience shopping for books on Amazon today?
Very poor Neutral Great
Customer reviews
4.6 out of 5 stars
4.6 out of 5
25 global ratings
5 star
77%
4 star
15%
3 star
0%
2 star
0%
1 star
7%
How customer reviews and ratings work
Review this product
Share your thoughts with other customers
Write a customer review
Sponsored
Top reviews
Top reviews
Top reviews from the United States
Janice L. Miller
5.0 out of 5 stars Easy to understand and offers hope
Reviewed in the United States on January 22, 2023
My book group read this book - it's a very readable explanation of the seemingly intractable situation in Israel and Palestine - and then it delivers hope by offering a simple way forward. Easy to read and offers lots to think about and something we can do to support peace.
2 people found this helpful
Helpful
Report
Alex McDonald
5.0 out of 5 stars It's time to wake up to reality...the Two-State Solution is no longer a solution.
Reviewed in the United States on February 5, 2021
This is a very concise book that shines a light on an issue that many have been in denial of. Kuttab very clearly explains how the West Bank Jewish-only settlements make the proposed compromise of decades ago no longer possible. He describes how the settlement project has permeated Israeli culture, where it is politically impossible to dismantle the settlements and their 700,000+ Israeli-Jewish residents just as it is impossible to make a Palestinian state out of what remains. The book respectfully repeats a quote ending in: Now what? We can no longer talk about a two-state solution that is impossible; we need to focus on what we can do now.
He proposes an interesting solution that is based on mutual respect of the two cultures that have a strong history to the land. His solution also respects the trauma that each community has faced, the Holocaust and historical persecution of Jews and the violation of Palestinian human rights under occupation and Israeli rule.
Kuttab makes numerous points that connect the dots for us. For example, he shares how discussion of a two-state solution is often a form of denial, a tranquilizer to make us not face the difficult decision about how to move forward. It is time to wake up from our reverie. He also points out how Israel's military has brought great success to the Zionist movement but that now it also "stands in the way of fulfilling the deepest desires for peace, legitimacy, acceptance, and ultimate survival of their project."
Of note, the executive summary is at the end of the book. The book is worth reading from front to back though because many of the details are enlightening and important for envisioning a possible future of peace in the region.
Read less
6 people found this helpful
Helpful
Report
M. Aiken
5.0 out of 5 stars A just vision for the future
Reviewed in the United States on May 12, 2021
If you are someone who wants to better understand the conflict in Palestine/Israel or if you are desperate to envision a better and more equitable future for the people there, I recommend this short, instructive and inspiring booklet. Kuttab has years of experience on the ground documenting human rights abuses in the land, and he approaches this issue through the lens of international law—an objective and solid place to start. Aside from the reliance on international law, there is also a great deal of sympathetic thinking as Kuttab (a Palestinian) puts himself squarely in the shoes of the average Israeli Jew and considers their needs and aspirations alongside those of the Palestinians. In short, this book is filled with grace towards all, while also being very realistic.
There ARE answers -- many of them -- for the Holy Land. Now, we must pray for the leaders to have the will to implement them. Sooner or later, they must.
5 people found this helpful
Helpful
Report
Seth Morrison
5.0 out of 5 stars Well developed ideas for a fair solution for Palestine & Israel
Reviewed in the United States on February 25, 2021
As an anti-zionist Jew I welcome Kuttab's proposal for a fair, rights centered approach to Palestine and Israel. He offers rational and well developed ideas recognizing and addressing the needs of both sides in this ongoing strife.
4 people found this helpful
Helpful
Report
====
No comments:
Post a Comment