(Part 2) Reddit mentions: The best israel & palestine history books

For one, Mark Twain has no credibility on the subject. Mark Twain was also a racist bigot who hated Arabs. He was also comparing the geography and agriculture he encountered to his home, the United States.

Why do you think Zionists cherry pick this one quote and use it over and over and never provide any credible sources, or should I say; more than just this Mark Twain quote? And why is it always displayed as horribly unsubtle and transparent propaganda (see OP's submission image, which is ridiculously vulgar and lowbrow)


Here are also some of Mark Twain's geographical musings:
------------------------------------
"From Athens all through the islands of the Grecian Archipelago, we saw little but forbidden sea-walls and barren hills, sometimes surmounted by three or four graceful columns of some ancient temples, lonely and deserted---a fitting symbol of desolation that has come upon all Greece in these latter ages. We saw no ploughed fields, very few villages, no trees or grass or vegetation of any kind, scarcely, and hardly ever an isolated house. Greece is a bleak, unsmiling desert, without agriculture, manufactures, or commerce, apparently."




Now lets hear what a famous early Zionist had to say about the region:
----------------------

"Asher Zvi Hirsch Ginsberg (18 August 1856 – 2 January 1927), primarily known by his Hebrew name and pen name, Ahad Ha'am (Hebrew: אחד העם‎, lit. one of the people, Genesis 26:10), was a Hebrew essayist, and one of the foremost pre-state Zionist thinkers. He is known as the founder of cultural Zionism."

"In 1891, a Zionist of the first hour, Asher Ginzberg (under the pseudonym Ahad Ha'am, "one of the people"), wrote after a visit to Palestine:

• "We who live abroad are accustomed to believe that almost all Eretz Yisrael is now uninhabited desert and whoever wishes can buy land there as he pleases. But this is not true. It is very difficult to find in the land [ha'aretz] cultivated fields that are not used for planting. Only those sand fields or stone mountains that would require the investment of hard labor and great expense to make them good for planting remain uncultivated and that's because the Arabs do not like working too much in the present for a distant future. Therefore, it is very difficult to find good land for cattle. And not only peasants, but also rich landowners, are not selling good land so easily.."
  
  Bonus Quote
  -----------------
  "We who live abroad are accustomed to believing that the Arabs are all wild desert people who, like donkeys, neither see nor understand what is happening around them. But this is a grave mistake. The Arab, like all the Semites, is sharp minded and shrewd. All the townships of Syria and Eretz Yisrael are full of Arab merchants who know how to exploit the masses and keep track of everyone with whom they deal – the same as in Europe. The Arabs, especially the urban elite, see and understand what we are doing and what we wish to do on the land, but they keep quiet and pretend not to notice anything. For now, they do not consider our actions as presenting a future danger to them. … But, if the time comes that our people's life in Eretz Yisrael will develop to a point where we are taking their place, either slightly or significantly, the natives are not going to just step aside so easily."
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  Zionist Sir Moses Montefiore of England
  -----------------------------------------------------
  
  Zionist Sir Moses Montefiore of England, who traveled to Palestine in 1839. Wrote about the land of Palestine (before mass Zionist colonialist settlement again in 1838-1839) in particular the city of Safad, Palestine.
  
  
• "From all information I have been able to gather, the land in this neighborhood appears to be particularly favourable for agricultural speculation. There are groves of olive trees, I should think, more than five hundred years old, vineyards, much pasture, plenty of wells and abundance of excellent water; also fig trees, walnuts, almonds, mulberries, &c., and rich fields of wheat, barley, and lentils; in fact it is a land that would produce almost everything in abundance, with very little skill and labour.” Source
  
  
  
  From Mark Twain's "The Innocents Abroad"
  -------------------------------------------------------
  
  
• "The narrow canyon in which Nablous, or Shechem, is situated, is under high cultivation, and the soil is exceedingly black and fertile. It is well watered, and its affluent vegetation gains effect by contrast with the barren hills that tower on either side." (The Innocents Abroad, p. 322)"
  
  
  
• "and the highly successful Palestinian city of Jaffa (in Arabic Yaffa): "We came finally to the noble grove of orange trees in which the Oriental city of Jaffa lied buried." (The Innocents Abroad, p. 360)"
  
  
  
  Random Quotations
  ------------------------
  
  
• "Between Ramleh and the hill-country, a distance of about eight miles, is
  the rolling plain of Arimathea, and this, as well as the greater part of
  the plain of Sharon, is one of the richest districts in the world. The
  soil is a dark-brown loam, and, without manure, produces annually superb
  crops of wheat and barley. We rode for miles through a sea of wheat,
  waving far and wide over the swells of land. The tobacco in the fields
  about Ramleh was the most luxuriant I ever saw, and the olive and fig
  attain a size and lusty strength wholly unknown in Italy. Judea cursed of
  God! what a misconception, not only of God's mercy and beneficence, but of
  the actual fact! Give Palestine into Christian hands, and it will again
  flow with milk and honey. Except some parts of Asia Minor, no portion of
  the Levant is capable of yielding such a harvest of grain, silk, wool,
  fruits, oil, and wine. The great disadvantage under which the country
  labors, is its frequent drouths, but were the soil more generally
  cultivated, and the old orchards replanted, these would neither be so
  frequent nor so severe."
  *From Bayard Taylor's "The Lands of the Saracen; or, Pictures of Palestine, Asia Minor, Sicily and Spain" (1854), Page 25
  
  
  
• According to Paul Masson, a French economic historian, "wheat shipments from the Palestinian port of Acre had helped to save southern France from famine on numerous occasions in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries." Source: Marwan R. Beheiry, "The Agricultural Exports of Southern Palestine, 1885-1 9 14", Journal of Palestine Studies, volume 10, No. 4, 198 1, p. 67.
  
  
• English poet George Sandys, who visited Palestine in 1615, found Palestine to be "a land that flowed with milk and honey; in the midst as it were of the habitable world, and under a temperate clime; adorned with beautiful mountains and luxurious valleys; the rocks producing excellent waters; and no part empty of delight or profit."
  
  
  
• Englishwom­an Lady Hester Stanhope who was in Palestine in 1810: "The luxuriance of vegetation is not to be described.­...Fruits of all sorts from the banana to the blackberry are abundant. The banks of the rivers are clothed naturally with oleander and flowering shrubs.... [The Arab orchards near Jaffa] contained lemon, orange, almond, peach, apple, pomegranat­e and other trees."
  
  
• Upon visiting Gaza in the 14th Century, Syria geographer al-Dimashqi described it as "so rich in trees it looks like a cloth of brocade spread out upon the land." More recently, in the early 20th Century, Gaza historian Ibrahim Skeik recalls the dazzling views of "trees all about the city, olives and almond groves."
  
  
  
  Links
  --------
  
  
  Quoting Mark Twain out of context on Palestine
  
  
  Perceptions of Palestine: Their Influence on U.S. Middle East Policy
  
  
  Isn't it true that Palestine was destitute until Israelis made its desert bloom?
  
  
  
  Diaries of Sir Moses and Lady Montefiore, Volume I
  
  
  The Innocents Abroad, by Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens)
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

Hey, sorry on the delayed reply.

I haven't looked at State's reactions in a sort of systematic fashion, but episodically you have, for instance:

• The 1891 Blackstone Memorial, which is a fascinating document, presented to the President and then basically intentionally lost by the State Department.
  
• The debates on the Balfour declaration: State opposed the US signing on. Congress ends up passing a resolution acknowledging support for Balfour, the Lodge-Fish resolution.
  
• 1948: The director of Near Eastern Affairs at State opposes UN backed partition as "he was of the view that nearly every member of the Foreign Service or the State Department with Near East experience believed that the Palestinian question at the UN would have far-reaching consequences for US efforts to promote regional stability and cause further Soviet penetration."
  
  Some version of this latter argument, that the US siding against Israel would be beneficial for US interests by improving the US position in the Arab world, has basically been a bipartisan ideological trap of sorts ever since. I'm still reading it, but Ike's Gamble does a really good job of describing why that line of reasoning has, in fact, been a trap, focusing as the title suggests on US Middle East policy under Eisenhower before, during, and after the Suez Crisis, with lot's of quotations from officials at State.
  
  As to why State tended to be reflexively anti-Zionist over such a long period of time, this is more speculative on my part but I would point to a few things. Firstly, Zionism in most of this period was deeply "unrealistic" in the eyes of the foreign policy "realists" at State, and seemed to be not just an "entangling alliance" but a quixotic one as well given that it entailed the creation and defense of a new state project in hostile territory. Secondly, the men who staffed the near east division, professionally, have historically been Arabists or posted in the wider Muslim world and were often sympathetic to Arab views and causes, including in their opposition to Zionism. On a more personal level, they could exhibit a kind of country club anti-Semitism (if not worse) that I think was probably typical of the WASP ascendancy. Lastly, I think, certainly in more recent decades, you actually have kind of an opposite side to the realist argument about needing Arab support which is sort of "peace industry" of endless talks and resolutions that is a cottage industry unto itself and is deeply appealing to a certain kind of Wilsonian mindset of international diplomacy and particularly so given the mission of the State Department.
  
  The political side is complicated and probably more of a poli-sci question. Without re-hashing the debates over The Israel Lobby, I side pretty much entirely with a forthcoming book that I did some very minor research assistance for (and which I think is actually coming out March 2017, not '18), which argues that the basis for US political support for Zionism and Israel comes from a deep, abiding, and near-universal support for a Jewish State from among American gentiles, rather than some uniquely persuasive and pernicious Israel Lobby. In other words, the Israel Lobby is influential because Zionism is popular. Not "Zionism is popular because the Israel Lobby is influential."

> I don't think this is a true picture.

Modern developments in non-Orthodox Jewish theology would beg to differ:

> The attempt to harmonize the texts in pursuit of a unified biblical message often serves only to flatten them. In sum, the identification of distinct and contrary theological views in the bible provides the constructive theologian with more working material in which to ground his or her inquiry and discussion and with more “choices” that are grounded in Scripture. It also allows the critically minded reader of the bible who is not a “professional” theologian to engage with Scripture in a way that is both intellectually honest and, at least potentially, engaging and meaningful.

> [...]

> I would add in support of Buber’s position, that Jeremiah’s claim that certain Torah-laws are not authentic is itself rooted in a claim to divine authority! The religiously engaged reader of the bible is thus called upon by the divine voice in the Bible to attempt to distinguish between the “divine” and the “scribal,” within its conflicting reports about what God commanded.

https://zeramim.org/current-issue/volume-iii-issue-3-spring-summer-2019-5779/contemporary-jewish-theology-in-light-of-divergent-biblical-views-on-revelations-content-david-frankel/

https://www.amazon.com/Revelation-Authority-Scripture-Tradition-Reference/dp/0300158734

(A review here: https://jewishreviewofbooks.com/articles/2131/our-rabbis-j-e-p-and-d/ )

> J,E,D and P were not contemporaneous.

I think this is too literal a statement. Just because the competing Torah schools neither were contemporaneous nor interacting directly with one another in Mishnaic or Talmudic-style arguments doesn't mean that their works weren't argumentative ("Rabbi So-And So Said This"). Inspired by the Zeramim article above and by articles in thetorah.com, I wrote this comment elsewhere:

Said “Rabbi J”: My legal collection is the one and only collection of Divine commandments! (Exod. 34:27)

Said “Rabbi E”: No! My legal collection is the one and only collection of Divine commandments! (Exod. 24:3)

Said “Rabbi D”: Whatever. This, my legal collection, is the true instruction of Moses, not the Covenant Code, not the Ritual Decalogue, not a whole bunch of Priestly laws, and not whatever Mosaic law collection has faded into history! (Deut. 4:44) Do not add to or subtract from my legal collection! (Deut. 13:1)

Said “Rabbi P”: Nonsense! My legal collection is the single correct version of the words of Divine commandments! (Lev. 34:36)

> A fifth hand, R, the redactor

Who, for all intents and purposes, said that "these as well as these are the words of the living God" when it came to synthesizing what the competing Torah schools wrote. [And in so doing, deemed 140 or so commandments to be majority opinions / the majority view in the written Torah.]

I did read Fateful Triangle many years ago I don't remember it well. I liked it didn't love it. I think he has some good lines about the Liberal delusions about what Oslo agreed to. And he certainly said this stuff far earlier than most in this book. Credit where credit is due.

I often enjoy Chomsky but I tend to disagree too much to consider him a great writer. The big problem I have with Chomsky is he tends to have rather unrealistic views of what countries do and then "shocks" his readers by talking about how the USA doesn't meet those standards. If you start with the basic premise that the USA is rationally pursuing its self interest along with other entities pursuing their self interest I think a good deal of the shock wears off. The hypocrisy he insinuates just isn't there. The USA does support humanitarian norms, it is just about the 15th priority on the list, not the 1st or 2nd. Similarly the purpose of Israel is to act in the collective self interest of the Jewish nation. Democratic norms are obeyed and enhanced in Israel in so far as they are in accord or at least don't conflict with that goal

You asked for book recommendations.

• https://www.amazon.com/Iron-Wall-Israel-Updated-Expanded/dp/0393346862/ would be strongest by far
  
• https://www.amazon.com/Prime-Ministers-Yehuda-Avner-ebook/dp/B003X9781Y/r
  
• https://www.amazon.com/My-Promised-Land-Triumph-Tragedy-ebook/dp/B009QJMXI8/ -- a liberal wrestles with Israel I think you might like.
  
• https://www.amazon.com/Founding-Fathers-Zionism-Benzion-Netanyahu-ebook/dp/B007Z3QURC/ by Netanyahu's father. Covers Pinsker, Herzl, Nordau, Zangwill, and Zabotinsky A good treatment of the basic ideas of the Zionist right. More importantly a good insight into PM Netanyahu's worldview.
  
  That should start the discussion.
  

> Are you claiming this is not implied?

It's not implied because it is not possible. You can not be a "nation" just by calling yourself one. A nation, at bare minimum, has governance over its own affairs. The Jews quite obviously did not.

>By the same token, if not, the 'Promised Land' and Moses and the Ten Commandments and all the laws of Moses are just for whatever Jews happened to follow him?

I don't understand this question, but continuing with the preceding paragraph the jews only became a nation once they established laws to govern themselves and where in a land where no other State could impose its laws upon them. They were never a nation until they had conquered the promised land. They ceased being a nation when they were conquered first by Sennecherib (the northern kingdom) and then later by Nebuchadnezzar (Judah & Benjamin: the southern kingdom). The were not a nation again until 1942 (1945?).

> The presumption has always been that the Jews as a people were all in Egypt at the time,

They were a community, of course. It's not semantics to understand the difference between a community and a nation. The words are meant to convey an exact meaning and you don't get to swap them around when it suits your fancy to swap them around.

> The Bible talks about more than a million Jews. No presence of any large body of people have ever been found.

You may have misunderstood what I was asking for, so I will repeat it. What is the methodology to physically determine a people group moved out. Let me give you an example of methodology so that we are clear:

1. The MeMover detects the particles of J-ion by examining 1, 2, 3 and comparing its reactions to 4,5 & 6. The research by Dr. Whomever shows that human beings leave J-ion on surfaces any time they have come in contact with them. Thus we can determine where there is the presence of J-ion detected by the MeMover device that there had been a human being touching this surface.
   
   See the step by step process by which I can follow the entire sequence? That is what I am asking you for. Not a philosophy, not a speculation and not a hypothetical.
   
   I would like to know what methodology, in step by step fashion, that Mr. Finkelstein uses to determine any people group moved out of any place on earth. Furthermore I would like to see how often this methodology used by Mr. Finkelstein has correctly determined the migration of a people group.
   
   >You should read his book on the subject. It should prove illuminating.
   
   Yeah, maybe. I would have to finish the 3 or 4 books I've already started though. LOL
   
   >I'm interested. Please provide a reference. I've never heard that.
   
   This [BBC Article](5. “Moses,” July, 2009, http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/judaism/history/moses_1.shtml, accessed October 4, 2010.) reports the find of an archeologist who claims to have discovered the a stable capable of holding 500 horses and chariots from the time of Ramses II. The exodus records Pharaoh sending 600 chariots after the Jews to capture them.
   
   More specific to your question about the chariots, I read it in the book "The Gold of Exodus" by Howard Blume. He is the one to make the claim. Now, Mr. Blume has always disagreed with the traditional view of the path Israel had taken from Egypt to Canaan. This point is actually important because if you don't know what path they take, how can you possibly conclude they never migrated at all? Do you see what I am saying. But the problem is the cities and names have changed over time so that no one can say with 100% certainty which way it even was that the Jews went when they left Egypt. So the entire "well there is no evidence along the way" argument isn't an argument when no one knows which way they went to begin with.
   
   Mr. Blume decided based on various factors that you can read to chart their journey differently than what has been traditionally told and among other things he reports finding the actual mountain Moses was on, describes various features consistent with the writings in the Exodus and also claims to have found chariot parts along the crossing path of the Red Sea that he believes they crossed at.
   
   I will say that in doing a quick search, other persons such as Ron Wyatt who have said to discover chariot remains have been discredited and my statement is not based on Ron Wyatt. So I admit that you will not find any support of chariots found at the location traditionally believed to be where the Jews crossed.
   
   Whether or not you accept Mr. Blume's explanations for why he proposes a different path and if you accept Mr. Blume's claims of findings along the path he followed is up to you.
   
   >Lack of evidence isn't opinion.
   
   Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. I am sure you would argue the same thing if someone came to you and said they can't find evidence that you were home last night at 10pm, therefore you must not have been. It is always and only opinion that attempts to explain a lack of evidence. "There's no evidence of you being home at 10pm last night because you were out murdering someone."
   
   >You want me to dig through his book and summarize his methodology for you, a person that will not accept his methodology?
   
   You've misread or misunderstood. His methodology is exactly what I am seeking because if the methodology is trustworthy than the results are trustworthy. Him as a person I can do without and don't care if it is he or you or Adolf Hitler who proposes the methodology. The methodology is my only concern. I will certainly accept the methodology when it is demonstrated to be accurate, consistent and trustworthy in its results.
   
   >If you want to a summation of how this is done in archaeology, why not Google it or take an intro course?
   
   Time :( There's only so much time in a day for all of us and we have to prioritize it wisely. It would be great if I had time to read every book there is but I don't. You are under no obligation to read and summarize the methodology to me, I accept that. It's ultimately up to me to read it for myself. I accept that too. If you're willing to summarize the methodology from what you've read, then thank you. If not, I understand.

My friend,

You gave a history lesson, so permit me a little lesson of my own. As someone who has gone through a similar experience to yours, what I can tell you is the following:

Lebanon is an ancient thing. You are Lebanese, by blood, and so your connection to the land that literally shaped your very genes cannot be denied.

Still, you are American by proximity, and so neither can you deny your connection to the land that shaped your very thoughts.

However, despite your ethnicity, and despite your psychology, you are a unique individual first, and the truth is that no matter where you go around the world, those on a good and honest path always share more in common with one another than they do with their own countrymen.

Do not allow your identities to dictate your understanding of the world. Instead, use their strengths to help you frame your own, distinct ideas, and let that become your identity.

The great Irish songwriter, Dominic Behan, got it right when he wrote The Patriot Game in 1956.

Truth be told, nobody will be able to bridge your opposing ideologies but you, yourself. However, others who have gone through the same thing can help, as I hope I might have, in some way.

I would also suggest you look into Being Arab by Samir Kassir, On Identity by Amin Maalouf and last, but most certainly not least, The Book of Khalid by Ameen Rihani.

You might also want to check out Cedars in the Pines, the documentary about the Lebanese in North Carolina that I posted a couple days ago.

Hopefully those will be good enough to get you started, and until then, just remember...

> including this which was from a video where Jews explain how quotes from the Talmud were falsified to make it look like Jews have a superiority complex

Howdy Yserbius!

Have you ever noticed that, when prominent Jews are quoted, the rebuttal seems to be something to the effect of:

"No! They don't mean what they say! You are taking it all out of context! You couldn't possibly understand unless you are a Jew! Trust me!"

I have.

For example, take the following from Menachem Mendel Schneerson, "(April 5, 1902 OS – June 12, 1994), known to many as the Rebbe, [3][4][5] was a Russian Empire-born American Orthodox Jewish rabbi, and the last Lubavitcher Rebbe. He is considered one of the most influential Jewish leaders of the 20th century.

Thus sayeth "The Rebbe", from his work titled "Gatherings of Conversations", published in Israel in 1965 (quoted by Israel Shahak and Norton Mezvinsky in their work Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel, Pluto Press, London, 1999.

LINK

The Rebbe: (Brackets and emphasis preserved from the link)

> The difference between a Jewish and a non-Jewish person stems from the common expression: "Let us differentiate." Thus, we do not have a case of profound change in which a person is merely on a superior level. Rather, we have a case of "let us differentiate" between totally different species. This is what needs to be said about the body: the body of a Jewish person is of a totally different quality from the body of [members] of all nations of the world ... The Old Rabbi [a pseudonym for one of the holy Lubovitch rabbis] explained that the passage in Chapter 49 of Hatanya [the basic book of Chabad]: "And you have chosen us" [the Jews] means specifically that the Jewish body was chosen [by God], because a choice is thus made between outwardly similar things. The Jewish body "looks as if it were in substance similar to bodies of non-Jews," but the meaning ... is that the bodies only seem to be similar in material substance, outward look and superficial quality. The difference of the inner quality,

> {p. 60} {quote continued} however, is so great that the bodies should be considered as completely different species. This is the reason why the Talmud states that there is an halachic difference in attitude about the bodies of non-Jews [as opposed to the bodies of Jews] " "their bodies are in vain." . . . An even greater difference exists in regard to the soul. Two contrary types of soul exist, a non-Jewish soul comes from three satanic spheres, while the Jewish soul stems from holiness.

> {quote continued} As has been explained, an embryo is called a human being, because it has both body and soul. Thus, the difference between a Jewish and a non-Jewish embryo can be understood. There is also a difference in bodies. The body of a Jewish embryo is on a higher level than is the body of a non-Jew. This is expressed in the phrase "let us differentiate" about the body of a non-Jew, which is a totally different kind. The same difference exists in regard to the soul: the soul of a Jewish embryo is different than the soul of a non-Jewish embryo. We therefore ask: Why should a non-Jew be punished if he kills even a non-Jewish embryo while a Jew should not be punished even if he kills a Jewish embryo? The answer can be understood by [considering] the general difference between Jews and non-Jews: A Jew was not created as a means for some [other] purpose; he himself is the purpose, since the substance of all [divine] emanations was created only to serve the Jews." In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" [Genesis 1:1] means that [the heavens and the earth] were created for the sake of the Jews, who are called the "beginning." This means everything, all developments, all discoveries, the creation, including the "heavens and the earth - are vanity compared to the Jews. The important things are the Jews, because they do not exist for any [other] aim; they themselves are [the divine] aim." {end quote}

But of course (as I said above), "He didn't REALLY mean what he said! You are taking it all out of context! You couldn't possibly understand unless you are a Jew! Trust me!"

Alternatively you could also proceed to claim that Shahak and Mezvinsky were LYING, that the Rebbe "never said that", or you could opt for a character assassination against one or both authors (mumble mumble mumble TELEPHONE!!! mumble mumble mumble AMBULANCE!!! mumble mumble mumble...)

Anyway, I found Shahak's work Jewish History, Jewish Religion - the Weight of Three Thousand Years to be a fascinating read. Couldn't put it down. In fact, I would recommend it to anyone, as it elucidates the history that was instrumental in forming many of the thought processes that dominate Israel and Fundamental Judaism to this day.

Peace, friends!

Tolerance through communication and understanding!

> Russian Jew raised secular want to learn about my people but not be
> indoctrinated.

This pretty much won’t happen no matter what you read. Judaism has been a non-proselytising religion for getting on to 2,000 years now.

Among the Orthodox, the standing rule is to turn those looking to convert away at least three times before you even begin to start talking about the process and whether it’s something they should undertake.

Among the Conservative and Reform and Reconstructionist, things aren’t quite so daunting, but the basic underlying theology — that one’s relationship with divinity (assuming there is one: Reconstructionists are atheists, for example) is not dependent in any fashion on whether you are an MoT or not — still informs the process. Conversion is, of course, possible, but it’s not considered necessary in any sense.

Even in Judaism’s ancient sort-of-proselytising days it was mostly a ‘give it a try, you might like it’ kind of sales pitch.

> Book recommendations?

Oi, where to start?

Jews aren’t called ‘the people of the book’ for nothing. We’ve been writing everything down for thousands of years. So there’s a lot of history to explore and there are literally thousands of histories out there to read.

The list below is not in a particular order. And it is idiosyncratically chosen. It is, quite literally, a list of what I can see on my shelves from where I’m currently working that immediately makes me think ‘oh, yeah, that’s got something for the new reader’.

The story of the Jews: finding the words (1000 BCE – 1492 CE)
Simon Schama, 2014.

The story of the Jews: when words fail (1492 – present day)
Simon Schama, 2015.

The Talmud — a biography: banned, censored and burned. The book they couldn’t suppress
Harry Freedman, 2014.

Pirkei Avot (the sayings of the fathers): a modern commentary on Jewish ethics
Leonard Kravitz & Kerry Olitzky (eds), 1993.

The essential Kabbalah: the heart of Jewish mysticism
Daniel C Matt, 2009.

Engendering Judaism: an inclusive theology and ethics
Rachel Adler, 1999.

Hillel: if not now, when
Joseph Telushkin, 2010.

The new joys of Yiddish
Leo Rosten, 2003.

Other lists to meander through:

A best world Jewish history books list on GoodReads.

The top 100 Jewish books according to Rabbi Miriam Spitzer.

The 18 essential texts every Jew should read as put together for Huffington Post back in 2011 (and chosen by people who are relatively eclectic but entirely American).

Hope this is at least diverting, if not helpful.

In 1936 a Royal Commission was sent to Palestine to rubber-stamp the Zionist demand for partition (on the basis that, with a foothold, they could then seize the rest of Palestine). The Peel Report of 1937 gave them their partition despite it being totally unacceptable to the British Government.

However, Abdullah supported partition - and went much further, plotting with David Ben Gurion to allow the Zionists to seize up to a line almost the same as the Green Line of 1948. Israel could not have East Jerusalem (since Abdullah's father was buried there) but they could have West Jerusalem. (The Zionists ethnically cleansed much of West Jerusalem even before they started on the villages in 1948).

>Avi Shlaim, "Collusion Across the Jordan: King Abdullah, The Zionist Movement, and the Partition of Palestine" 1988

>Publishers Weekly - This controversial piece of investigative scholarship is a blockbuster. Shlaim, an Oxford instructor in international relations, documents that Jordan's ambitious, absolutist King Abdullah, who was assassinated in 1951, had clandestine ties with the Zionist movement in Israelan accusation that many of the ruler's cohorts have made in the past.

>To further his own aims of creating a greater Jordanian empire, Abdullah conducted secret diplomacy with David Ben-Gurion, Golda Meir and other Israeli leaders. Drawing on Israeli government archives as well as interviews with politicians, soldiers and intelligence agents, Shlaim argues that the king's self-serving maneuvers hastened the partition of Palestine, which left more than a million Palestinian Arabs without a homeland.

>His absorbing 686-page narrative, a major reevaluation of the Arab-Israeli conflict, unfolds an Arab world torn by internal rivalry not the monolithic, hostile bloc that some Israelis claim it to be. http://www.amazon.com/Collusion-Across-Jordan-Partition-Palestine/dp/0231068387

Shlaim seems to have been battered into sort-of apologising and the 2nd edition of the book (1998) is even re-named. However, I don't think there's a big difference - he explains why he decided to re-title the book "The Politics of Partition" and update the story (Preface, p. xiii):

>But in all honesty I have to admit that my perspective on the collusion changed after the publication of "Collusion across the Jordan". My first take reflected the novelty of the archival sources and the shock of the discovery that what had been a popular conspiracy theory could actually be documented. ... My attitude towards King Abdullah underwent a significant change. ... In my approach to the Zionist leadership there was a similar shift from an emphasis on morality to an emphasis on realpolitik. ... For my part, I feel as much sympathy for the Palestinians today as I did when my book was first published in 1988. But I also feel that some modesty is called for when sitting in judgment on the other two principal protagonists in the struggle for Palestine."

Which, of course, sounds exactly the same as Goldstone "re-canting" over the Gaza Report, while not actually changing anything!

(In 1948 the agreement was made again, Golda Meir going to see Abdullah in March or so).

Okay, again, that shouldn't have anything to do with the conflict. At the very least, you could include the issue of Jerusalem and who gets to visit, but when you stack that up with all the other issues, it's really quite trivial.

Like I said before, the people who are most concerned about these sites are the surrounding Arab nations (if you want to get a better perspective on what is a Palestinian perspective versus Arab, you should read Arabs and Israelis--they tend to get mixed up a lot, and not by any mistake). In fact, Palestine, by every current definition from every single Palestinian representative group, does not have a religious distinction and in some cases, explicitly welcome Jews and Christians into Palestinian current and proposed society. A very important and respected faction in Palestinian society are the Christians--comprising nearly 10% of the Palestinian population.

Alain ménargues, Les secrets de la guerre du Liban.



Honestly, the best book by far. It provided all sources, some as scanned documents in the end of the book.

Ménargues was a grand reporter de guerre, and he was in Lebanon the whole war time, or most of it.

As a French, he stayed a lot with Gemayel, and he have a looooot of original document in his possession. Most of them are provided in this book.


They had it in Antoine librairie, if your Beruti, but if not here's a link.




https://www.amazon.fr/Secrets-guerre-Liban-massacres-palestiniens/dp/2226121277



Look carefully if it is the tome 1, but I believe so.


It's to know that it is him that implied the Israeli leadership in the Sabra & Chatila massacre, by quoting a Sharon aid camp know as Scorpio iirc.

Well read the book brother, can never say how well documented and how good it is.

I hope that I've helped. Cheers guys.

Edit: he was the chief of RFI too, which can tell you how serious he was in his journalist job.

If you're starting to read his books, I recommend picking up ["The Holocaust Industry"] (https://www.amazon.com/Holocaust-Industry-Reflections-Exploitation-Suffering/dp/1781685614/ref=pd_sim_14_4?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1781685614&pd_rd_r=97d5364c-5a0c-11e8-a956-456fc52f333f&pd_rd_w=16qEm&pd_rd_wg=1g1Mc&pf_rd_i=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_p=7967298517161621930&pf_rd_r=0T0GZ21H6HQKNTF72WSZ&pf_rd_s=desktop-dp-sims&pf_rd_t=40701&psc=1&refRID=0T0GZ21H6HQKNTF72WSZ), ["Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict"] (https://www.amazon.com/Image-Reality-Israel-Palestine-Conflict-Revised/dp/1859844421/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1526587388&sr=1-1&keywords=image+and+reality+of+the+israel-palestine+conflict&dpID=414Zbglcz4L&preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch), and [his most recent book] (https://www.amazon.com/Gaza-Inquest-into-Its-Martyrdom/dp/0520295714).

"The Holocaust Industry" isn't as provocative now as it is was when he first wrote the book, but it still solidly holds up today. An troubling insight into the "exploitation of Jewish suffering," as he states. It's fairly short compared his other works, but that's the work which brought him into the spotlight.

"Image and Reality" is a good starting point with Finkelstein on understanding the conflict, as he dissects, piece-by-piece, common false talking points and assertions over the conflict (Joan Peters, Benny Morris, Abba Eban, amongst others); his introduction to the book's second edition provides an excellent overview of the history.

Though, it'd be an understatement not to recommend his latest book. By far the largest amount of footnotes, and he affirms by his maxim of making the book as well-sourced and truthful "as is humanly possible". He details the Mavi Marmara incident, Operation Cast Lead, and Operation Protective Edge, and the inconsistent reporting of human rights organizations. The book's final statements, especially, cut deep. Certainly his best work, indeed his magnum opus.

Sometime later on I might go through "Beyond Chutzpah" (it's labeled as his "sequel" to "The Holocaust Industry"), but the three books above are a great start at the very least.

I hope you don't think I'm on the side of the Israeli authorities here, I'm absolutely not.

Responding to points

> Do you honestly expect the Palestinians to roll over and die or just leave the land that was rightfully theirs?

and

> How would Israel have more of a right to Palestinian land than Palestinians do? Don't give me some superstitious dogma reason either.

as I agree with the chunk in the middle.


Nobody has any greater right to that land than anyone else, it's been occupied by nomadic tribes for as long as Archeology in the area can show. For any group to claim rights to it - peaceful or otherwise - is unacceptable. To do so by force goes against some of the most important international treaties we have.

The reason Israeli authority does it however, is for the reason you already said. They are a Zionist state, and they believe they have to get all the Arabs out of the Holy land. Meanwhile the arabs in powerful positions (which are of tiny military capability, as you already said) think the same thing about getting the Jews out of the area.

And the people who suffer are the people at the bottom of the ladder, following ludicrous religions and leaders that tell them to settle on the only part of the middle east with no oil.

I strongly recommend reading How To Cure A Fanatic (sorry, UK amazon link) if you already haven't. An insightful read on this very topic by one of the most well respected spokespeople for peace and Secularism between Israel and Palistine.

I have plenty of issue with Herzl myself, many of them stemming from the fact that as a Western educated Viennese Jew he embodied many of the Orientalist stereotypes and notions of his era. As I understand it your issue is with the practicality and not so much the ideology of Zionism itself. You argue that there is no way to construct a pluralistic yet Jewish society and I argue that there is. For example, retaining Hebrew as an official language and making Jewish holidays national holidays are both ways to ensure a Jewish character and none of these are exclusive with pluralism. Other languages can be national ones (until August Arabic was literally an official language of Israel, now it has an ill defined "special status"), other holidays can be adopted. Presumably you believe that a country like America or Canada is (or at least strives to be) a pluralistic society but in no country aside from one that seeks to enshrine Jewishness in some way would our culture and traditions be normalized as we are either too small a minority or a despised one. The power of visiting a place where Jewishness is normalized after millennia of oppression is something almost ineffable for many Jews. So all of that said what do I propose? If a binational solution were to be implemented (and I'm not saying that that's actually a feasible option at this moment in time that wouldn't lead to civil war, this is just hypothetical) the most realistic option that would protect the national character of both Jews and Palestinians would be a model akin to Bosnia and Herzegovina where both Israel and Palestine become autonomous republics under the suzerainty of a unifying federal government where some institutions such as the military are strong but others are relatively weak. There are proposals even more radical than this such as the One land Two States solution which have also been extensively laid out. As far as a non-binational yet pluralistic solutions go there are plenty of ideas such as making the constitution of the state not only recognize minority rights and equality but also specifically carve out strong state institutions to protect them.

>The simple fact is the justification for the motivation is identical.

You probably didn't see the edit I made to my last comment but I feel that it pretty accurately sums up how the motivations and justifications are not identical and how it is in fact a false equivalency. In summation White nationalism is a refuge for those who fear equality and Zionism was a movement that sought to protect Jews from those who very legitimately wanted to destroy them. This is why many took the Holocaust as a vindication of Zionism. Germany, by far the country with the most assimilated Jews (moreso than even the USA at the time) still did what it did. Back to other comparisons Black Nationalism, like most other national movements, was splintered and one strand of the movement was Black Separatism but do you truly believe that saying that Black Nationalism is no different from White Nationalism isn't a false equivalency?

Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict by Charles Smith was quite balanced, as I remember. Check out the reader's reviews. More reviews of it here.

I agree with bugbunz that there's plenty of propaganda on both sides, so when you read the reviews of that one, or any other book on the conflict, remember that supporters of each side will typically view different books as "one-sided" or "skewed". I suppose the only way to get through all that is to read even more books, to eventually reach something of a 'balanced understanding', whatever that is... Good luck! :)

EDIT: I chose Smith's book in part because it contains plenty of historic documents, like the Balfour Declaration, the White Paper, speeches in the UN etc.

If you don't end up buying the Smith book (and even if you do), you should at least get a hold of one or more document readers, like this or this one. Here is another one, that you can browse through here. Beware that bias is also possible in the selection of documents to present (or of which sections to quote).

A great book relating to this.

I think it's related to dispensationalism, to quote wikipedia:

>Dispensationalists believe that the nation of Israel is distinct from the Christian Church, and that God has yet to fulfill his promises to national Israel. These promises include the land promises, which in the future world to come result in a millennial kingdom and Third Temple where Christ, upon his return, will rule the world from Jerusalem for a thousand years.

Thx, very interesting.

Pre-Israel Jewish Palestine and early sionism is so interesting, and we non-Jews usually know less than nothing. I've read one book that touches on it (this one, can't find a English translation), and I felt that I suddenly understood so much more about nearly everything related to all things Israeli, and to some extent also Jewish, and marginally too Europe/Germany/MittelEuropa.

We have this Hitler-lens that distorts everything, overshadows modern Jewish history (and early modern anti-semitism, to be sure).

Just thinking about Yiddish makes me wonder what Jews in Balkan, Greece, and the Levant actually spoke. And if there could have been a levantine "Yiddish" based on Greek - maybe there actually was, but never in a written form?

And was (is?) there an Arabic "Yiddish"? What did the Jewish communities in the Maghreb speak?
What was/is the language of the Jews of Persia - Farsi? Assyrian? Hebrew? (surely not)

Maybe in 50 years we will see interest in the Arabic "Yiddish" like the interest in (German) Yiddish we see now?

Yes!

Read My Promised Land by Ari Shavit
I would not be living here in Jerusalem if it weren't for this book.

Read A Tale of Love and Darkness

Listen to Meir Ariel

Watch The Band's Visit

I would strongly urge you to pick up some historical books if you really want to educate yourself on this subject. Unfortunately, you're not going to find an "unbiased" source. There's no such thing as scholarship or an opinion with no bias - the best thing you can do is read educated, well-researched works from both sides, and decide for yourself what makes the most sense.

The best book I've read (I'm a history major who is Israeli, I've taken middle east studies courses from a Palestinian and I'm very in favor of people educating themselves on this subject regardless of their political opinion) is by James Gelvin (https://www.amazon.com/Israel-Palestine-Conflict-One-Hundred-Years/dp/110761354X/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=YY6VG7Z1VMDNNPYTC9JM) link to the book there. He tries really hard to just objectively explain the events that have led us to where we are now but I have to stress, even he is biased. He tries very hard not to incriminate Israel by not presenting Palestinian perspectives. If you're looking for books from an Israeli perspective, you can try Benny Morris - he's critical of Israel but defends it and Zionism. The best Palestinian source is Rashid Khalidi (Palestinian Identity, Iron Cage). He will present to you a firmly Palestinian perspective (he is descended from higher-ups in Palestinian society) that is firmly critical of Israel.

Hope that helps a little. Nothing you find on the internet will be helpful or unbiased, IMO - these books at least are all written by trained, professional Historians who has spent their lives pouring through Israeli and British archives and trying to track down Palestinian perspectives (often through oral history). I think no one should ever blindly trust their parent's political opinions - you should learn this for yourself and decide for yourself (but that doesn't mean you need to argue with them).

You never see the headline "IDF soldiers shoot Palestinian teen after he stabbed two Israeli citizens because his villages farmland was declared a national park" either.

If those are the headlines in the papers you read you need to choose different sources for news. The truth and context is available. The BBC and CSM ( christian science monitor) gives an honest accounts but you really have to read a book. Its a sad tale. a much put upon people, the European Jews, struggle for land with another people, the Palestinians, who pay the price for European antisemitism. The Jews win but are not magnanimous in victory.


And for Christ's sake dont take any comment on reddit as true without a citation and dont post unless you are sure you are right and are willing to take the downvotes.

I highly recommend this book.
The Israel-Palestine Conflict: One Hundred Years of War Both sides get a fair coating of bile.

A couple good books: One is by a Historian, Moaz: Defending the Holy Land. and I haven't read but have heard that Benny Morris would be the way to go as well. I'd also highly recommend Finkelstein's book on Gaza. He looks at incursions into Gaza and human rights reports on them rather than eye-witness accounting.

Yes. It’s already on the Amazon best selling list.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0520295714/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1526659780&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=norman+finkelstein&dpPl=1&dpID=51W9tlNhgCL&ref=plSrch

My Promised Land By Ari Shavit

Israel by Daniel Gordis

I want this!!!

https://www.amazon.com/Jewish-History-Religion-Israel-Shahak/dp/074530818X

What do you think about this review of the book? https://www.amazon.ca/secrets-guerre-Liban-massacres-palestiniens/product-reviews/2226121277/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_show_all_btm?ie=UTF8&reviewerType=all_reviews

I certainly don't hate Israel, but they are acting extremely immorally with Palestine, Gaza and the west bank and have been doing so for years. It is well documented. See "Gaza: An Inquest into Its Martyrdom"

TLDR the international plan was not just a "sorry about that whole holocaust thing" that called for booting out the Palestinians. The Zionist concept of an independent Jewish state predates the Holocaust by decades, and plans had been drafted well before Hitler rose to power in Germany. By the time the UN voted to partition the country, a large Jewish community had been living in Palestine for sixty+ years, and smaller Arab-Jewish communities predated even the aliyahs.

Disclaimer: I have attempted to avoid biased language in this. I did not have space to cover every massacre or infraction by either side. This is intended to be a brief overview of the situation and a starting point to read and learn more about this immensely complicated subject, not a comprehensive history of the creation of Israel. It should be noted that Zionist != Jewish != Israeli. Likewise Arab != Muslim != Palestinian. There are and were Arab Christians, Arab Jews, and non-Arabs all involved in the situation.

Sources (just the first two I grabbed off my shelf):

Lacquer, Walter. The Israel-Arab Reader: A Documentary History of the Middle East Conflict , 7th Edition.

Gelvin, David. The Israel-Palestine Conflict: One Hundred Years of War.