Need a good book explaining Israel/Palestine situation?

R

Rose65

Well-known Member
Location
United Kingdom
Can anyone recommend a book, ideally very clear, reasonably short, not too expensive.
A book that begins with the roots, gives the facts and above all, is impartial.

I know it's a lot to ask, but I am pretty confused and would like to know. I feel everyone else is well informed and I am not at all.
 

Rose65 said:
Can anyone recommend a book, ideally very clear, reasonably short, not too expensive.
A book that begins with the roots, gives the facts and above all, is impartial.
Click to expand...
My personal opinion is that there won't be any book that isn't impartial or slanted in some way, even slightly. It's just the nature of this particular subject. What I did was lots of my own research and drew my own conclusions because even outlets claiming to be impartial are not when you dig under the surface.

And good morning to you, Rose! I hope you're having a fabulous Monday! 🌻
 
Rose, thought you were taking a step back from this situation, but here you are, still caring.
 

Last edited:
Rose65 said:
Can anyone recommend a book, ideally very clear, reasonably short, not too expensive.
A book that begins with the roots, gives the facts and above all, is impartial.

I know it's a lot to ask, but I am pretty confused and would like to know. I feel everyone else is well informed and I am not at all.
Click to expand...

I've not read it, but would something like this from Amazon be suitable?

It's about 150 pages. How would you define "reasonably short"? Bearing in mind that the history in the area is highly complex.

The Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions): Amazon.co.uk: Bunton, Martin: 9780199603930: Books
 
Jondalar7 said:
wikipedia...Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories, the longest military occupation in modern history, have drawn international condemnation for violating the human rights of the Palestinians.[21]
Sounds like there are no clear "good guys" in this.
Click to expand...

Wikipedia is hugely subjective on a lot of hot button topics. I used to recommend it in my librarian days as a good place to start by following cited sources but the bias has gotten so bad than it's often no longer good for even that.
 
AnnieA said:
Wikipedia is hugely subjective on a lot of hot button topics. I used to recommend it in my librarian days as a good place to start by following cited sources but the bias has gotten so bad than it's often no longer good for even that.
Click to expand...
Jondalar7 said:
wikipedia...Israel's practices in its occupation of the Palestinian territories, the longest military occupation in modern history, have drawn international condemnation for violating the human rights of the Palestinians.[21]
Sounds like there are no clear "good guys" in this.
Click to expand...
That's pretty much the case.
 
AnnieA said:
Wikipedia is hugely subjective on a lot of hot button topics. I used to recommend it in my librarian days as a good place to start by following cited sources but the bias has gotten so bad than it's often no longer good for even that.
Click to expand...
Wikipedia does not allow extremists to use Wikipedia's platform for dissemination of propaganda, or "alternate facts" stories, that's why Wikipedia and Snopes are on the "hit list" in some quarters.
 
My one and only comment on the subject.

Really disappointed in the media that are acting as though this problem started with the Hamas attacks. That is not the case. This is part of a continuum. The central issues have not been addressed.

I also fail to understand how a book could be more biased that any article you could link to. There's so much anti-knowledge out there that apparently you can't believe books, and you can't believe articles, and you can't believe the news. So essentially, you can never know what's really going on. Come on people, we can do better.

I think "Six Days of War by Michael Oren or On Palestine, Noam Chomsky and Ilan Pappé" fits the bill.
 
VaughanJB said:
My one and only comment on the subject.

Really disappointed in the media that are acting as though this problem started with the Hamas attacks. That is not the case. This is part of a continuum. The central issues have not been addressed.

I also fail to understand how a book could be more biased that any article you could link to. There's so much anti-knowledge out there that apparently you can't believe books, and you can't believe articles, and you can't believe the news. So essentially, you can never know what's really going on. Come on people, we can do better.

I think "Six Days of War by Michael Oren or On Palestine, Noam Chomsky and Ilan Pappé" fits the bill.
Click to expand...
The media I read(Reuters, AP, NPR) have been reporting just on the current events. No doubt there's an op-ed buried somewhere in each media site, but I don't seek out opinion pieces, I trust my own intellect to draw conclusions. The facts are all a matter of historical record, for those interested in facts.
 
As they say, history is written by the victors. No matter how the victors came to be.

Personally, the best way to find the truth is to read both sides of an argument. Some things are worth the effort, some not.
 
Nathan said:
Wikipedia does not allow extremists to use Wikipedia's platform for dissemination of propaganda, or "alternate facts" stories, that's why Wikipedia and Snopes are on the "hit list" in some quarters.
Click to expand...

I did not say propaganda or alternative facts, I said biased and stand by it. Your phrase "Wikipedia does not allow" is subjective in that it's your opinion and is subjective in that people with bias determine what is or isn't extremism. Give Wikipedia's own "Ideological bias on Wikipedia" a read and you'll see that to defend it as unbiased is simplistic.

Everything is slanted these days; there are no 'reputable sources' including those cited on Wikipedia. Read both 'sides' and try to find nuggets of truth.
 
AnnieA said:
I did not say propaganda or alternative facts, I said biased and stand by it. Your phrase "Wikipedia does not allow" is subjective in that it's your opinion and is subjective in that people with bias determine what is or isn't extremism. Give Wikipedia's own "Ideological bias on Wikipedia" a read and you'll see that to defend it as unbiased is simplistic.

Everything is slanted these days; there are no 'reputable sources' including those cited on Wikipedia. Read both 'sides' and try to find nuggets of truth.
Click to expand...
The trick is understanding your OWN bias.
 
VaughanJB said:
The trick is understanding your OWN bias.
Click to expand...

By this, are you thinking along the lines of when some or even most interpret the bias of others, whether bias is present or not, it's subjective of one's own bias?

I would say that people, regardless of the subject matter, tend to notice or pay more attention to information that confirms their existing beliefs and biases. People may be more likely to interpret bias in others as positive or accurate when it aligns with their own views and less likely to perceive bias in a positive way when it contradicts their beliefs. They might even interpret historical facts as biased when presented by others, especially if it doesn't align with their own thinking, possibly due in part to their own lack of knowledge of the subject matter.
 
Last edited:
VaughanJB said:
The trick is understanding your OWN bias.
Click to expand...

Exactly. We are human and we all have it. . My opinion...bias if you will... is that not much is trustworthy anymore unless a person is committed to either a liberal or right-wing ideology and sadly many people are. User generated websites, news media, even academic fields (including the hard sciences) and their literature now are more often than not shaped by one of the two.
 
AnnieA said:
I did not say propaganda or alternative facts, I said biased and stand by it. Your phrase "Wikipedia does not allow" is subjective in that it's your opinion and is subjective in that people with bias determine what is or isn't extremism. Give Wikipedia's own "Ideological bias on Wikipedia" a read and you'll see that to defend it as unbiased is simplistic.
Click to expand...
You are correct, you did not say "propaganda or alternative facts"...that was part of my statement. My phrase "Wikipedia does not allow" is not subjective, it is Wikipedia's policy.

AnnieA said:
Everything is slanted these days; there are no 'reputable sources' including those cited on Wikipedia.
Click to expand...
I suspect that this argument is used as justification by those who choose information sources that cater to their beliefs.
 
Nathan said:
You are correct, you did not say "propaganda or alternative facts"...that was part of my statement. My phrase "Wikipedia does not allow" is not subjective, it is Wikipedia's policy.


I suspect that this argument is used as justification by those who choose information sources that cater to their beliefs.
Click to expand...

You just skipped over the post above yours so will repost part of it:
My opinion...bias if you will... is that not much is trustworthy anymore unless a person is committed to either a liberal or right-wing ideology and sadly many people are. User generated websites, news media, even academic fields (including the hard sciences) and their literature now are more often than not shaped by one of the two.
 
AnnieA said:
You just skipped over the post above yours so will repost part of it:
My opinion...bias if you will... is that not much is trustworthy anymore unless a person is committed to either a liberal or right-wing ideology and sadly many people are. User generated websites, news media, even academic fields (including the hard sciences) and their literature now are more often than not shaped by one of the two.
Click to expand...
I didn't skip over your post, but I did see it after I posted. It's true that revenue driven media sites will not only shape their content to fit their audience, but also shape their audience's perception to fit their content. That is why I tend to trust Wikipedia, which is a non-profit organization.
https://wikimediafoundation.org/support/
 
Nathan said:
I didn't skip over your post, but I did see it after I posted. It's true that revenue driven media sites will not only shape their content to fit their audience, but also shape their audience's perception to fit their content. That is why I tend to trust Wikipedia, which is a non-profit organization.
Support Wikipedia – Wikimedia Foundation
Click to expand...

The information on Wikipedia comes from consumers of revenue driven media sites who cite them as sources. You can't get away from ideological polarization and its resulting bias.
 
AnnieA said:
The information on Wikipedia comes from consumers of revenue driven media sites who cite them as sources. You can't get away from ideological polarization and its resulting bias.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty methodical in sifting through data sources, personally. I don't take any one source as "gospel", in my search for the facts. I can smell a 'motivated' statement, usually contains a malformed logic flow, or underlying emotional aspect.
 
Here's a Wikipedia link about Ideological bias on Wikipedia that seems to cover most bases

Then there is this chart from AllSides

5ElcEnZ.png
 
Does anyone know of a YouTube video that explains calmly and clearly the history of this conflict? One without footage and images of war, without dramatic music and breathless voices. Just want facts, not opinions, preferably by a respected historian who takes no sides.
Does such a video exist in this age of noise and confusion.

I am looking really for a measured lecture, an academic look at this, without drama.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, don't know about books that would help, but this video was good in helping to understand situation at hand!

 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top