Another propaganda bandwagon: lets blame the Jews!



Dont buy this rubbish along with every other book written buy decieved Jew hating morons.



May Christ have mercy on these cretins.

Another propaganda bandwagon: lets blame the Jews!

Dont buy this rubbish along with every other book written buy decieved Jew hating morons.

May Christ have mercy on these cretins.

Eddie Said could do nothing but kevetch about how the Palestinians were treated.

Then again, he was pro-suicide bombing.

The guy way a hypocrite, and a lousy writer to boot.

The famous Edward Said...yes I have had to read his books all throughout college, as he was required reading for every sociology, political science or communications course I took. Admitedly, as a self professed compassionate liberal I wanted to like this book. I wnated to read it and believe that "Palestinians" truly are commited to the "two state solution." Instead I cam away from this book learning that the finger pointing and blame game continue to be the primary Intellectualism of Dr. Said. While this book is well written and does argue for the freedoms of "Palestinians" it completely ignores the rights and freedoms of Israelis and the need for "Palestinians" to take responsibility for their continued rejection of the two state solution and continued choice "yes I do believe that people have free will" of terrorism.

In "The Question of Palestine" author Edward W. Said analyzes the complexity in recognizing the Palestinian plight that has plagued a society since the establishment of Israel. Said eloquently illustrates a different perception to the omnipresent and biased understanding of the Palestinian/Israeli issue. It was enlightening to analyze Said's version on the international conflict, not simply because I am sympathetic to a society under foreign occupation and in exile, but rather because it is a perspective not often pursued by the American general public.
"The Question of Palestine" depicts the effects of Zionism and how its blatant disregard of Palestinians is culpable for the ongoing strife in the region. Said describes the historical context in which the existence of Palestinians was disregarded from the very onset of Israel's creation. The author explains that his purpose in writing this book was to illustrate how the Palestinian's perceive Zionism.
Although Said is clearly an enthusiast for the Palestinian cause, he credits Israel's political organization, cultural achievements, and economic stability as the strength behind Israel's permanence. What I find fascinating about this book is that it addresses issues often ignored by America's biased media. American society has yet to adequately analyze the inhumane political and social injustices suffered by the Palestinians. In fact, often is the case that news coverage of Arabs in the region reinforce an already inbred stereotype of Middle Eastern society, that chaos and violence is a standard practice.
Said also emphasizes on how Israel, once a victim of oppression, has evolved into an oppressor. In "The Question of Palestine," Said explains how Palestine has been plagued by acquisition and occupation. In his book, Said describes his view of Israel as an imperialistic society. He also addresses the issue that the Palestinians were not consulted when their land was given to a new society for development. In essence, Said explains how the existence of the Palestinians was thought of as a minimal complication that will dilute with time. However, the reality of the matter is that the identities of the Palestinians are far from accepting defeat.
In "The Question of Palestine" Said describes how nearly 4 million Palestinians are scattered throughout the world. In this book Said questions how nothing is said when it is irrefutable that Israel is responsible for the deportation, torture, and transfer of population of millions of Palestinian Arabs. Said gives his readers an account of the Palestinian reality -- a struggle in which the natives are the disadvantaged.
Fundamentally, the purpose of Said writing this book was to bring attention to a vaguely commented issue - the reality of the Palestinian refugees. An issue that Said describes as ignored, or willfully misrepresented is no longer so. "The Question of Palestine" provokes its readers to question an issue that would not commonly be addressed. I recommend this book to anyone interested in Middle Eastern politics and to any individual on gaining insight on an issue that is unfortunately not often discussed.

Edward Said tries to portray the Zionism from its victims' point of view. He arbitrarily asserts that the Palestinians are victims of the Zionism. He never considers that perhaps they are victims of their own fanaticism and uncompromising policy that are practiced for decades that brought them into their pitiful situation.

Another leitmotif in the book is the idea that Zionism is colonialism. He tries to sell the story of the colonizing Jews against the native Arabs, never mentioning any connection between the Jews and Israel, as though it is comparable to the white colonialists out of Europe. Also, through selective quoting, as he did in his famous previous book, Orientalism, he tries to show that the Israeli Zionists have scorned the Arabs. He boldly ignores many Zionists who admired the Arabs and saw them as the new man they are trying to create, and the antithesis of Jews of the Diaspora: proud person, who lives in his lands, defends it and farms it.

He also criticizes the Zionism because it is made for Jews and not Arabs. But Zionism is the Jewish nationalism, and there is no reason why it should promote the rights of the Arabs. Just like the Arab nationalism is not about Jewish rights.

The terrorism issue is another colossal failure of this book. He conveniently blames the victims: he asserts that the terrorism is forced upon the Palestinians, as though they have no choice. He tries to have it both ways, but it's impossible. You either condemn the terrorism, or justify it. You can't be both pro-Palestinian enough by avoiding a whole condemnation and in the meantime be liberal enough by condemning murders. There is no middle way.

The book is also full of other mistakes and distortions that come handy in telling his message: the Balfour declaration was considerate of the Palestinian rights, in contrary to his writing, and explicitly declares: "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine". He also considers the Jewish resistance against the British as terrorism (although it was against military, not civilians) and suggests that the brave Egyptian peace with Israel harms the Palestinians, and that Saadat has made many concessions (in fact, he did got all the territory that Egypt loss, except for Gaza strip which he didn't want).

The few good things that have to be said on the book are that its conciseness and fluency make it an easy read, and that his points that the Palestinian people exists and that their right to self determination must be fulfilled are precisely right.

The good thing about the book is that it is very well written and in a clear fashion. This renders such a diffucult topic understandable.

But the content is completely ideological and does not present the facts. It blames the corruption in arab's leadership for the suffering of the palestinians, but suggests this corrpution exists and was encouraged as a reaction to european orientalsm and zionist "occupation".

So at first the book starts with somewhat of a critic to arab leadership, but ends up suggesting zionism and related ideologies as "sources of arab corrpution".

This point is not new. It rather the norm in Edward Said's works. And the people who know the goodwill of jews know that the point he tries to make falls by its own contradictions.

Said's book presents valid arguments and discusses the anti-Arab prejudices of the West, and the corresponding support for Zionists in their expansionist mindset toward Palestine, but as Said states, "The reader will quickly discover, I hope, that what is proposed in this book is not an `expert' view nor, for that matter, personal testimony. Rather, it is a series of experienced realities, grounded in a sense of human rights and he contradictions of social experience, couched as much as possible in the language of everyday reality. (xv)." Said pronounced from the start that this is a subjective explanation of the conflict, and that his partisan stance may be jaded by his Palestinian experience.

Just as the Middle East dialogue is short-sided for its Zionist lens, Said commits the same fault of conditioning his book through one-sided Palestinian eyes. In spite of this point Said continues to valiantly defend Arab morals and society, while portraying Palestinian as `outlaws of sorts' to the West, seemingly for liberal identification and sympathy. The belittled Palestinians are defined as a nation of `others,' deriving their national identity as an opposition to Zionists. The suffering of the Israelis at the hands of Arab terrorists is ignored at best and is at points condoned as desperation in this time of frustration for Palestinian nationals.

The major fault with Said is that he attempts to polarize the issue, which is the same fault he has against the Western World. As the Western world portrays the Arab as criminal, backward, and uneducated, Said dresses the West and Zionists in a `white man's burden' suit without regard for what they characterize as `backward beliefs and customs' of the Arab world. Said paints a picture of a bullying Zionist and West mentality where the Zionists and West are said to believe that they have the Arabs' best interests at heart in their conquest of the Middle East. The imposing Zionists are sketched as overbearing, without any regard for Palestinian autonomy and rights. The Palestinians are nothing more than victims, and the Zionists are the perfect perpetrator of the Western crime.

The second major, yet related fault of Said, is that he is consistently referring to Western sources for his information and his history of Palestine and the conflict; the same fault he attaches to the Western-Zionist imperialists. Said fails to elucidate the profound impact of the Western World on Zionism; no where in the work does Said realize that Zionism, as an outgrowth of romantic European nationalism, never existed or promoted injustices performed against the Palestinians. The Western world may have been influential in its disregard or ignorance of Palestinians, but there was never overt or covert mention in early Zionist documentation of the need to make the Palestinians disappear. There are shaky quotations from Herzl and Begin, but in all the quotations attributed to these people there is never quality translations as evidenced in his lack of footnotes for Begin and his subjective and exclusionary citing of Herzl.

The two-state solution seemed probable with the signing of the Belfour Declaration. Palestine has always been a land of two people, and Said's answer is a two-state solution. However, in 1947 Arab leadership rejected a UN resolution for a two-state solution. Said contends the expansion minded Zionists then took Israel and exiled the Palestinians. He cites between 700,000-800,000 Palestinians were forced from their homes, but he does little to refute the Israeli claim that Arab leadership supported this move as evidenced by the War for Independence in Israel the day after Israel was granted statehood. In this war the Israelis were attacked by seven Arab countries, and defended themselves. Why would the Arab nations attack if not for the land? Would these Arab lands still have attacked with 750,000 Arabs still living there? I find it rather difficult to make the argument that the Palestinians were forced out and there was no leadership of prior knowledge of an Arab strike against Israel.

When morality hits reality Said struggles. The Middle East conflict is not simply a matter of divergent values and morals with the subjugation of the Palestinians to the Israelis. The truth is that both people identify with the land, and his reduction of this conflict of Western values clashing with Orientalism negates the realities surrounding the situation. Jews had always wanted to return to Israel, Ottoman Empire mandate only allowed certain immigration, as did all prior empires in Israel. The Zionists never left Israel they were forced out, but for all of Said's purposes the Palestinians were always there and never left.

It takes two for a conflict, and the closest Said can come to assigning any blame to Palestinians is when he reminiscence. He thinks of his childhood in Palestine and the notion that the encroaching Zionists would be beaten in war, not through politics or negotiations. If brutality is not the Arab mentality, and the political shortcomings of Palestine is a result of their lack of adopting Western values, how were the Palestinians supposed to behave in the early 20th century? Should they have not signed the Belfour Accord of 1917 in the Zionists move toward a state of their own, or should they have continued to have Massacres like the ones in Hebron in 1929? Or should they have done nothing, or could they have done nothing, as Said is most likely to respond. It is hard to believe that a couple hundred thousand Jews in Europe were able to overpower the Palestinians in all four of these aspects.

The Question of Palestine is a valuable book in creating a unique Palestinian voice, but it polarizes the Middle East conflict to such a degree that it seems that Israel, and the West for that matter, have decided to set the standard, rules, negotiations, and terms without any repercussions, because they know best.

Fighting for the rights of Palestinians is a noble undertaking. However, most Pro-Israeli authors present a very simplistic account of the Middle East conflict. Namely, they often present Palestinian suffering out of context; They fail to see zionists as cruel, racist nationalists which, to say the least, invite their own self-destruction; They also ignore or downplay Israel's serious questions of legality, especially in the 40s and 50s. Edward Said corrects those authors. His arguments are based on thorough research and not on very selective use of sources. This is especially true about his account of early Israeli history. As a result, we get a work that succeeds with its noble intentions. It succeeds because a serious student of Israeli/Palestinian history, regardless of his/her political opinions, will easily notice its factual honesty and scholarship (check out other Edward Said books on the conflict to see which books are also helpful). As a result, Said and others like him gain their credibility in the eyes of many readers and, thus, do a service to their cause.

In this book Edward Said presents an argument for the right of Palestinians to the land known as Palestine. Since the 7th century Palestine had been predominantly Arab. For example a 1922 census showed that 78% of the population was Arab. With the creation of Israel in 1948 by the UN, these Arabs were dispersed quite often by force. Ironically 1948 is the same year that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declared that everyone has the right to return to his own country. The right of the Palestinians has been ignored or denied. Not even a plebiscite represents their point of view.

His argument is compeling. Edward Said writes logically and with insight. If finally the reader does not agree with him, the reader will surely think long and hard about it.

I had this book for quite a while, but I only started to read it lately and finished it in a week. The reason why I wasn't very enthusiastic about reading it is the fact that the book was written in the 70's and I though that whatever applied back then did not apply now. A lot of stuff has happened in the last thirty years, but all that does not make this book less useful, valuable and insightful. It is astonishing how a thing hasn't changed for Palestinians, how the pending issues and agonies then are the same now.

Said present his book from one side, the forgotten side. He states that very clearly in almost every chapter in his book. He doesn't however neglect or eliminate the other side, as has much of the western media attempted to do with regards to Palestinians in the last 50 years. He is one of the first intellectuals who has talked about this sensitive issue in the west and has spend most of his adult life attending to his goal, the Palestinians

His views and analysis of the political issues in that time, specifically with regards to Camp David is remarkable and from my point of view truthful. He stands as a witness to the political struggle between different Arabic countries, Israel and the United states in those troubled and critical years in the history of the Middle East.

But still after more than 50 years to the question of Palestine, there are still no answers.

I didn't realise before I read this that the country now called 'Israel' is in fact Palestine, and that it was taken over and renamed after the second world war. I suppose pieces of territory are always being occupied and peoples are always being turfed off their land, like what happened to the poor Palestinians. What this book suggests, however, is that, thesee things come and go, and that maybe in 50 years or so, Palestine will revert back to its proper people. Mr Said is obviously a very passionate and wise man.

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