<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Opinionated yet valuable history of 20th-century Palestine
Review: A combination of history and journalism, La Guardia's useful and readable book covers the formation of Israel, its recently immigrated Jewish populations, and the exiled or (to risk a loaded word) subjugated, mostly Islamic, Arab natives. While the book sketches the historical events of the last two millennia that led the world to the current impasse and describes the rise of Zionism and its role in the creation of the state, the bulk of its pages focuses on events since 1948. Discussion about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has become so heated that it is surely impossible to write a book that would satisfy even a plurality of readers, much less most of them. La Guardia is not impartial: on the whole, his sympathies tend to lie with the plight of the Palestinians (and part of this bias may well be unavoidable, considering the disadvantaged David vs. well-armed Goliath nature of the conflict). Yet he also understands the motives, emotions, and events that supported both Zionism and the formation of a Jewish state early in the first half of the twentieth century. His blunt criticisms are equally harsh, directed at the international blindness that seemingly pretended that Palestine was an empty territory before and especially after World War 2, the incendiary Israeli policy of permitting settlements amidst Palestinian territory, the anti-Semitism tainting the Palestinian cause, the intractable religious fanaticism that infects both sides. Furthermore, he is scathing in his criticism of both Israeli and Palestinian leaders. For example, he excoriates Arafat's cynical manipulations, his administration of "a fiefdom in his own image," and his "laissez-faire attitude" to Palestinian violence. Similarly, he disparages Sharon for his role in the Phalangist massacre of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon. Although extremists of either stripe will undoubtedly disagree, La Guardia's biases inform rather than contaminate his reporting. The journalistic aspects of the book yield its one major shortcoming. Instead of presenting the history of Palestine/Israel in some linear fashion, his chapters divide his materials, very loosely, into a potpourri of overlapping topics: religious background, the early immigrations and kibbutzim, a history of twentieth century events, the shadow of the Holocaust and the creation of the Palestinian diaspora (provocatively titled "Victims of Victims"), the assorted native and immigrant Jewish communities, and recent political events. La Guardia mixes interviews, historical narration, and flashbacks; since he occasionally refers to people and events before he's introduced them, the result may well be confusing to those who don't already have a general historical background. Written by a foreign observer with an impressive understanding of the Middle East, "War without End" is, for the most part, factually reliable--and the opinionated presentation of those facts will enlighten rather than prejudice. The reader closes the book, however, with a sinking pessimism reinforced by the book's title: that this morass really has no solution that we can expect to see in our lifetimes.
Rating: 
Summary: Objectivity is impossible?
Review: A good accounting of the history of this conflict,
you can come to your own conclusions based on the facts,..
which this book is filled with. This is what I was looking for in a book and would
recomend
Rating:
Summary: War Without End revisited
Review: As I was reading through this book it stroke me that it is funny how much authors spend time convincing us, the readers, that they are reporting nothing less than the truth. La Guardia is aware that he has taken upon himself to write about a conflict, which appears to have been covered in every aspect possible; he is aware that it is not possible to write a comprehensive piece about one of the most dynamic conflicts in history. he explicitly shares his doubts with the reader of investing energy in writing a text that may seem superfluous the next day because the course of events have taken another surprising turn. The question remains why did he do it? Why did he write this book?
Considering that since this book was published, Ariel Sharon has almost succeeded in erasing every memory of the triumphs of the Oslo agreements; he has been re-elected; Israel has had several suicide incidents because of its collapsing economy; Yassir Arafat has been labeled relatively irrelevant; the Iraqi regime has been subverted; Mahoud Abbas, Abu Mazen, has been sworn in as the first Palestinian Prime Minister in history; two days ago the Bush administration published its suggestion for the solution of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, the infamous "Road Map". All this has happened as a result of the 11-9 attack on the World Trade Center, since this book was published. If you are looking for updated analysis and reports of what is going on in Israel, you'd better stick to the newspapers. La Guardia's book, however, provides a detailed survey of this area's religious and political history; in Althusserian terminology La Guardia presents the different ideological apparuteses' influence on the area's history. His backgound as a reporter can easily be traced in the narrative, but it also gives a flow to the reading of a dense account.
The ideas are not new; the parties involved has not changed; Arafat is still Arafat, and Sharon is still Sharon. to those reviewers, who are complaining about La Guadia's lack of objectivity, should notice that this conflict is a conflict of opnions and contrasting views. I do not encourage you to choose side, but if you want to search for objectivity, go buy a cooking book. envigorating subjectivity is always welcome. This book should be read at least once for the sake of refreshing your memory. if you are not acquainted with the subtle details of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict then i'll give this book five stars as it introduces the subject excellently.
Rating: 
Summary: Fascinating, heartwrenching account of Israel's conflict
Review: I can only say that this book was one of the best books I have ever read on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. Deliciously detailed and compassionately written, this book achieves its purpose: Explain the middle east crisis to those of us who don't understand it. This book enlightened me and showed me many of the 'whys'. Of course, Israel's conflict is a spiritual as well as political battle, and secular news reporters will never understand nor acknowledge this aspect of the crisis. We are not given much food for thought in the religious arena but we are given much in the geo-political/social arena. An excellent book to be sure for anyone interested in the land of milk and honey.
Rating:
Summary: Mostly good, but author's bias peaks through ever so subtly
Review: In general, a very good read by a well-informed and articulate writer. Maybe the best book on the subject since "From Beirut to Jerusalem." And the author is very good in exploring the inner minds of a lot of his subjects, his review of history is more informative than Friedman's was. However, I think that in spite of his honest attempts to write a balanced account, the author does not always succeed. His sympathy for the Palestinian cause, conscious or subconscious, resides in many of his pages. For example, it is interesting that almost all inconsistencies of Israeli policy over the last several decades are carefully reviewed and enumerated, but no similar critique is leveled at Arafat (with the exception only single reference to him as being unreliable). In discussing some of the reasons that led to the collapse of the Oslo process, the author omits what could possibly be the biggest one of all. He described the scene where Arafat rejected Barak's offer because it would have led to his funeral. What the author fails to mention is that Arafat never made the tough political decision Rabin had made to tell his people that they would have to reach a compromise with Israel. Instead from 1994 on the told them that one day they will have Jerusalem, Jaffa, Haifa, and the rest. He was an irresponsible leader who promised something he could never deliver, who raised expectations of his people to a point where they could never be satisfied with any proposal that an Israeli politician could put forth and win a referendum on. Arafat's position in front of the Palestinians in 1994-2000 effectively precluded any possibility of a compromise final settlement. Yet in this entire work the author does not mention this once. Neither does he mention Arafat's famous doubletalk: one thing in English, another in Arabic.
In describing various Israeli inequities towards the Moslem holy places, the author manages to complete omit the fact that in 1948-1967 no Jew was allowed to approach his holy places at all.
An interesting example is provided by the author's description of the aftermath of the massacre of praying Palestinians by Dr. Goldstein -- a despicable crime and a truly low point for the settler movement. The author mentions that after Goldstein was overcome by the Palestinians, they began clashing with Israeli soldiers even though Goldstein was a lone shooter. The author appears very upset about the fact that the soldiers "for some reason... made a provocative appearance" at the hospital and then put the town on curfew even though it was the Jew who committed the crime in this case. But are curfews not usually imposed on a rioting city? Are soldiers not typically deployed to protect a hospital in a city beset with violence? The curfew had nothing to do with the shooting, but it had everything to do with the Palestinian riots that started immediately afterwards. The better question to ask is why "for some reason" the Palestinians "made a provocative appearance" on the streets and attacked the Israeli soldiers and settlers, who had nothing to do with the morning shooting.
The author does not miss a chance to call Israeli explanations "excuses;" its leaders are "corpulent" (Sharon) or former "terrorists" (Shamir), yet such labels are attached to Arafat. Reading the author's account of Camp David 2000, one might believe that it was Barak, not Arafat, who was responsible for the fiasco. Barak was too tough and confrontational, apparently, in spite of putting forth a stunningly generous offer (the best offer Israel could ever give), but Arafat merely was "suspicious." But I digress... The book is good, read it, but look for the author's opinions encroaching on history here and there; caution is warranted!
Rating: 
Summary: Not Balanced
Review: Journalist Anton La Guardia spent most of the 1990s in Israel as a reporter, much like Thomas Friedman spent most of the 1980s in the Middle East before writing his masterpiece "From Beruit to Jerusalem." There are important similarities and differences between the two books. Whereas Friedman's book examined the broader perspective of Middle East politics, "War Without End" is concerned exclusively with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Addtionally, while Firedman's book used history as a backdrop for a telling of his own experiences, La Guardia's book concentrates on historical writing punctuated only occasionally by his first person accounts. That said, La Guardia has produced an excellent one volume history of the conflict. He sets the stage by explianing the origins of Zionism and of the European anti-Semetism that caused it to gain force. He then gives an overview the history of the Ottoman and British rule over Palestine, the 1948 UN Mandate and Israeli War for Independence, and the subsequent Arab-Israeli conflicts. After this, the rest of the book is devoted to the many conflicts between the Israelis and the Palenstinians as well as the internal conflicts between various factions within Israel and of the ineptitude of the PLO leadership. La Guardia gives a balanced account, and is critical of the excesses and mistakes committed by both parties. One comes away from the book with a clearer understanding of recent conflict. Though chronologically disjointed, the narrative covers events all the way up until early 2002. The odd structuring of the book is most likely due to the numerous rewrites La Guardia admits in the preface to doing as events continued to unfold. His most valuable service is that, like with Friedman's book, he cuts through the ideological and religious issues to give readers a relatively clear picture of just what lies behind the world's most intractable conflict. Overall, a well written and readable book that works a tad better as a work of history than as a work of journalism.
Rating:
Summary: 100 years war
Review: This is a sobering account of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with a background history of Zionism and the rise of Arab nationalism, and their destiny of collision. Although there are many far more detailed accounts, the mood here bespeaks a novel sense of reserve from erstwhile supporters, as the implications of the current hopeless situation sink in. The situation need not be hopeless, but wrong expectations will certainly be so. Thus part of the problem can be seen from the title itself, with the phrase, a promised land. What promise was this? The self betrayal by mythology has brought nearly to oblivion the situation of realistic thinking clearly visible in Herzl, who had no such illusions.
<< 1 >>
|
