Customer Reviews

Understanding the Arab-Israeli Conflict: What the Headlines Haven't Told You

5 star:		(5)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

Everyone has a right to their review/opinion--though a proper assessment should take into account the scope of the book as well as its underlying motivation. As correctly pointed out by those reviewers who have given this book 1 or 2 stars, Dr Rydelnik is a Jewish Studies professor--at a Christian College, I should add--and as such necessarily (and admittedly) takes a "biased" perspective. And why not? We seem to equate the term "biased" with "bad"--though when applied to the endorsement--or bias in favor of--human rights and positive morality, it would seem quite proper--indeed, even incumbent for those who favor the existence (and themselves live in) countries built upon clear moral/ethical standards that are "biased" in favor of human rights and human dignity. Of course Dr Rydelnik makes moral judgements on the issue--how can one NOT do so? It seems that the negative reviewers are looking for, at the least, an equal endorsement or "understanding" (in the sympathetic sense) of the Muslim (not just Palestinian) side of the conflict. Considering both sides--regardless of the degree to which each is explored--is not coincidental with ENDORSING (or refraining from endorsing) both sides. And, as reasonably and clearly argued by many an author besides Dr Rydelnik, the Israeli side, despite any imperfections (and who doesn't have them?), is in the moral/ethical "right" on every major aspect of the conflict. If there is a reason that Dr Rydelnik spends more time on the Israeli side of the conflict, it is because it is very under-reported, distorted, or simply ignored by the media and literary world in general. The Muslim/Palestinian claims are straightforward and fairly un-nuanced (though quite different when presented to a Western versus Arab audience), whereas Israel's "side" requires some careful "cutting" through all the journalistic and pseudo-journalistic distortion and negative "bias" regarding their moral, ethical, and historical rights in the conflict. As to Muslim sources that touch on the "reasons" for the unquestionable Palestinian/Muslim anti-judaism and even outright hatred of the Jews, I would point the one reviewer who raises/questions this issue--and any others who are interested--to the book by Norman Stillman entitled "The Jews in Arab Lands." Let's not be naive--the unabashed aim of such "fundamentalist" Islamic organizations as Hamas (the popularly elected government of Palestine, let's not forget) to "destroy Israel and rid Palestine of the Zionist cancer" (meaning the Jews generally) is fundamentally based in a literal (i.e., un-reinterpreted) reading of the Muslim canon and Hadith (authoritative religious tradition comprising extra-Quranic statements and actions of Muhammad)--in one of which, as related in "al-Sura al-nabawiyya" (The Life of the Prophet) by Ibn Hisham, Muhammad COMMANDS any would be follower (i.e., Muslim) to "kill any Jew that comes into your power." So it seems that Bin Ladin was just being an obedient Muslim ...

This is a well researched book providing a historical foundation to the modern day conflict in the Middle East and it's spread throughout the world.

Dr. Rydelnik has done an excellent job of synthesizing his study of history and the Bible to bring clarity to an often-unclear issue. This book gives the reader a good grasp on the history, development, and current state of the the land of Israel and the conflict with the Palestinians. It also provides us with an invaluable, clear presentation of what the Bible has to say on the issues of who can claim ownership of the land, and of Israel and the Arab states in prophecy. I highly recommend it to anyone who would like a better understanding of the Middle East conflict, beyond what the headlines tell you.

Dr. Rydelnik has an incredible grasp of the facts related to the middle east... Yes, he is Jewish but his writing is historically accurate and simply lays out the history for your review. Read this book and you'll understand this complicated conflict. Thanks Dr. Rydelnik!

I think this book is a fine introduction to the Arab-Israeli conflict. It does address one aspect that many people overlook, namely the significance of Israel to many Western Christians. The book does supply some counterarguments from Arab Christians.

Rydelnik quite properly identifies Arab antijudaism as a major cause of the conflict rather than an effect of it. And he gives examples of Arab propaganda that show how serious this problem is.

It seems to me that the author is quite accurate in describing the history of this quarrel. However, I did find a statement he makes that's incorrect: he says that Winston Churchill named Haj Amin el-Husseini as mufti of Jerusalem, but I think the one who appointed the mufti was actually Herbert Samuel.

The most interesting parts of the book are the chapters on Israeli and Arab claims to Israel. Rydelnik breaks these claims down into the following categories: religious, historical, political, economic, and human rights. He gives arguments and rebuttals for both sides for each of these categories.

I find the religious claims untenable for either side. And I think the arguments ignore the fact that the land is the site of Temples of Jupiter, Juno, Minerva, Aphrodite, and many other Goddesses and Gods.

I also think the historical claims are invalid for both sides. No one would hand Hungary over to the Welsh today just because some Welsh people may have lived there long ago. But I do think that what Rydelnik calls "memory of the land" does explain why many Jews wanted to purchase land in the Levant and live there. In addition, there's more to it than mere memory: Jerusalem was the active capital of the Jewish people when Modern Zionism began in the late 1870s, and it already had a Jewish majority (perhaps the only Asian city to have one). In short, I think this argument at best shows good faith on the part of most Jewish purchasers of land.

Part of the historical argument is that both sides were displaced from the land and have a right to return to it. I think this is nonsense as well. The Jews who owned the land 2000 years ago are long dead. So are almost all the Arabs who owned it 60 years ago (Arab children in 1948 were not owners, their parents or grandparents were). The Jews and Arabs who left the land did not pay property taxes on it. They did not develop it. Their heirs never owned that land. Nor is it even clear just who their heirs are.

Next come the political arguments. I reject claims that the Balfour Declaration gives Jews a right to visit the Levant, settle there, or own property there. But the League of Nations really did give Jews that right. On the other hand, it did not give Jews the right to their own state. And as near as I can tell, no nation has ever been given a right to exist, anywhere. Nations exist, that is all there is to it. Israel exists because the British White Paper of 1939 made it necessary if Jewish rights to life, liberty, and property were to be preserved. When Israel became a state, it replaced a colonial British mandate, just as Ghana replaced Gold Coast. It did not replace an Arab state. Furthermore, individual Jews bought Levantine land legally, and at high prices. They have a right to keep that land if laws are to be worth anything. That is not a political argument but a legal one, and I think it is decisive.

Some Arabs say that those who want to destroy Israel have a Right of self-determination and a Right of return. I find this absurd, just as I would find it absurd for Arabs to declare a Right to destroy the United States and "return" to it to expel the present inhabitants. So I dismiss most of the political arguments. However, I do recognize the fact that Israel does exist now. And that it would be a horrible and arbitrary crime and a horrible precedent to destroy it.

The next category of arguments is economic. The author dwells on the improvements Israelis have made to the land, and the improvements in the economy. I think this is a valid argument. If people are to bid for property, the high bidders will win it. If those who are making the most effective use of the land actually have it, they may well be the highest potential bidders. That would make it counterproductive to award the land to others.

The final arguments are about human rights. I think human rights are a good idea in themselves. Israel has promoted them, while Israel's Arab opponents have attacked Israel mainly to oppose human rights (at least to oppose human rights for Asian Jews). And I think it is relevant that the existence of Israel supports human rights and is thus a benefit for everybody. Rydelnik lets the Arab counterarguments speak for themselves. These include claims that Jews are lying about the severity of the genocide in Europe in World War Two, and that the Arabs are totally innocent bystanders who are paying a price for the fact that Jews fared poorly in Europe in that war. Such claims are very weak and amount to no more than taunts.

I recommend this book, even for those who share neither my religious views nor the religious views of the author.

If you are looking for a summary of the Arab-Israeli conflict from an unabashedly pro-Israel perspective, this book is for you. If you are looking for weak analyses, ineffective writing, and blatant biases, this book is for you.

I read the previous reviews of this book and thought I was getting a well-balanced, alternative analysis of a complicated issue. Instead, I got analysis and writing on the level of a graduate student term paper, and inexcusably biased at that.

I just finished reading Bernard Lewis's "The Middle East" and, depsite the dense information, found it to flow much more smoothly than Rydelnik's writing. I regret that I haven't highlighted examples of Rydelnik's biases or poor writing, but this is one of those books that I hope to get something of value out of -- no matter how small -- but also to finish as quickly as possible.

One thing I can point out is that frequently, if not exclusively, Rydelnik makes sweeping, pro-Israel statements, citing other authors' works as his proof. My suggestion is to read those other authors' works and make up your own mind on assertions such as, say, whether during the Holocaust "the governments of the world stood by passively, doing as little as possible to stop the genocide." If you're looking for 206 pages of claims like that, this book is for you.

Promoted personally by Rydelnik at a speaking event as a fair and even-handed approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict, from page one his biases are clear. Of course, it is impossible to read a book on this subject without a bias. The author throws a few pages towards trying to understand the conflict from the Arab side, but IMO falls very short. I wonder how much time he has really spent speaking with and visiting Palestinians in his travels in the Holy Land? Especially with Palestinian Christians? Anyways, this book is clearly oriented towards the Israeli side of the conflict - if that is something you want to know more about then this book will be right up your alley. But really, there are no shocking "behind the headlines" facts in this book. If you are looking for a more balanced approach, then you should probably look elsewhere. The same is true if you would like to know more useful info on the Arab side of the equation. Oh - also, re. the author's Christian eschatology - he seems to be a pre-trib dispensationalist, which obviously influences his views on the conflict - for better or worse, I guess that's up for you to decide.

Having seen the recent headlines regarding the conflict in the Middle East, I was looking for a book that would help me better understand the perspective of both sides and justification for each's actions. This book fell far short of the mark, becoming quickly clear that the book was highly biased in support of Israel. The book felt more like propaganda than literature. I don't know the basis of the conflict. I just want to understand both sides of the conflict, and that is why I bought and read the book. However, the book quickly builds to an assumption that all Arab's and Arab Government entities in the Middle East are "Terrorist" in nature intent on killing Jews, but gives no explaination as to WHY they would want to kill Jews? I am sure that both sides have some reasonable basis for their claims, but this book only tells the Jewish side of the story from a Jewish Studies Professor whose partents are Holocaust Survivors. I was very disappointed in a book that implied objectivity, but seemed to only tell one side of the story.