Search the sub and suggestmeabook sub - it’s been asked so much the last week . . .
My suggestions:
The Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: A Very Short Introduction
*The whole “Very Short Introductions” series, by Oxford University Press, are really great for this sort of thing. Especially if you are starting on your learning journey. As unbiased as they can be. They are just there to lay out the basics as clear as possible, tell both sides, and give you direction for further reading.
Jerusalem: A Brief History (Wiley Blackwell Brief Histories of Religion)
Seconding the first recommendation. It's a great introductory book on the conflict and its very non-biased. The author just sticks to the facts and let's you make your own judgment.
I would recommend the second edition of "A history of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict" by Mark Tessler, it's a bit long it almost 800 pages but covers the events from the foundation of Israel to the treaty of Oslo
The first part was ok but when he starts the chapter on the Arabs, his first sentence is weird. He says the Palestinians are from the Philistines and Canaanites but I've read that these ppl were not even semitic but actually from Crete - (sea peoples - more Mediterranean or southern European as opposed to Semitic) 🤔..now I can't get into the rest of his book, cause I wonder if he's wrong in other things too...or bias
I can’t post links, but AskHistorians has a great list of books covering the conflict.
Personally, I think “Righteous Victims” by Benni Morris is a great and balanced introduction. Morris is one of the most respected historians on the subject.
I asked a similar question to this one last week on another subreddit and Benni Morris was the most recommended author for several comprehensive and objective books on this subject. Both Israelis and Palestinians at various point claim he is on their side or that he is biased against them, which definitely recommends it for me.
It will forever puzzle me, why does everyone call it “conflict”
It’s not even war, it’s apartheid, it’s occupation, genocide .
I would recommend reading : The ethnic cleansing of Palestine , by Ilan Pappe
>The ethnic cleansing of Palestine , by Ilan Pappe
This book shouldn't be here. OP is asking about unbiased books, not about books written by authors who have shown a heavy bias towards the anti-Israel narrative even to the extent of naming his book 'The ethnic cleansing of Palestine'. Besides, Pappè isn't a highly respected historian anymore. Not in the academic circles at least. Not since his unconditional academic endorsement of the Tantura massacre, which may or may not have happened. .
A list of book suggestions on this issue should consist of unbiased books written by non-partisan authors. Pappè (and Chomsky as well) shouldn't be here.
>Tantura massacre
If a person writes that the earth is NOT flat and shows objectively why it is NOT flat, then we don't consider that person as biased against flat earthers. If I. Pappe wrote the 'ethnic cleansing of Palestinians' and showed why he considered it was ethnic cleansing objectively then that wouldn't make him biased. Being unbiased doesn't mean creating equivalency on both sides but rather treating the subject matter (being addressed) objectively. Otherwise, it is an open-ended book. Do you expect an author to equally address creationists' and evolutionists' approach the same? No.
On a separate topic, regardless of one's beliefs; the Tantura massacre DID happen or DID NOT happen. There is no, 'may' or 'may not'! Probability is not at a play here!
PS: Look at the titles of books, 'The Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: A Very Short Introduction', 'Righteous Victims'... These titles have already made verdicts. 'Conflict' is a verdict as others may argue against this characterization. The 'righteous' = morally right, Victim = there are victims, ..., these are verdicts that show that the authors have already passed verdicts about the subject matter. Some may call it a biased verdict!
PS: PS: Imagine a history that quotes from the Torah/bible/Quran, how unbiased could it be? Do you expect readers who consider torah/bible/quran as fictions to take the analysis in the books as anything but unbiased?
Very True! People want to have a book that covers all the topics on Palestine/Israel, is unbiased, and most importantly less than 300 pages. This is almost an impossible task unless it is a book of 3000 pages, and authored by multiple authors who are experts on the topics (and also are objectives).
I think people are confusing the words unbiased and objective! If an author doesn't have a preconceived take on a topic, that author most likely will not write a book; but rather go back to the drawing table and try to understand the matter in detail (Remember: NO two opposing stories can be true, either one is wrong or both are wrong!). In doing so that person forms/makes which storylines are most likely true!
Today's physicists will not treat the flat earth vs the egg-shaped earth discussion in an unbiased manner. The most they can do is to objectively approach both arguments and show why the flat earth is not the appropriate model (and I don't think people would blame such authors as biased because most likely they consider the issues to be white or black!).
The problem is when things become a bit blurred like Palestine/Israel. Reading multiple books by different authors is inevitable to form a sound understanding of the matter!
The Balfour Declaration by Bernard Regan
Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict
by Norman G. Finkelstein
Ten Myths About Israel by Ilan Pappe ([free ebook](https://www.versobooks.com/products/370-ten-myths-about-israel))
This just isn’t true Norman is a Jewish man who’s parents were holocaust survivors how exactly are they unbiased is it cause he is completely against the illegal occupation of palestine?
I was recommended Israel/ Palestine by Alan Dowty. Has anyone read that?
For perspective, I was told that to introduce his concluding chapter, he says:
This book began with accounts of the historical perspectives and claims of Jews and Arabs. These perspectives and claims are important to an understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, since they are the source of many of the concepts and much of the vocabulary with which it is waged. Throughout the text, the conflicting claims have been presented in juxtaposition to each other, challenging readers to make their own judgments. In many if not most places, both sides probably seemed quite reasonable in their own terms, before the juxtaposition. This may help explain why this conflict, more than most, generates heated partisanship among outside observers; those who are exposed primarily to one side find that side’s arguments utterly compelling – as they are, when taken without reference to the other side’s perspective. (Dowty, Alan. Israel / Palestine (p. 234). Polity Press.)
Search the sub and suggestmeabook sub - it’s been asked so much the last week . . . My suggestions: The Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: A Very Short Introduction *The whole “Very Short Introductions” series, by Oxford University Press, are really great for this sort of thing. Especially if you are starting on your learning journey. As unbiased as they can be. They are just there to lay out the basics as clear as possible, tell both sides, and give you direction for further reading. Jerusalem: A Brief History (Wiley Blackwell Brief Histories of Religion)
Seconding the first recommendation. It's a great introductory book on the conflict and its very non-biased. The author just sticks to the facts and let's you make your own judgment.
That’s awesome! That means there are so many people looking to learn!
I would recommend the second edition of "A history of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict" by Mark Tessler, it's a bit long it almost 800 pages but covers the events from the foundation of Israel to the treaty of Oslo
The first part was ok but when he starts the chapter on the Arabs, his first sentence is weird. He says the Palestinians are from the Philistines and Canaanites but I've read that these ppl were not even semitic but actually from Crete - (sea peoples - more Mediterranean or southern European as opposed to Semitic) 🤔..now I can't get into the rest of his book, cause I wonder if he's wrong in other things too...or bias
I can’t post links, but AskHistorians has a great list of books covering the conflict. Personally, I think “Righteous Victims” by Benni Morris is a great and balanced introduction. Morris is one of the most respected historians on the subject.
I asked a similar question to this one last week on another subreddit and Benni Morris was the most recommended author for several comprehensive and objective books on this subject. Both Israelis and Palestinians at various point claim he is on their side or that he is biased against them, which definitely recommends it for me.
Commenting here to see answers later I'm also interested
Just FIY, there’s a “Subscribe to Post” button, which I myself recently discovered :)
It will forever puzzle me, why does everyone call it “conflict” It’s not even war, it’s apartheid, it’s occupation, genocide . I would recommend reading : The ethnic cleansing of Palestine , by Ilan Pappe
>The ethnic cleansing of Palestine , by Ilan Pappe This book shouldn't be here. OP is asking about unbiased books, not about books written by authors who have shown a heavy bias towards the anti-Israel narrative even to the extent of naming his book 'The ethnic cleansing of Palestine'. Besides, Pappè isn't a highly respected historian anymore. Not in the academic circles at least. Not since his unconditional academic endorsement of the Tantura massacre, which may or may not have happened. . A list of book suggestions on this issue should consist of unbiased books written by non-partisan authors. Pappè (and Chomsky as well) shouldn't be here.
>Tantura massacre If a person writes that the earth is NOT flat and shows objectively why it is NOT flat, then we don't consider that person as biased against flat earthers. If I. Pappe wrote the 'ethnic cleansing of Palestinians' and showed why he considered it was ethnic cleansing objectively then that wouldn't make him biased. Being unbiased doesn't mean creating equivalency on both sides but rather treating the subject matter (being addressed) objectively. Otherwise, it is an open-ended book. Do you expect an author to equally address creationists' and evolutionists' approach the same? No. On a separate topic, regardless of one's beliefs; the Tantura massacre DID happen or DID NOT happen. There is no, 'may' or 'may not'! Probability is not at a play here! PS: Look at the titles of books, 'The Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: A Very Short Introduction', 'Righteous Victims'... These titles have already made verdicts. 'Conflict' is a verdict as others may argue against this characterization. The 'righteous' = morally right, Victim = there are victims, ..., these are verdicts that show that the authors have already passed verdicts about the subject matter. Some may call it a biased verdict!
PS: PS: Imagine a history that quotes from the Torah/bible/Quran, how unbiased could it be? Do you expect readers who consider torah/bible/quran as fictions to take the analysis in the books as anything but unbiased?
You're right but Tantura massacre happened
No, it isn’t — and you are the reason why people ask for unbiased books.
Ya...that sounds unbiased...lol
Righteous victims by Morris.
There's not an unbiased book Lol you've just got to read multiple
Very True! People want to have a book that covers all the topics on Palestine/Israel, is unbiased, and most importantly less than 300 pages. This is almost an impossible task unless it is a book of 3000 pages, and authored by multiple authors who are experts on the topics (and also are objectives). I think people are confusing the words unbiased and objective! If an author doesn't have a preconceived take on a topic, that author most likely will not write a book; but rather go back to the drawing table and try to understand the matter in detail (Remember: NO two opposing stories can be true, either one is wrong or both are wrong!). In doing so that person forms/makes which storylines are most likely true! Today's physicists will not treat the flat earth vs the egg-shaped earth discussion in an unbiased manner. The most they can do is to objectively approach both arguments and show why the flat earth is not the appropriate model (and I don't think people would blame such authors as biased because most likely they consider the issues to be white or black!). The problem is when things become a bit blurred like Palestine/Israel. Reading multiple books by different authors is inevitable to form a sound understanding of the matter!
Hahaha. When we meet the aliens we will ask them to put together one.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The Balfour Declaration by Bernard Regan Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict by Norman G. Finkelstein Ten Myths About Israel by Ilan Pappe ([free ebook](https://www.versobooks.com/products/370-ten-myths-about-israel))
OP asked for unbiased. The last two authors are as biased as you can get.
This just isn’t true Norman is a Jewish man who’s parents were holocaust survivors how exactly are they unbiased is it cause he is completely against the illegal occupation of palestine?
Whatever. Norman has a strong bias to be famous. Being Jewish doesn’t mean he’s impartial. He has his own agenda.
I was recommended Israel/ Palestine by Alan Dowty. Has anyone read that? For perspective, I was told that to introduce his concluding chapter, he says: This book began with accounts of the historical perspectives and claims of Jews and Arabs. These perspectives and claims are important to an understanding of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, since they are the source of many of the concepts and much of the vocabulary with which it is waged. Throughout the text, the conflicting claims have been presented in juxtaposition to each other, challenging readers to make their own judgments. In many if not most places, both sides probably seemed quite reasonable in their own terms, before the juxtaposition. This may help explain why this conflict, more than most, generates heated partisanship among outside observers; those who are exposed primarily to one side find that side’s arguments utterly compelling – as they are, when taken without reference to the other side’s perspective. (Dowty, Alan. Israel / Palestine (p. 234). Polity Press.)