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

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.

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, if not 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 is/was just being a good Mus

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 wer

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!