This is a must read for anyone interested in the history of the Jewish national movement, its project - Israel, its victim - Palestine, and that all too elusively prominent player: Western Liberals. At base, the book follows the chronology of the Guardian's relationship with the Zionist movement. The story is told with great care for detail, from important facts, to sassy anecdotes (all meticulously supported by quotes and references). It is rich in sharp observations, and somehow manages to maintain a friendly chatty tone.

That the subject is hot, cannot be overstated. Israel is always on the news, and news about Israel is under close scrutiny. The Guardian is under constant pressure to modify its attitude, as well as its coverage of facts. It is one of those cases in which the very coverage has come to be covered extensively. So hot, in fact, that the Guardian itself saw fit to commission this book.

And the story is fascinating. From the fervent love affair between Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann, and the Guardian's legendary editor CP Scott (which brought about the Balfour Declaration), through the paper's unequivocal support for the establishment of Israel in 1948, paying little attention to the expulsion of most Palestinians. The paper slowly grew critical of Israel, following the (latter's) occupation of the West Bank and Gaza in 1967. And it's been downhill all the way for this relationship ever since, through the first and second Palestinian uprsings, in the late 1980's, and since the year 2000, peaking with coverage of Israel's incursion into Jenin refugee camp, in the spring of 2002, and the controversy that ensued.

Written by a journalist, based on newspaper archives, corespondence files, and interviews with journalists (for the most part), the book maintains a positivist approach. What was it that left European Liberals almost blind to Palestinian suffering in 1948, and made them sensitive to this suffering since 1967 and even more so since the 1980's? What (and who) has posed 1967 as the "Watershed" (chapter 6)? What indeed allows the story to be defined as "The Guardian and Israel", and not, for example, "The Guardian and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict"? The answers to these questions will have to be found elsewhere.

Bottom line: Read it already! And we'll pick it up from there.

Comment Comment (1) | Permalink | Was this review helpful to you? Yes No (Report this)

Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review

› See all customer reviews...

.jsOffDisplayBlock { display: block; } .jsOffDisplayInline { display: inline; } .jsOffVisibility { visibility: visible; } .jsOnDisplayBlock { display: none; } .jsOnDisplayNoneBlock { display: block; } .jsOnDisplayNoneInline { display: inline; } .jsOnDisplayInline { display: none; } .jsOnVisibility { visibility: hidden; } .jqOnDisplayBlock { display: none; } .jqOnDisplayInline { display: none; } .jqOnVisibility { visibility: hidden; } .jqOnDisplayNoneBlock { display: block; } .jqOnDisplayNoneInline { display: inline; }

Customer Discussions

This product's forum

Discussion	Replies	Latest Post
No discussions yet

Ask questions, Share opinions, Gain insight

Active discussions in related forums

Discussion	Replies	Latest Post
politics "Sour faced little Englanders" - David Cameron	3	12 hours ago
politics Would it be so bad if we let Europe run the UK	12	12 hours ago
politics Special relationship America and Britain	7	12 hours ago
politics This is Politics?????	36	2 days ago
politics what happened to the BNP discussion	124	3 days ago
politics Which is better a charismatic leader or the right policies?	9	3 days ago
politics Cast Iron promise - Cameron	4	3 days ago