The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) is a complex movement, which stumbles from one setback to another. The PLO was riven with factionalism; it pursued revolution and diplomacy as if there were no contradiction between the terms. Then, at the moment of winning recognition from Israel, it seemed poised to lose its most precious asset - the support of the Palestinian people, whom it sought to serve. Barry Rubin wrote a history of the PLO in which he investigates and interprets its political circumstances, strategies, and doctrines from their inception in the late 1950s to the events of 1993 culminating in the Rabin-Arafat handshake on the White House lawn. His book aims to offer a general account of the organization’s history and politics. The task of illustrating the incompetence and corruption of the PLO and its leaders is not difficult, and Rubin seemed to have pursued this task with enthusiasm.
Throughout the course of the book, Rubin sketches the development of the PLO beginning with its foundation in 1964 and going until the October 1993 signing of the Israeli-Palestinian Declaration of Principles. Twenty-nine years is a long period to cover in about 200 pages of text, but Rubin hones his focus by devoting the majority of the book to processes in the 1980s and 1990s. In the chapters about the 1980s and 1990s, his analysis is successful in demonstrating the indecision of the PLO’s policy making. He shows the organization’s serious internal divisions, its failures, and the pressures that led it into the current peace process (first in Madrid and later in Oslo).
The book's opening chapters describe the founding of the PLO. In 1964, a meeting held in East Jerusalem was attended by 400 delegates. This meeting was ...
... middle of paper ...
...d of detail, causing some of the structure and sequence to be lost. The points he makes are valid, but the reader can lose track of them due to the little sense of organization by category or priority within the chapters.
Before reading this, I had little knowledge of the PLO. This book informed me of them and of past events that I was not aware. Even though I found the book informative, it also helped me see that I cannot read just one book on a subject and have all the information. Parts of it made me feel like I was missing something. It also showed me how biased a writer can be, and that it is helpful to have different points of view. I feel that this book is a good example of how an organization can be viewed as terroristic by some and not by others, reiterating the point that there is not one set definition of terrorism, which all people can agree upon.
These two critics are bold but necessary for the enjoyment of the vast audience. When reading the first chapter, for example, the excessiveness of names was confusing. Yes, the examples such as Katherine Branch to John Bradford were entertaining but hard to keep track of (Hall 21). It came to a point where names got mixed up which this dampened the enjoyment of reading. Next, the chapters were vast and it seemed never ending. It is highly recommended to have shorter chapters to give the book a sense of cohesion. These two examples did not hinder the book information wise but to a reader, fixing these minor problems will offer more joy to the
He often brought up issues irrelevant to his thesis, bogged the reader down with dates and names that were unnecessary and went off on tangents. It is also important to note that Gross jumps around a lot and tries to engage the reader with "fiction" novel type language at times which made his argument slightly unclear at first.
For the book´s weaknesses, there was some confusion by the end of the chapter because there was an excess amount of abreviations that made it hard to keep up with. This caused confusion while reading and the need to turn back to figure out what the meaning of the abreviations were. For example in chapter 6 he used FCC,RJR,MBD,GGOOB, and others which caused uncertainty while reading. If he eliminating some of these abreviations or reminded the reader what they represented can reduce this confusion. Although this was the only flaw that jumped out the most, Farhad Manjoo managed to start and finish the book with curiosity on human biase.
"Peacekeeping and Peacemaking." Reading and Remembrance . N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Jan. 2014. . (tags: none | edit tags)
I used the criticism/formalism lens on the chapter Speaking of courage, you can find the deeper meaning of the text using this lens. When analyzing this chapter we can see the irony of him not actually speaking. Also when we analyze this chapter we can identify the symbolism of Norman almost winning the silver star and we can recognize the symbolism of Normans ex-girlfriend and friend. After reviewing Speaking of Courage we have now found the deeper meaning that Tim O’Brien had focused on in the chapter that we would not have noticed without analyzing using the criticism/formalism lens.
The Haganah, the Irgun, and the Lehi were different Zionist military underground movements that were active during the duration of the British mandate. Their goal was to establish an independent Jewish state in Palestine. These movements fought hard and used particular strategies in order to reach their goal. However, many of the strategies they used to deal with the British and the Arabs during the period of the mandate are frowned upon by some and even viewed as acts of terror. In my opinion, the movements were definitely effective in attaining their goal of establishing an independent Jewish state as Israel currently exists; the methods the movements used to reach their goal can be viewed as immoral at first, but some of the movements' actions were justified whereas others were not.
This marked the beginning of the Palestine armed conflict, one of its kinds to be witnessed in centuries since the fall of the Ottoman Empire and World War 1. Characterized by a chronology of endless confrontations, this conflict has since affected not only the Middle East relations, but also the gl...
...y these are very minimal, and these are the only slight problems with the book.
Abu Nidal organistation named for its leader Sabri al-Banna who was born in 1937 in a family who lived in a British- ruled Palestine. In 1948 there was a Arab- Israeli war and Banna and his family fled heading towards the west bank. In two years’ time Sabri al-Banna would join the Arab nationalist Baath party in 1950, by the time 1967 came Sabri al-Banna would be involve with the PLO. Abu Nidal (Sabri al-Banna) was representing al-Fatah who was the dominant group of the PLO, which was led by Yasir Arafat. Abu Nidal left the PLO because of its proposed creation of national authority in west bank and Gaza strip .Abul Nidal is a non-religious international terrorist organization that was sponsored by S...
For example, according to King, good description begins in the writer’s imagination, but should be finished in the reader’s, and it should only contain a few well chosen details that enhance the story. Aveyard, in her novel constantly crosses the line of over description. At times she pens pages upon pages of just plain description, in this case over description. Although this 383 page novel comprises of useless repetitive descriptions of a character's hair or another character's eyes, a bond between the reader and writer is molded nonetheless. But, due to her descriptive writing style, Aveyard causes more harm than good for most readers as the story’s plot remains at a stand still throughout this uninterrupted cycle of presenting minor details. The acknowledgment of every minute detail definitely slows the pace of the novel as a whole to the point where most readers hopelessly await a faster
""Final Solution": Overview." United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. United States Holocaust Memorial Council, 10 June 2013. Web. 27 Apr. 2014.
Tessler, Mark. A HISTORY of the ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT. United States of America: Indiana University Press, 1994.
Terrorism in the Middle East has brought the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the attention of the world. These terrorist groups use murder, bombs, threats, and other violent acts to get their way politically. Hamas, the organization that has replaced Fatah as the representative of the Palestinians, is a leading sponsor of terrorism. The Hamas are the leading reason there is not peace in the middle east as they strongly embrace terrorism.
When Yasser Arafat addressed the United Nations General Assembly, he tried to articulate the actions the Palestinian Liberation Organization had taken and to justify those actions. Arafat points out that the struggles with Imperialism and Zionism began in 1881 when the first large wave of immigrants began arriving in Palestine. Prior to this date, the Muslims, Jews (20,000) and Christians all cohabitated peacefully (pop. 1/2 million). In 1917, the Belfour Declaration authorized increased immigration of European Jews to Palestine. 1 From 1917 to 1947, the Jewish population in Palestine increased to 600,000 and they rightfully owned only 6% of the Palestinian arable land. Palestine population at this time was now up to 1,250,000. 1
The Arab-Israeli conflict is a struggle between the Jewish state of Israel and the Arabs of the Middle East concerning the area known as Palestine. The term Palestine has been associated variously and sometimes controversially with this small region. Both the geographic area designated by and the political status of the name have changed over the course of some three millennia. The region, or a part of it, is also known as the Holy Land and is held sacred among Jews, Christians, and Muslims. In the twentieth century it has been the object of conflicting claims of Jewish and Arab national movements, and the conflict has led to prolonged violence and in several instances open warfare opposing Israel's existence. These wars, which occurred during the years of nineteen forty-eight to nineteen forty-nine, nineteen fifty-six, nineteen sixty-seven, nineteen seventy-three to nineteen seventy-four, and nineteen eighty-two were complicated and heightened by the political, strategic, and economic interests in the area of the great powers. This fight is the continuation of an Arab-Jewish struggle that began in the early 1900's for control of Palestine. The historic and desirable region, which has varied greatly since ancient times, is situated on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean in southwestern Asia. The strategic importance of the area is immense. Through it pass the main roads from Egypt to Syria and from the Mediterranean to the hills beyond the Jordan River. Palestine is now largely divided between Israel and the Israeli-occupied territories, parts of which are self-administered by Palestinians. The ongoing feud is and was based around competing land claims and the two opposing viewpoints are that the Palestinians lived in the region long before Jews began moving there in large numbers in the late 1800's and that Jews believed they were justified by Zionism. “Chiefly, today’s Palestine question has to do with Jews and Arabs. Over the centuries, both groups have developed deep historical roots in a place both regard as a Holy Land. Both have strong emotional ties to it.” (Carrol, 3) This paper will discuss how discrimination against Arab-Palestinians is justified by Zionism and the results of these actions, the origins, purposes, and effects of the Arab “Intifada,” and what the future holds for the Arabs and Jews living in a race/religion biased land.