The Hundred Years' War on Palestine
The New York Times Bestseller
Palestine Book Award Winner
Shortlisted for the Cundill History Prize
Named the Best Book of 2020 by Foreign Affairs
A landmark history of one hundred years of war waged against the Palestinians from the foremost US historian of the Middle East, told through pivotal events and family history
In 1899, Yusuf Diya al-Khalidi, mayor of Jerusalem, alarmed by the Zionist call to create a Jewish national home in Palestine, wrote a letter aimed at Theodore Herzl: the country had an indigenous people who would not easily accept their own displacement. He warned of the perils ahead, ending his note, “in the name of God, let Palestine be left alone.” Thus Rashid Khalidi, al-Khalidi’s great-great-nephew, begins this sweeping history, the first general account of the conflict told from an explicitly Palestinian perspective.
Drawing on a wealth of untapped archival materials and the reports of generations of family members—mayors, judges, scholars, diplomats, and journalists—The Hundred Years' War on Palestine upends accepted interpretations of the conflict, which tend, at best, to describe a tragic clash between two peoples with claims to the same territory. Instead, Khalidi traces a hundred years of colonial war on the Palestinians, waged first by the Zionist movement and then Israel, but backed by Britain and the United States, the great powers of the age. He highlights the key episodes in this colonial campaign, from the 1917 Balfour Declaration to the destruction of Palestine in 1948, from Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon to the endless and futile peace process.
Original, authoritative, and important, The Hundred Years' War on Palestine is not a chronicle of victimization, nor does it whitewash the mistakes of Palestinian leaders or deny the emergence of national movements on both sides. In reevaluating the forces arrayed against the Palestinians, it offers an illuminating new view of a conflict that continues to this day.
BUY THE BOOK
Join a book club that is reading The Hundred Years' War on Palestine!
Community Reviews
It's definitely extremely biased history that some may not even be able to read without cringing as he uses all verbal tools possible to make his case - never presenting the full story at any point. Yet he never strays into xenophobia or anti-Semitism which was a breath of fresh air and I give him a ton of points for that. Most other books from the anti-Israel side unfortunately read like pure bigoted propaganda so this stands out as trying to be calm and focused. This is written by someone who worked with PLO which many nations define as a terrorist group. Yet he claims they aren't yet doesn't explain why. It's just a claim and this is how the book is written it's all claims and basically zero meta history or any critical overview.
One would for example assume a book about Palestinians would define what they are and when the group was defined as such. Where it really became a term in the 1960's. Yet he doesn't define anything and I'm left wondering if he considers Jews or the British who lived there Palestinians? He claims most Arabic and European Jews are settler colonialists placed there by the great powers decades ago. Yet this is false. He claims Palestinians lived there for thousands of years yet doesn't give us any numbers. We know many arrived in modern time. When Britain banned Jewish immigrants during Hitler's time Arab immigrants still arrived in huge numbers to work for the wealthy Jewish farmers and plant owners. Does he see those as Palestinians too? If so then Jews arriving at that time are surely also just properly Israeli and not "go back to Poland" Jews? Yet his solution to this intellectual problem? Just don't bring up evidence.
He only gives 1 side of all issues. His own anti-Israel, anti-USA, and anti-British side. We don't learn about what Israel is saying or claiming in any situation. There is an event where Israel does something violent and illegal - and that's it. He doesn't explain their reasoning for it so it sounds like a monster doing harm for harms sake as there is no logical point besides ethnic cleansing. When Palestinians died during a battle he calls it an Israel massacre. At times the term is warranted at times it's mostly soldiers killed in battle yet it's hard to understand the difference in the book as he used terms to accuse yet never explains why it's a massacre not a legit battle. Or why he thinks it's a purposeful massacre not a mistake by Haganah. I've read other books going over these war crimes in detail explaining both sides yet this book barely explains the anti-Israel side. You legit just learn about a massacre that happened. You'll be able to mention it. Yet without details how can one use it in a debate?
Similarly he proposes that Israel was always supported by Britain and USA hence all 3 nations are evil colonialists as he and his follow Palestinians are suffering from it. Yet he never explains why they work together or how they got to work together. He claims it just happened which is not even history that's just lazy writing and unfortunately how he tackles all issues. Pointing out something happened then never explaining anything. What did they have in common? What common goals? Why did USA not work with other nations instead?
Israel attacked PLO in Lebanon. Other anti-Israel books would at least be honest and go over the reasoning behind it showing the numerous terrorist attacks in Israel by PLO. Him not focusing on it means you need to read up on the war in other books. He then claims there is evidence that Israel knew and wanted a Sabra and Shatila massacre yet he never goes over the evidence. He mentions some new document that has now revealed that Israel was involved yet what points are pro and against? If you blame one side you better deliver a whole chapter overview as there are plenty of reports and all show the Christian radicals hid it from IDF and lied about it. If IDF planned it why did the Lebanese militia lie to them about it? He then says Hezbollah grew strong when IDF kicked PLO out of Lebanon as they supported PLO and were now continuing this fight. Forgetting that without Iran Hezbollah would not be a thing as that's how they have money to run the terrorist group and pay soldiers. His history is seldom wrong factually yet when you read his claims they ring extremely hollow as he only explains a tiny part of it to make his own case as strong as possible - which I would say is terrible history yet it's up to the reader to decide.
The book is a tiny step in the right direction for Palestine history as it tries to imitate Israel history books. Yet it's childish and forced propaganda compared to real history. There are multiple factual errors like claims about USA helping Israel in the 1948 war and false claims about agreements and documents as he clearly just refers to his memory on this stuff instead of quoting it often claiming the opposite of what really happened. He also skips most terrorist attacks by Palestinian groups and instead focuses on Israel war crime accusations. Yet for some readers it's better than nothing.
One would for example assume a book about Palestinians would define what they are and when the group was defined as such. Where it really became a term in the 1960's. Yet he doesn't define anything and I'm left wondering if he considers Jews or the British who lived there Palestinians? He claims most Arabic and European Jews are settler colonialists placed there by the great powers decades ago. Yet this is false. He claims Palestinians lived there for thousands of years yet doesn't give us any numbers. We know many arrived in modern time. When Britain banned Jewish immigrants during Hitler's time Arab immigrants still arrived in huge numbers to work for the wealthy Jewish farmers and plant owners. Does he see those as Palestinians too? If so then Jews arriving at that time are surely also just properly Israeli and not "go back to Poland" Jews? Yet his solution to this intellectual problem? Just don't bring up evidence.
Most Israeli Jews came from Europe and the Arab countries relatively recently as part of a colonial process sanctioned and brokered by the great powers.
He only gives 1 side of all issues. His own anti-Israel, anti-USA, and anti-British side. We don't learn about what Israel is saying or claiming in any situation. There is an event where Israel does something violent and illegal - and that's it. He doesn't explain their reasoning for it so it sounds like a monster doing harm for harms sake as there is no logical point besides ethnic cleansing. When Palestinians died during a battle he calls it an Israel massacre. At times the term is warranted at times it's mostly soldiers killed in battle yet it's hard to understand the difference in the book as he used terms to accuse yet never explains why it's a massacre not a legit battle. Or why he thinks it's a purposeful massacre not a mistake by Haganah. I've read other books going over these war crimes in detail explaining both sides yet this book barely explains the anti-Israel side. You legit just learn about a massacre that happened. You'll be able to mention it. Yet without details how can one use it in a debate?
Similarly he proposes that Israel was always supported by Britain and USA hence all 3 nations are evil colonialists as he and his follow Palestinians are suffering from it. Yet he never explains why they work together or how they got to work together. He claims it just happened which is not even history that's just lazy writing and unfortunately how he tackles all issues. Pointing out something happened then never explaining anything. What did they have in common? What common goals? Why did USA not work with other nations instead?
Israel attacked PLO in Lebanon. Other anti-Israel books would at least be honest and go over the reasoning behind it showing the numerous terrorist attacks in Israel by PLO. Him not focusing on it means you need to read up on the war in other books. He then claims there is evidence that Israel knew and wanted a Sabra and Shatila massacre yet he never goes over the evidence. He mentions some new document that has now revealed that Israel was involved yet what points are pro and against? If you blame one side you better deliver a whole chapter overview as there are plenty of reports and all show the Christian radicals hid it from IDF and lied about it. If IDF planned it why did the Lebanese militia lie to them about it? He then says Hezbollah grew strong when IDF kicked PLO out of Lebanon as they supported PLO and were now continuing this fight. Forgetting that without Iran Hezbollah would not be a thing as that's how they have money to run the terrorist group and pay soldiers. His history is seldom wrong factually yet when you read his claims they ring extremely hollow as he only explains a tiny part of it to make his own case as strong as possible - which I would say is terrible history yet it's up to the reader to decide.
The book is a tiny step in the right direction for Palestine history as it tries to imitate Israel history books. Yet it's childish and forced propaganda compared to real history. There are multiple factual errors like claims about USA helping Israel in the 1948 war and false claims about agreements and documents as he clearly just refers to his memory on this stuff instead of quoting it often claiming the opposite of what really happened. He also skips most terrorist attacks by Palestinian groups and instead focuses on Israel war crime accusations. Yet for some readers it's better than nothing.
See why thousands of readers are using Bookclubs to stay connected.