Jean-Pierre Filiu

This is a very different kind of history of the so-called Middle East, but for some people, such as myself, it can be a very helpful book, despite disagreements about statements, approach, and analysis. When it comes to a region with so many events, people groups, and centuries, of course any recap should be helpful in giving perspective, but I found this book particularly so in that (1) it seems more accurate and less biased than the many others I've read on the topic and (2) it has helpful structural features -- chronological order, headings and subheadings, overviews ending each chapter, and further reading suggestions at the end of each chapter (rather than a Bibliography at the book end). For people with a background on the topic this will be a quick, helpful read; for those with little background, it may be a bit difficult, because there are very few footnotes, and I don't think any endnotes, although there is an index.

As for the substance, what the cover calls "a political history" is inside the book called "a secular history," and that's the big diff with other books -- yeah, Islam with its caliphates, Zionism, Christians, etc, are mentioned (by the way, I object to the misrepresentation of Christian Zionists), but the analysis and portrayal tries to keep things secular -- for me I just ignore that gimmick, and appreciate the book for the facts. I also object to other opinions stated as facts without support (rare use of citations), but no biggie for the informed reader. Using something from 21st century to explain what I mean: author in mentioning Iran's green movement (2009 or so), says without citation that Obama kept a low profile, breaking away from what he calls neocon regime change policies of Bush, BUT, reader needs to be careful to note, that is an opinion, there are other ways of looking at the exact same set of facts and finding the exact opposite -- for ex, if one considers that Obama had supply-dependent military right next door in landlocked Afghanistan at that very hot war time (where arguably regime change or at least neocon nation building was still a continuing matter), Obama's failure to act in that Iran opportunity could possibly be explained in other ways. That's all I'm saying, the book is great for facts, but opinions are stated as facts without cites, that's all. The author said America's folly in Iraq was "aggravated by the messianic fever of the Christian Zionists, determined to defeat the Muslim Antichrist" -- super far out comment there; I know of some people (not Christian Zionists themselves) in pushing such nonsense of a Muslim Antichrist, but that's a totally fringe thing to say about Christian Zionists, particularly in the context of the Iraq War. Bottom line, the book is great for discerning readers with some background.… (more)

Great history books put events in context, bring the historical figures to life, and let you know why those events and figures are important. The worst history books are rote recitals of names, dates and events.

I picked up an advance review copy of Gaza, by Jean-Pierre Filiu, hoping it would give me some insight into how we got to the current cycle of violence in the region. It does provide some of that.

Gaza sits at the intersection of Egypt and the Levant. Armies and empires crossed back and forth across the region for millennia. The current plight came during the creation of Israel. Palestinian refugees piled into the area around Gaza City and Israel herded the mass of those expelled in 1948. As Egypt and Israel fought in the area, the Gaza Strip was left relatively untouched.

The Gaza problem could have been prevented in 1949, Ben Gurion’s offer to annex the Gaza Strip as part of Israel was rejected by Egypt at the Lusanne conference. Instead, we have seen three generation of terrorism and oppression.

Unfortunately, Gaza is not a great history book. It falls closer to the other end of the spectrum. The recital of events gets particularly tiresome as the book approaches the last twenty years. The cycle of attacks from Gaza and escalating reprisals from Israel are repetitive. It could be twenty years ago or last month, similar events continue.… (more)