I like the book. I like Said. It was nice to read this, being part way through Orientalism, because his prose can be hard going, whereas his speaking is more fluid and natural. I do recommend it to get that easier flow.

Also, I'm glad that I didn't take this book straight through, because it would've gotten repetitive. And, more than saving me tedium, reading out-of-order was an interesting exercise. Jumping around made connections and evolution in his ideas apparent--just going through, those aren't so obvious. That's why I docked it a star. Said & my reading experience were 5, but the book itself is 4.

The Palestinian-Israeli conflict is so often regarded as complicated, ancient, and intractable. At the same time, the media deprives Americans of meaningful investigation of the issue and presents insulting and tiresome stereotypes.

Edward Said’s skillful interviews bring simple (but not simplistic) and clear analysis to the conflict. While this collection touches on other themes of Orientalism and music and literary criticism, the majority deals with Palestine. At its essence, the conflict is about an unjust occupation, in which some humans are being denied the same basic rights that are granted to a different group of inhabitants of the same land. Said lays out the primary problem of the Israeli state: “What it requires, I think, is the giving up the notion that Israel…is not the state of its citizens, but the state of the whole Jewish people, wherever they are” (161).

Part of what makes open conversation about the conflict difficult is the persistent and shrill cry for the need to recognize the Israeli state and the palpable fear that the recognition of the human rights of Palestinian inhabitants would somehow cause its destruction. Said calmly gives this response: “I am not talking about the destruction of anything. I am talking about the transformation of the State that would allow all the citizens of the State—Arabs and Jews. Now, Arab citizens of the State of Israel don’t have the same rights as Jews” (209).

A key phrase from the above quote is “transformation of the State.” He is talking about a democratic process to ensure equal rights. Throughout the interviews, Said holds all accountable by the same standards, and is not afraid to criticize Palestinian figures and perspectives. He calls out fellow Palestinians for their shortcomings as far as their understanding of the occupation is concerned:

“And it’s important for Arabs to understand, too, that Israeli Jews are not like Crusaders or imperialists who can be sent back somewhere. It’s very important for us also to insist, as I often do, that the Israelis are Israelis. They are citizens of a society called Israel. They’re not ‘Jews,’ quite simply, who can be thought of once again as wanderers, who can go back to Europe. That vocabulary of transitory and provisional existence is one that you have to completely refuse” (174).

Like Chomsky, Said does not put forth blueprints for an ideal society. Instead, he favors to analyze the existential issues at hand and propose concrete strategies to overcome them. Indeed, such pragmatism is evident by the fact that he spent years as a member of the Palestinian National Council. But it was this very commitment to the cause that led him to abandon Arafat, after concluding that the “Peace Process” talks served more for leaders to perform for their constituents than to really put forth solutions.

Said continued his work in civil society, serving as the pre-eminent public intellectual for the Palestinian cause, and collaborating with Daniel Barenboim to bring together Israeli and Palestinian youth musicians. His faith in civil society as opposed to state-directed strategies is implied when he says, referring to Ariel Sharon, “…what so many Israelis want [is] is a normal life in a secure environment. But they seem to have a penchant for picking leaders who will deliver exactly the opposite” (238).

Said’s work is informed by the recognition that the primary Palestinian question is liberation, not nationalism. That is, we should be most concerned with the struggle for equal rights and the right to return, whether the result is “one state, two states, or a hundred states,” in the words of Husam Zomlot of Fatah. Said observes that youth in particular are less concerned with the national question. He believes this is for good reason for the simple fact that a separate Palestinian state would be nearly impossible to achieve given the geographical and social reality: “…Israeli Jews and Palestinians are irrevocably intertwined. The place is so small that you can’t possibly completely avoid the other side” (166). He points out that 20% of Israeli citizens are in fact Palestinians—what would become of them? And what about the myriad employment relations between Israelis and Palestinians? Said muses that “…there’s no way of writing the history of either Israelis or of the Palestinians without also writing the history of the other” (190). Therefore, he concludes, the same holds for the future.

One section, in a rare moment of emotion, sums up Said’s personal and political themes that are found throughout the interviews:

“Most Palestinians, including myself—I’ve been there and I’ve visited the house I was born in—my family’s house in West Jerusalem where I grew up. I don’t want it back. I understand. I don’t want to dispossess another people, even thought they dispossessed us. But I don’t want to be considered a terrorist. I don’t want to be considered subhuman. I don’t want to be considered only a non-Jew. There has to be a sense in which we’re talking about a tragic situation in which two people must coexist as equals on this blood-soaked tiny piece of territory” (120-121).