It was hard for me to write this review because I care about the Palestinians, the Israelis, and the truth. I don’t like to give negative reviews but this book deserves it.
Ilan Pappe dedicated THE BIGGEST PRISON ON EARTH “To the Palestinian children, killed, wounded, and traumatized by living in the biggest prison on earth.”
If he really cared about the lives of those children, he would write a book that is not filled with lies, distortions, omission, and propaganda. The book, while popular among people who hate the idea of a democratic Jewish state in the Middle East will find a lot of support for their prejudices within it but will not find ideas that will show positive information about Israeli nor negative information about the Palestinian leaders. That attitude does not help the Palestinians at all.
Ilan Pappe’s anti-Israel bias is obvious throughout THE BIGGEST PRISON ON EARTH: Israel is always wrong and guilty. The Palestinians are always right and innocent victims.
For example, the Ottoman Empire controlled historic Palestine for several centuries. It did not establish an independent Palestinian state. After the British took over the area following WWI, the Balfour Declaration said historic Palestine would become a Jewish homeland, as it had been for centuries before the Jews were ousted in 63 CE. Arabs (they were not referred to as Palestinians until 1964 with the formation of the PLO) living in the new state were asked to remain and become Israeli citizens. Those who left did so partly because their leaders told them they should so the Jews could be wiped out and the Arabs could return to take the land. Those that did remain, became citizens.
Mt. Scopus, home to Hebrew University, Hadassah Hospital, and the Knesset had been located there for several decades. In 1937, the Palestinian flag had a Jewish star. The Palestinian Orchestra and the members of the Palestinian Brigade which fought along side the British in WWII were both comprised of Jews. (The Arab leaders supported Hitler.)
Millions of people have become refugees since 1945. Most of them were resettled within fifteen years with the help of the United Nations Human Rights Council Agency for Refugees. About 875,000 of them had families that lived in Arab countries for almost 2000 years but were forced out by their Arab countrymen. Only the Palestinians were considered to be refugees even if they had never lived in that land. And only the Palestinians remained living in refugee camps because their co-religionists and brothers refused to grant them citizenship.
When Jordan captured the West Bank in the 1948 War, the entire area became off limits to Jews. Jews were evicted from their homes, synagogues became barns and cemetery tombstones were used to pave roads.
They Arab states attacked the new state in 1949, 1967, and 1973 and lost every time. The positions where the fighting stopped in 1949, the Green Line, became a temporary border. The final border was to be determined by Israel and the Palestinians. Jordan took over the West Bank while Egypt took over Gaza. Neither country made any effort to establish an independent Palestinian state nor was any pressure put upon them to do so.
Since World War II, there have been scores millions of immigrants throughout the world. Most have been resettled within fifteen years. This includes the 850,000 Jews evicted from their ancient homes in Arab countries. Only the Palestinians have remained refugees for a longer period of time. Part of the reason is that only UNWRA considers people who are descendants of the people who left in 1948 are counted as refugees, even those who have become citizens of other countries. Other reasons include the refusal of other Arab countries to grant them citizenship and the Palestinian leaders who, for political purposes, have refugee camps in the West Bank and Gaza, areas totally controlled by Palestinians.
Over the years, despite agreements for the Arab and Israeli governments to reach a peace agreement and determine permanent borders, the Palestinian leaders repeatedly refused to sign such an agreement because it would mean recognizing Israel as a Jewish state. They also refused to present any alternative agreement.
Until that happens, The West Bank was divided into three areas: Area A was under Palestinian control. Eighty percent of the Palestinians live there. Area B was under the security control of both Israel and the PA. Area C was under Israeli control where about 500,000 Israelis live. The original UN plan calls for border adjustments to provide security. The details were to be worked out by the two parties. When Jews and Palestinians try to work together, e.g., Palestinians working in Jewish-owned businesses on the West Bank where they earn the same salaries and receive the same benefits, there is pressure (e.g., from the BDS movement) to close the businesses which results in the loss of jobs and income.
Peace treaties between Israel and Egypt and Israel and Jordan eventually did occur and Israel returned the Sinai to Eqypt. Jordan took over the West Bank.
I received a copy of this book from LibraryThing Early Reviewers. ( )

Pappe analiza las motivaciones y estrategias de los generales y los políticos, y el proceso de toma de decisiones en sí mismo, que sentó las bases de la ocupación. A partir de un análisis de las infraestructuras legales y burocráticas implementadas para controlar la población de más de un millón de palestinos, de los mecanismos de seguridad que aplicaron vigorosamente ese control, Pappe pinta un panorama de lo que es a todos los efectos la mayor cárcel del mundo “a cielo abierto”. Sobre la base de investigaciones archivísticas innovadoras, registros de ONG y testimonios, esta investigación sobre la "burocracia del mal" explora los efectos embrutecedores de la ocupación.

The Biggest Prison on Earth A History of the Occupied Territories by Israel’s historian Ilan Pappe presents the reader with a harsh, in your face look at the nuts and bolts of Israeli occupation. For 50 years later, the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip shows no end in sight. Pappe shows the reader that in his opinion the Oslo accords were never meant to result in Palestinian statehood but were merely to make legal the creation of small communities for the indiginous Palestinians with the the costs and responsibilities of the occupation being for the most part transferred to major international donors and organizations – notably the European Union – and the Palestinian Authority(PA). Ilan Pappe shows us how annexation of lands won in battle presents us the details of dividing the territories into areas of “Palestinian” and “Jewish” and where needed finding the legal reasons expelling the Palestinians—or making their daily lifes too horrific for them to stay—while encouraging Jewish settlement. The author focuses on many of the regional players in these early goings and on how for one the ruling Labour Party and its decade of occupation, 1968-1977, helped solidify its rule over the people of the Occupied Territories as inmates for life despite its public reputation as enlightened and peace-making. Pappe’s prison metaphor for some readers becomes most insightful for as the PA carries out its security responsibilities and Palethrusts itself on the stage again then however, Israel imposes the controls of a maximum-security prison.Thus, in the ensuing years, the West Bank became the minimum-security prison and Gaza – with Hamas leading the resistance – became the maximum-security prison. Palestinians, Pappe writes, “could either be inmates in the open prison of the West Bank or incarcerated in the maximum security one of the Gaza Strip.”Everything that followed the 1967 War, notes Pappe, follows the “logic of settler colonialism” and that logic in turn foresees the eventual elimination of the indigenous Palestinians. That outcome, however, is not inevitable. An alternative is possible, Pappe maintains, if Israel decolonizes and makes “way for the logic of human and civil rights.” If you are like me and try to no matter what your emotional opinion look at both sssides of any issues then please read this book. ( )

I have to admit, I could not finish this book. It became tedious, with so many details that the flow of the book just stopped. I'm sure that someone with a more academic "bent" will enjoy this, but it just wasn't for me. Sorry! ( )

This book is about the Israeli governments treatment of the Palestinians living in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip – territories which were seized by Israel in the 1967 Six-day War. Although I do not think the book is very well written, it covers an important subject and presents information the author extracted from Israeli government archives, so I think it is worth reading.

As a result of the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel gained control of two territories: the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The author writes that these occupied territories posed a dilemma for the Israeli government: expelling the Palestinians from the territories would generate highly unfavorable international response and violate international law; however, giving them Israeli citizenship would result in a Palestinian political majority within the state of Israel. The government's solution, according to the author, was to effectively turn these occupied territories into large prisons for the Palestinian residents. And the occupation has continued from 1967 to the present with no end in sight. The author uses archival records of high level government meetings held shortly after the war. The most damaging evidence in support of the author's thesis is government's own words.

The story is tragic. A drawback of the book is that the writing is the lack of objectivity and completeness. The authors makes good use of original sources to support his premise, yet frequently goes beyond objective evidence and tries to infer the thoughts or intentions government officials. The book also does not seem to provide a complete picture. The author may disagree with many decisions that the government made, but it would have been better if he had tried to include describe more of what the political conditions were and what choices were available.

The writing quality is about average, but could be better. A minor but annoying habit of his is to use variations of the phrase “... on the ground” (“facts on the ground”, “policy on the ground” , “forces on the ground”, “correspondents on the ground”, etc, etc). This phrase indicates a discrepancy between reality and perception, but after being used more than two dozen times, it loses its impact. Also, although the author has a strong case to make, he overwhelms the reader with details. At the start of chapter three, he writes, “When examining it closely as we do here, colonization can become very tedious. … Let me also urge the reader to study it closely.” The tragic events that are about to be described are anything but “tedious”. If the book fails to convey that, it is the fault of the book, and not the nature of the events. I am reviewing a pre-publication copy of the book which does not include maps, figures, or tables, and perhaps the published version may. Hopefully there will be visual aides to clearly communicate this important story. ( )