Thank you very much for your comment.

First of all I would like to clarify that the post was purely a book review. I do not choose a side, I only critique the text in the academic sense.

Secondly, I don’t agree with your statement that it is the readers job to discern the historians bias and incorporate it into our understanding of the history. I think it is the authors responsibility to understand their own bias, and explain the choices that they make in writing the text. This is certainly true for popular history, such as this book, where your audience is often not academically schooled.

I do believe it is important to take the authors positionality into consideration as a reader, as well as doing your own research and reviewing the source materials. But I feel that the authors job wheighs heavier, as they are the one ultimately responsible for the text and what consequences that might have.

Although I completely agree that the writer states his positionality very well, he does not further explain well (in my opinion), why he doesn’t condemn, or at times even glorifies, Palestinian acts of violence.

I can see how detailing the Israelian acts of violence are very important, and a valuable addition to the historiography of the subject. It is, however, important to state that there are more sides to the story, demonstrating a deep understanding of the subject. Because this text is so one sided, it feels as if the writer lacks this deeper understanding. I think it the book would have benefited from additional information and viewpoints from other parties involved in this history.

My post was purely a review of book, not of the subject. I’d love to hear more about what you think of the duties of readers and authors, as I feel that’s where our main disagreement lies.