Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchPC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11In an October 2025 opinion essay, Ramachandra Guha returns to passages by Joe Slovo and Octavio Paz to argue that Palestinian claims to a homeland cannot be dismissed, that Jewish and Israeli security must also be addressed, and that a lasting resolution cannot be imposed by military victory. The two writers approach the question differently, and Guha’s selection of their words was challenged in a published rejoinder.
What Guha’s essay argues
Guha’s essay, published by Scroll.in on October 19, 2025, is a reflection on political ideas, not a comprehensive history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or a report on current conditions. He brings together Joe Slovo’s recollections of a 1946 visit to a kibbutz near Tel Aviv and Octavio Paz’s writing on the Middle East to consider what he calls an enduring resolution of the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
The Hundred Years' War on Palestine | $13.03 | Buy on Amazon |
| 2 |
|
Palestine: A Four Thousand Year History | $12.94 | Buy on Amazon |
| 3 |
|
The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine | $18.63 | Buy on Amazon |
| 4 |
|
A Very Short History of the Israel–Palestine Conflict | $12.43 | Buy on Amazon |
| 5 |
|
Side by Side: Parallel Histories of Israel-Palestine | $14.29 | Buy on Amazon |
The common thread in Guha’s reading is that neither people’s claims can simply be erased. He presents Paz as condemning Palestinian violence while insisting that this does not invalidate Palestinian aspirations. Paz’s proposed destination is a political settlement that recognizes a homeland for Palestinians as well as Jews.
Joe Slovo: the kibbutz and the cost of a land claim
Guha discusses Slovo’s autobiography, but does not give its title. He recounts Slovo’s visit to a kibbutz near Tel Aviv in 1946 and quotes him reflecting on the gap between the kibbutz’s socialist ideals and the consequences of the political doctrine he encountered there.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute2Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems3Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches#1 Best Overall
As Guha quotes Slovo, the kibbutz “looked at in isolation” like “the very epitome of socialist lifestyle.” Slovo describes its residents as idealistic people who believed that “by the mere exercise of will and humanism you can build socialism in one factory or one kibbutz.” The qualification “in isolation” matters: Slovo’s account turns from the community’s internal ideals to the claims and consequences beyond it.
He then describes what he says was the kibbutz’s dominant doctrine: “the biblical injunction that the land of Palestine must be claimed and fought for by every Jew.” Slovo links that claim to the displacement of Palestinians, writing that it meant “the uprooting and scattering of millions [of] people who had occupied this land for over 5,000 years.” That figure and historical characterization appear within Slovo’s passage as reproduced by Guha; they should not be treated here as independently verified demographic or archaeological findings.
Rank #2
Slovo’s further description of the “wars of consolidation and expansion” and his use of the term “genocide” are forceful political judgments in the passage Guha cites. They are not neutral labels established by Guha’s essay. The passage is useful for understanding Slovo’s critique of how a national project and its claims to land could collide with the presence and rights of Palestinians, but it does not by itself settle the historical questions it raises.
Octavio Paz: Palestinian aspiration and a political settlement
Guha identifies Paz’s One Earth, Four or Five Worlds: Reflections on Contemporary History as a 1983 essay collection, including writing on the Middle East. In the passages Guha quotes, Paz separates the legitimacy of a political aspiration from the methods used to pursue it.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Rank #3
Paz calls Palestinian methods “almost without exception, abominable” and describes their policy as “fanatical and intransigent.” He immediately adds, however, that “it does not invalidate the legitimacy of their aspiration.” The distinction is central to Guha’s use of Paz: condemnation of violence need not entail denying a people’s claim to a homeland.
Paz also frames coexistence as unavoidable. “Jews and Arabs are branches of the same trunk,” he writes, before asking why they are killing one another if they had managed to coexist in the past. His conclusion is that “None of the contenders can win a definitive victory or wipe out the enemy” and that “Jews and Palestinians are doomed to live side by side.” These are Paz’s arguments as quoted by Guha, not an independently established account of the region’s past or a prediction presented as fact.
His proposed principle is explicit: “the solution cannot be military; it must be political,” with Palestinians, “like the Jews,” having “the right to a homeland.” Paz adds a call for reparation, adapting André Breton’s statement that “The world owes the Jewish people reparation” into the claim: “Israel owes the Palestinians reparation.” That is Paz’s moral and political formulation; Guha’s essay does not specify what form reparation should take.
How the two writers differ
| Writer | Passage Guha emphasizes | What it contributes to Guha’s argument |
|---|---|---|
| Joe Slovo | A recollection of a 1946 kibbutz visit and a critique of land claims and their consequences for Palestinians. | Connects the ideals of a community to the political consequences Slovo says followed from a claim to the land. |
| Octavio Paz | Essays in the 1983 collection One Earth, Four or Five Worlds: Reflections on Contemporary History on Palestinian aspiration, violence, coexistence, and reparation. | Argues that Palestinian aspirations remain legitimate despite condemnation of violent tactics, and that a political settlement must recognize both peoples’ claims to a homeland. |
Slovo’s quoted passages focus on the history and consequences of a land claim; Paz’s focus is the relationship between political legitimacy, violence, coexistence, and a possible settlement. Guha uses both to resist a resolution that treats either Palestinian claims or Jewish security as disposable.
Recommended Free Tools
Best Value
Why Guha’s framing was disputed
On October 23, 2025, Scroll.in published a rejoinder by Hussain Indorewala and Yusuf Indorewala titled “Rejoinder: Ramachandra Guha has accepted Israel’s colonial framing of the Palestine conflict.” The authors argue that Guha relies on a limited selection of passages, omits important historical context—particularly concerning the period before the Oslo process—and adopts a problematic symmetry in describing responsibility and terminology.
The rejoinder is a response to Guha’s argument, not an independent adjudication of the historical claims made by either side. Its existence is important because it shows that Guha’s choice of context and framing is contested. The passages from Slovo and Paz can illuminate the questions Guha wants readers to consider; they cannot, on their own, resolve the historical disputes raised by the rejoinder.
What the essay can—and cannot—settle
Read together, the passages Guha selects make a case for keeping two propositions in view: Palestinian aspirations do not become illegitimate merely because violence is condemned, and a political resolution must take seriously the rights and security of both peoples. Paz states the first proposition most directly; Slovo’s account, as Guha quotes it, supplies a critique of the consequences of a competing land claim.
That is an argument about principles, not a complete program for peace. Guha’s essay does not establish the present status of ceasefires, hostages, aid access, or other conditions, and it does not resolve the historical disagreements described in the rejoinder. Its value lies in returning readers to earlier arguments about claims, means, coexistence, and reparation—and in making clear how much remains contested.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
