HIST 109B
History of Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, 1881 to Present
Description: Lecture, three hours; discussion, one hour (when scheduled). Designed for juniors/seniors. Examination of origins of Arab-Israeli dispute from mid-19th century through founding of state of Israel and expulsion/flight of three quarters of million Palestinians from their homes. Exploration of social history of Palestine up to Zionist colonization, origins of Zionism and Palestinian nationalism, varieties of Zionism, Zionism and colonialism, seminal events and their consequent symbolic connotations Great Revolt and 1948 nakba (disaster), construction of national consensus in Israel, 1967 and its aftermath, intifada, and redefinition of conflict as result of Oslo. P/NP or letter grading.
Units: 4.0
Units: 4.0
1 of 1
Most Helpful Review
Spring 2026 - This class sounds really cool and interesting in theory, and it looks fairly easy. It is not easy, and Professor Gelvin (while very smart) is clearly out of touch with his students and even his own TAs. I wish I had not taken this class for my GPA's sake and to save myself some stress, but I still enjoyed some lectures and content. Interesting overall, but not worth it in my opinion. If you care less about your GPA, you may think it is worth it. TLDR grading is super vague, lectures are hit-or-miss, and Prof. is smart but old, rude, and unhelpful. Let's break it down: 1) Grading: This is the worst part of this class. Gelvin has two take-home essays, and a final exam that is in-class and basically two back-to-back in class essays. The take home essays were each supposed to be 25% (or were they...I'll get to this, but I still don't really know) and the final was supposed to be 50%. For the final, he gave us the prompts ahead of time, which was nice. No discussion section so no attendence or participation points. These 3 things determine your grade - you could theoretically not attend a single class and still manage to get an alright grade by studying for the final and AI'ing the essays. A few people I know did this, and one even got a better grade than me. The take home essays each had weird prompts, but the final prompts were very applicable and interesting. But the thing is, every single one of the prompts connected to only a few lectures, so most of the lectures ended up being useless because they were never tested on. More on lectures below. In the last class, Gelvin said that he was aware that a lot of people AI'd the two take home essays, so he was going to make the final exam weighted more. He did not give any further elaboration, even when students asked about it. He never sent any clarification. We never even got feedback on our final exams. Just the grade on MyUCLA, accompanied days later by a rude email not to ask him about grades. This all left me with a sour taste in my mouth, especially because this class was the first A- I've ever gotten and lost me my 4.0. Not trying to brag or anything, but I think that says a fair amount about the difficulty of the class. 2) Lectures: Gelvin is a very old Professor, and as such, he lectures without slides or visual aids. Most classes, he put a pixelated map of Israel and Jordan up on the board and just started talking. As you would expect, this makes it hard to follow along and stay engaged. But I will give Gelvin some credit on the fact that he does present the material in a very unbiased manner, using the true facts to guide student opinions rather than biased opinions to guide skewed facts. That's important, especially given the topic of the course. Some lectures were very interesting and I learned a lot while staying engaged. And some lectures were horrible; Gelvin would go off on a tangent that had no relation to the course material and spend an entire class on it, and students walked away feeling as if they had just wasted their time. After the first one or two of these classes by week 3, most students stopped going. I'd say there were roughly 30-50 students out of 120 there on a given lecture day. I went to every lecture except for one, and it didn't matter at all, although I learned some cool random accessory facts to the bigger story. That's because the two essays and final focused only on content from a handful of lectures, maybe 5-10 total out of the 30+. The second essay didn't even include any lectures - it was on a random book of some dude visiting Palestine and comparing it to America. Confusing essay prompts, but the final was solid and fair. On Canvas, Gelvin provides basically nothing. He gives you a vocabulary list for each week with random terms that he says once in lecture and that never are tested, so that was unhelpful and pretty irrelevant. He also gives the syllabus and a guide to good writing (which is solid, but never is used in grading because the TAs grade). Canvas did not have a lot of resources for students to get help. 3) Professor (and TAs): Gelvin is very smart, historically-accomplished and well-versed on the topic. Yet, he is very old and out of touch with students, especially in the present day. That made him appear more and more rude, as the course progressed. He was also incredibly vague and gave snarky remarks to students who asked pretty basic questions (that he did not include in the syllabus). Basically, Gelvin left students in the dark and was very unhelpful. Even with students like me, who went to lecture, stayed after class to talk with him and went to his office hours often, he wasn't helpful, although he was a nice guy. It just seemed like he wasn't really all there, even though he clearly knows a lot about this topic. As for the TAs, there were two of them and since there was no discussion section, they were only there to grade our stuff. They did not provide a grading rubric and provided minimal feedback on each essay, which made me very confused about how to improve. I went to office hours and talked with the TA who graded my essay, and left more confused than before I went. They also never gave us our finals back. I got A- on both of the essays, but felt like my final responses were A level. I guess I'll never know what was wrong with them, along with how much the final was actually worth. It honestly felt like the TAs simply spun a wheel to determine our grades rather than taking the proper time to understand our arguments. A friend of mine, who completely AI'd his essay, got an A because it was easy to read for the TA. Long story short, Gelvin just talks in lecture while the TAs half-heartedly grade assignments and provide minimal feedback. Even though I got A- on (presumably) all 3 assignments, I have no idea why and how I could have improved them. I wish I had not taken this class, but I still enjoyed some parts of it. It did cost me my 4.0 so I am quite biased, but there are worse classes out there. I'm just still so confused about why the Professor did not put more effort into clarifying basic things for his students, why the TAs graded how they did, and ultimately why I was not rewarded for going to class and engaging with the material. Take this review as you will with all the info, I feel as if I've been pretty thorough.
Spring 2026 - This class sounds really cool and interesting in theory, and it looks fairly easy. It is not easy, and Professor Gelvin (while very smart) is clearly out of touch with his students and even his own TAs. I wish I had not taken this class for my GPA's sake and to save myself some stress, but I still enjoyed some lectures and content. Interesting overall, but not worth it in my opinion. If you care less about your GPA, you may think it is worth it. TLDR grading is super vague, lectures are hit-or-miss, and Prof. is smart but old, rude, and unhelpful. Let's break it down: 1) Grading: This is the worst part of this class. Gelvin has two take-home essays, and a final exam that is in-class and basically two back-to-back in class essays. The take home essays were each supposed to be 25% (or were they...I'll get to this, but I still don't really know) and the final was supposed to be 50%. For the final, he gave us the prompts ahead of time, which was nice. No discussion section so no attendence or participation points. These 3 things determine your grade - you could theoretically not attend a single class and still manage to get an alright grade by studying for the final and AI'ing the essays. A few people I know did this, and one even got a better grade than me. The take home essays each had weird prompts, but the final prompts were very applicable and interesting. But the thing is, every single one of the prompts connected to only a few lectures, so most of the lectures ended up being useless because they were never tested on. More on lectures below. In the last class, Gelvin said that he was aware that a lot of people AI'd the two take home essays, so he was going to make the final exam weighted more. He did not give any further elaboration, even when students asked about it. He never sent any clarification. We never even got feedback on our final exams. Just the grade on MyUCLA, accompanied days later by a rude email not to ask him about grades. This all left me with a sour taste in my mouth, especially because this class was the first A- I've ever gotten and lost me my 4.0. Not trying to brag or anything, but I think that says a fair amount about the difficulty of the class. 2) Lectures: Gelvin is a very old Professor, and as such, he lectures without slides or visual aids. Most classes, he put a pixelated map of Israel and Jordan up on the board and just started talking. As you would expect, this makes it hard to follow along and stay engaged. But I will give Gelvin some credit on the fact that he does present the material in a very unbiased manner, using the true facts to guide student opinions rather than biased opinions to guide skewed facts. That's important, especially given the topic of the course. Some lectures were very interesting and I learned a lot while staying engaged. And some lectures were horrible; Gelvin would go off on a tangent that had no relation to the course material and spend an entire class on it, and students walked away feeling as if they had just wasted their time. After the first one or two of these classes by week 3, most students stopped going. I'd say there were roughly 30-50 students out of 120 there on a given lecture day. I went to every lecture except for one, and it didn't matter at all, although I learned some cool random accessory facts to the bigger story. That's because the two essays and final focused only on content from a handful of lectures, maybe 5-10 total out of the 30+. The second essay didn't even include any lectures - it was on a random book of some dude visiting Palestine and comparing it to America. Confusing essay prompts, but the final was solid and fair. On Canvas, Gelvin provides basically nothing. He gives you a vocabulary list for each week with random terms that he says once in lecture and that never are tested, so that was unhelpful and pretty irrelevant. He also gives the syllabus and a guide to good writing (which is solid, but never is used in grading because the TAs grade). Canvas did not have a lot of resources for students to get help. 3) Professor (and TAs): Gelvin is very smart, historically-accomplished and well-versed on the topic. Yet, he is very old and out of touch with students, especially in the present day. That made him appear more and more rude, as the course progressed. He was also incredibly vague and gave snarky remarks to students who asked pretty basic questions (that he did not include in the syllabus). Basically, Gelvin left students in the dark and was very unhelpful. Even with students like me, who went to lecture, stayed after class to talk with him and went to his office hours often, he wasn't helpful, although he was a nice guy. It just seemed like he wasn't really all there, even though he clearly knows a lot about this topic. As for the TAs, there were two of them and since there was no discussion section, they were only there to grade our stuff. They did not provide a grading rubric and provided minimal feedback on each essay, which made me very confused about how to improve. I went to office hours and talked with the TA who graded my essay, and left more confused than before I went. They also never gave us our finals back. I got A- on both of the essays, but felt like my final responses were A level. I guess I'll never know what was wrong with them, along with how much the final was actually worth. It honestly felt like the TAs simply spun a wheel to determine our grades rather than taking the proper time to understand our arguments. A friend of mine, who completely AI'd his essay, got an A because it was easy to read for the TA. Long story short, Gelvin just talks in lecture while the TAs half-heartedly grade assignments and provide minimal feedback. Even though I got A- on (presumably) all 3 assignments, I have no idea why and how I could have improved them. I wish I had not taken this class, but I still enjoyed some parts of it. It did cost me my 4.0 so I am quite biased, but there are worse classes out there. I'm just still so confused about why the Professor did not put more effort into clarifying basic things for his students, why the TAs graded how they did, and ultimately why I was not rewarded for going to class and engaging with the material. Take this review as you will with all the info, I feel as if I've been pretty thorough.
1 of 1
