Book Description
Iran has resumed its nuclear program, and President Bush is threatening military action. An expert on U.S.-Iranian relations explains the past, present, and possible future of this dangerous standoff
In 2002, George W. Bush famously referred to Iran as a member of the "axis of evil." The fierce rhetoric highlights the persistent antagonism between the two nations. The standoff has taken on renewed urgency with election of hard-line conservative Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as Iran's new president and his bold resumption of the country's nuclear program. Will Iran be the next front in America's war on terror?
Iran expert Ali Ansari sets the current crisis in the context of a long history of mutual antagonism. Despite the absence of formal diplomatic relations, Iran and the U.S. have loomed large in each other's domestic politics for decades. From the overthrow of Mosaddeq in 1953 to the hostage crisis in 1979 and, more recently, the Gulf War and the War in Iraq, both Iranian and American politicians have forged narratives about an "evil empire" lying half a world away. This mutual mistrust has militated against dŽtente between the two nations--and may ultimately lead to war.
An authoritative account of failed foreign policy, this book will be essential reading for anyone seeking to understand this explosive region.
Customer Reviews:
Good Book.......2007-09-03
Well written book. Breaks down the history of Iran and the way our policies shaped our present views of the country.
Historical Insights-Modern Applications.......2007-04-10
Within the pages of Confronting Iran one may find an excellent history on the Iranian relationship with multiple world power players. The policies of the United States and Britain, and to a lesser degree Iraq and Russia, are prominently and intricately worked over.
Another product of this reading is a respect for the sovereignty of this ancient nation and her idyllic peoples. It isn't difficult to accept a 'West is Best' mentality when you've known nothing else.
With praise appropriately placed for Mr. Ansari's accomplishment in Confronting Iran, it is appropriate to note that his affections are by no means hidden or misunderstood. The sympathetic viewpoints of the author lend to an overshadowing question! Where are we going?
Perhaps it is just too difficult to accept, at face value, the submissions of a learned man that opens his writing with the following statements. " It is generally accepted that all nations and states are rooted in a series of foundation myths...". " A good example in the United States is the myth of the Founding Fathers and the American Revolution...". Little more need be said.
Not a Bad Read on a Complex Subject.......2007-03-24
This book was good for both its take on current events with regards to Iran, and also for the historical dealings layout. I've read various authors on the history of the Middle East, but when dealing with the Middle East as a whole, anyone is bound to overlook key details just because of necessity. Writing about the unique nations is important because Iranians don't look at themselves as just another one of the Middle Eastern nations that the west thinks are all the same.
Ansari's analysis seems very fair to me. America has made some mistakes and they shouldn't deny that. But he is upfront about the mistakes Iran made also
It is difficult to read any book on this subject without forming an opinion one way or another. The fact that anyone is reading it suggests they already have an opinion on Iran. Ansari portrays a country whose leaders are, as of 1979, relatively hostile to the West/USA, and have very little desire to amend themselves with Americans. But it also shows contrasting citizenry who respect the West and want to patch things up.
The question now becomes what to do about Iran. Ansari didn't touch on this much, and that probably wasn't the intention of his book. This book is good for getting a solid reference point and then working from there. More knowledge about this complex nation and region would not hurt anyone, and such ignorance seems to be rampant among talking heads today.
The one area I would criticize the book is in its characterization of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It seems Ansari purposely avoids mentioning how completely whacko this guy is and how bad he is for Iran. Scholars cannot keep ignoring and glossing over all the "incinerate the Jews" talk and holocaust denying as simple rhetoric of Middle Eastern leaders. When every stump speech Ahmadinejad gives up and down Iran contains the underlying theme of war with the rest of the world he cannot then expect to be given visas to UN, so he can cry about being treated unfairly. Part of democratic negotiations is acting like a sane individual. If Iranian leaders can't do that any expectation of fair engagement with the west is a pie in the sky.
Interesting, but not much new though.......2007-01-11
As my title imply this book is very interesting - it is a great introduction to Iran and its foregin policy but if you are familiar with middle eastern history and politics it is not much that you probably dont already know.
Whats makes this book this inreresting is the importance of the subject as the tone between Iran and US/Israel is more harsh than ever. I especally enjoyed the last few chapters.
Overall: Must read if you want to understand Iranian foregin relations beyond what the media presents. If you already know a bit there is nothing controverial or new in this book.
Thorough - if imbalanced - history offers expert background.......2007-01-08
This slightly convoluted book provides tremendous background to help advanced readers understand the complex motives and machinations that shape U.S.-Iranian relations. Unfortunately, professor Ali Ansari has a definite point of view that affects his presentation about Iran's stated nuclear threats and terrorist financing, even as he chides the "trigger-happy Americans" in Iraq. He may be right that the U.S. missed several opportunities to reduce tensions with Iran, but he admits that Iran's overtures were oblique and unpopular. His baroque interpretations of Iran's motives and the relationships among its factions is dizzying, and open to question - ultimately adding to Iran's mystery. Despite its biases, we consider this important for those seeking a comprehensive overview of Iran and its complex U.S. relations. The book goes well beyond any discussion available in the mass media.
Book Description
Former senator George McGovern and William R. Polk, a leading authority on the Middle East, offer a detailed plan for a speedy troop withdrawal from Iraq.
During the phased withdrawal, to begin on December 31, 2006, and to be completed by June 30, 2007, they recommend that the Iraq government engage the temporary services of an international stabilization force to police the country. Other elements in the withdrawal plan include an independent accounting of American expenditures of Iraqi funds, reparations to Iraqi civilians for lives lost and property destroyed, immediate release of all prisoners of war, the closing of American detention centers, and offering to void all contracts for petroleum exploration, development, and marketing made during the American occupation.
Customer Reviews:
i pray we'll listen.......2007-08-08
In 1972 George McGovern lost the presidential election to Richard Nixon by an Electoral College vote of 520-17. He even lost his home state of South Dakota, due in large part to his "liberal" opposition to the war in Vietnam. The ridicule he endured was intense. Thirty-five years later, I dare say that history views him differently. Perhaps with this book we'll listen to him now. After serving as a bomber pilot in World War II, earning a PhD from Northwestern University, and serving in both the House and Senate for over twenty years, McGovern has distinguished himself with a broad array of humanitarian causes. His co-author William Polk taught at Harvard and the University of Chicago, in addition to serving as a Middle East specialist in the State Department.
The title of their book is a bit misleading. In the first four chapters they explain why we need to exit Iraq. They view the war as not only a "calamitous mistake" but a "terrible and useless waste" of people and finances because, ultimately, the war as it has been waged is unwinnable. The longer we stay the worse it will get, so true patriotism and true support of our troops means we should exit Iraq as soon as possible. Especially helpful in these first four chapters is a general and simple history of Iraq with special focus since the British invasion in World War I. McGovern and Polk are harsh in their verdict about the rationale for the war; the many falsehoods the public has been told were due partly to gross incompetence but also to deliberate deception. Beyond the many costs of the war to our country and even the world, the public's trust of its political institutions has been badly corroded. Only in a fifth chapter do the authors explain how we might leave. Reading their 24 bullet points (pp. 96-122) about the military, economic, cultural, civic, political, social, and moral complexities of any exit of any sort makes you realize just how catastrophic the war has been. This is a debacle that will take decades to repair, and the sooner we start the better.
Simply irrefutable.......2007-04-10
This is a crisply presented book, a solid introduction to basic Iraqi history, and a step-by-step prescription for getting the US troops out and keeping the region stable. When you read it, the simplicity, clarity, and humanity is a great contrast to the obfuscation you get from any politician or tv "reporter" talking about the Iraq war.
Great information.......2007-03-08
Sen. Mcgovern writes a book that is easy to read and follow. His information is so good, that I had to reread some pages twice!!!
The "Go Home" Option for Iraq.......2007-01-12
As I write this review shortly after the midterm elections, parties on all sides of the Iraq War are awaiting with great anticipation the report of the Baker Hamilton "Iraq Study Group." Whatever that effort produces, an exit strategy is already available in this short, aptly titled book by two well known experts on the Middle East.
After he retired from politics, Senator George McGovern resumed his prior profession of teaching history and headed the Middle East Policy Council in Washington for six years. William R. Polk taught Middle East history and politics at Harvard and Chicago, published many books on the region, and has closely studied Iraq since he first visited Baghdad in 1947. In 2005 he published Understanding Iraq, a highly readable 213 page history.
The two authors have collaborated on a book that recaps what Iraq is and who the Iraqis are, analyzes the effects of the invasion and occupation on Iraq and on America, and then lays out in a single chapter a 24 point exit strategy, followed by a brief warning about the dire consequences
of our not making a reasonably rapid exit. They foresee a phased withdrawal of all foreign military troops by June 30, 2007, including the 25,000 mercenaries euphemistically called "Personal Security Details" provided by 50 foreign firms. They put their plan's cost at about $14 billion -- a true bargain considering projections that another two years of the occupation would cost at least $350 billion. They insist that the plan must be implemented as a coordinated whole.
To facilitate the transition, McGovern and Polk urge the Iraqi government to request the short-term services of an international force to help police the country during and after our withdrawal, perhaps remaining for as much as two years. This force should be drawn from Arab and/or other
Muslim countries, whose personnel would be much better equipped with an understanding of the culture, religion, language and traditions of the Iraqi populace to carry out police work.
There is not space here to describe the plan's other 22 points in detail, but a good many are worthy of mention. For instance, the authors view the training of a permanent Iraqi national police force as essential, but oppose recreation of a national army, which in the past has been more disruptive than helpful. They also call for Washington to release all prisoners of war and to close our detention centers as soon as possible. To counter the impression that we plan to stay in Iraq long-term we must cease construction of some 14 "enduring" American military bases now under way (five of which are as large as cities). For similar reasons, we should vacate the Green Zone by the end of 2007.
The authors also urge the U.S. to fund a project to hire and train Iraqis to find and destroy mines, unexploded ordnance and depleted uranium; pay reparations for loss of lives and property; and allow Iraq to renegotiate oil contracts entered into during the occupation. Finally, though it may be hard for us to do it, America should express its condolences for the large number of Iraqis killed, incapacitated, incarcerated and tortured. This cost free gesture would help greatly to restore our reputation in Iraq, the region, and the world.
McGovern and Polk close by calling on all Americans to acknowledge the debt we owe to the men and women who served in Iraq, and to treat them as well as were the returning veterans from World War II: "Now is the time for healing the wounds of war and trying to understand its lessons. The veterans of the war in Iraq especially need and deserve a comprehensive rehabilitation -- physically, mentally, educationally and economically, including the highly successful offerings of the World War II G.I. Bill of Rights."
This brief book provides a reasonable, workable and inexpensive road map for extricating ourselves from the Iraq quagmire. It should be essential reading not only for all decision makers and their advisers in Washington, but all Americans.
Out of Iraq: A Practical Plan for Withdrawal Now .......2006-12-08
The back cover says, "Former Senator George McGovern and William R. Polk, a leading authority on the Middle East, offer a detailed plan for a speedy troop withdrawal from Iraq." They do, but their 142 page book devotes only 32 pages to the plan. Many Americans, probably a majority, now agree that the United States needs to change course in Iraq. McGovern and Polk's plan offers a way to change course. Likewise, the task force chaired by Baker and Hamilton presents a way to change course. At this point, it is impossible to say what is the right plan: McGovern and Polk, Baker and Hamilton, some other plan, or perhaps "stay the course."
McGovern and Polk devote over half their book to recounting how much damage the Iraq war has caused to the United States and to Iraq. The damages are in loss of life, damage to the health of the invaders and the invaded, destruction of real property, increasing insurgency (terrorism?), and the fallout in world-wide opinion. There is little here that hasn't been reported before, but gathering it all together does make it more sobering.
A basic premise of the book is that only the Iraqis can resolve the problems of Iraq. Further, the Iraqis can't do that until the United States gets out of the way. We must begin disengaging immediately and complete the job quickly. Further, the United States needs to underwrite (but not control) repairing as much as possible the damage the war has caused in Iraq. Only in this way can the United States do what is right and halt the erosion of world opinion with regard to the United States.
The book makes a lot of assumptions about what would have happened differently had the United States made different decisions and taken different actions. Even more assumptions follow about what will happen if the United States were to pursue the plan presented by McGovern and Polk. Unfortunately, the efficacy of the plan rests on the validity of the assumptions. Each reader must sort this out for herself or himself.
The situation regarding Iraq is bad and has been on a downward trend for many months. Every American needs to become informed, reach some decisions, and let our elected officials know of our opinions and concern. This book can be read easily and quickly. I hope that most American citizens and all members of Congress and the Administration read it. We, as a country, need to make some decisions very quickly.
Customer Reviews:
A Good Introduction to the Old Arabists .......2007-01-20
Arabists, at least the "old" generation, tend not to like this book because they feel that it unfairly stigmatizes them as hopelessly affected with clientitis, diplomats who have "gone native," and who are fundamentally biased towards Israel and out of touch with U.S. interests. Yet in highlighting these Arabists Kaplan provides an excellent introduction to the field: the legendary figures of the U.S. Foreign Service in the Arab world, among them diplomats like Bill Eagleton, Richard Parker, and Hume Horan. Also included are some of the "new" Arabists like Alberto Fernandez, who as of this writing heads up the public diplomacy efforts of the Near East Bureau in the State Department. He's one of the few U.S. government officials whose Arabic is good enough to frequently appear on Al-Jazeera talk shows.
dance of diplomacy.......2006-05-27
I really enjoyed this book, and to interject a rather shallow comment, I quite like its cover design!
Though I am not a serious student of foreign policy or foreign service, I do wonder daily about the present conflicts in the Middle East and how (and why) the U.S. will continue to define itself in relationship with all the seething and churning in that part of the world.
What I really enjoyed most about the book was the diplomatic perspective of Middle Eastern history, which, for me, had something akin to the page-turner effect of a thriller, there was so much intrigue suggested.
Ultimately though, at the end of the book, I was left with my own analogy between diplomacy and dance. It seems that the kind of Western (U.S.) diplomacy critically described in this book is much like Western classical dance - choreographed, predigested, and distant - as opposed to Middle Eastern dance, which is grounded, "tribal," improvised, even carnal, but always inspired by reality rather than romanticism.
Perhaps diplomats should be given dance lessons!
Kaplan and his book.......2006-04-19
The first thing that needs to be said about the book is that Mr. Kaplan is a former Israeli soldier (though he doesn't exactly advertise that fact very often). He doesn't exactly come to the subject with a detached political view.
The book is a thinly veiled attack on a generation of State Department officials who actually cared about the countries they served in. Who valued their cultures and tried to understand the countries.
Kaplan is dismissive of such attitudes. In this book he is dismissive of such attitudes because they clashed with his pro-Israeli political views. But the book is interesting in that when seen in the broader context of Kaplan's more recent works. In his most recent book, "imperial grunts", Kaplan views the entire world beyond "the west" as "injun country". An area similar to the old american west in need of civilization by the US army. In "the coming anarchy", he presents large parts of the world as inhabited by uncivilized peoples whose very existance is a threat to what he calls the west. And in "Warrior Politics", he promotes a pseudo-fascist militarism in place of Jewish/Christian traditional ideas of morality.
Seen in the context of those works, Kaplan's problems with the Arabists is not really that they are anti-Israel, its that the arabists treated arab culture and arab peoples with a level of respect. To Kaplan, such peoples be they in the middle east or Africa are savages without a culture and in need of the firm civlizing hand of a western army rather than the understanding of diplomats. The savages in "Injun country" need to be beaten down and taught how to be little Americans rather than having Americans adopt what he sees as the customs of savages.
The Kaplan mentality is illlustrative of how the US blundered into a disaster in Iraq. While Kaplan glories in the "defeat" of the Arabists and their departure from the scene, the US has paid the price in having lost the very experts who might have made a difference in Iraq.
American Diplomats in the Middle East.......2006-03-08
I approached this book with caution. While I admire Kaplan's writing skills, I consider him -- fairly or unfairly -- as a troglodytic neo-con, one of these people who have a lot more faith in the efficacy of U.S. imposed military solutions to international problems than I do.
This book looks at the rise and fall of a group of American diplomats who devoted their careers to the difficult job of learning Arabic and living in Arab countries. They came out of the Protestant missionary tradition of the 19th century and they fell in love with their polite, gracious Arab hosts -- to the detriment of U.S. foreign policy in the region in Kaplan's opinion.
As an excellent writer, Kaplan writes a charming story of the Americans who have lived and worked in the Middle East for the last 200 years, but he gets more pointed and pained as he works his way up to the early 1990s and the beginning of the first Gulf War. The downfall of the Arabists was that despite their expertise they saw the Arab world through rose colored glasses and Israel as an unwelcome intruder. Obviously Kaplan is pro-Israeli -- although he doesn't spare them criticism -- and he is patronizing in his characterization of Arabs. In one place, he comments that the Arabists weren't used to dealing with people as smart as themselves -- i.e. the Israelis.
"Clientitis" is of course a common disease of specialists of all ilks, including Arabists. The book is a little misleading as it didn't explore the clientitis among American Jewish diplomats which is probably just as prevalent as a pro-Arab bias of the Arabists. One major, adverse consequence of the fall of the Arabists was, of course, that we had few Arab experts in 2002-2003 while the U.S. was contemplating an invasion of Iraq. Thus a bunch of ignorant idiots seized control of US policy and started a silly and tragic war. Had the Arabists still been influential we would have been a lot wiser.
Smallchief
A Surprisingly Good Read.......2005-11-13
This book was incredibly inspirational in addition to being objective and filled with many interesting stories about Americans serving in the "far flung areas" of the Middle East. The book starts with the humble begginings of US-Arab diplomacy through its roots with Protestent missionaries and ends with the failure of American diplomatic efforts in Iraq pre-1991.
I was truly intrigued by the stories Kaplan describes such as the establishment by Protestant missionaries of AUB in Beirut, the succesful evacuation of Americans from the Beirut embassy during the bloody Lebanese Civil War, the rescue of Eithiopian Jews (Falashas) and their deliverance to Israel, etc.
Kaplan has done a marvelous job and if one was to have a book concerning US diplomacy/diplomats in the Middle East this would be a must have.
Book Description
The volatile Middle East is the site of vast resources, profound passions, frequent crises, and long-standing conflicts, as well as a major source of international tensions and a key site of direct U.S. intervention.
Two of the most astute analysts of this part of the world are Noam Chomsky, the preeminent critic of U.S, foreign policy, and Gilbert Achcar, a leading specialist of the Middle East who lived in that region for many years. In their new book, Chomsky and Achcar bring a keen understanding of the internal dynamics of the Middle East and of the role of the United States, taking up all the key questions of interest to concerned citizens, including such topics as terrorism, fundamentalism, conspiracies, oil, democracy, self determination, anti-Semitism, and anti-Arab racism, as well as the war in Afghanistan, the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and the sources of U.S. foreign policy.
This book provides the best readable introduction for all who wish to understand the complex issues related to the Middle East from a perspective dedicated to peace and justice. It is not an interview book, but rather a carefully planned and orchestrated dialogue with two experts, skillfully edited by Stephen R. Shalom, professor at William Patterson University.
Customer Reviews:
Insightful At Times; Also Biased and Tedious.......2007-06-09
The authors provide both helpful insight and tortured bias towards Israel in this book. "Perilous Power" begins with efforts to define terrorism - the first (12/87) passed the U.N. 153-2 (the U.S. and Israel were upset that it excluded acts by those occupied), and one immediately gets the sense that the U.S. is way out of the mainstream vs. Israel.
Some of their observations include:
Chomsky et al make the interesting point that Treasury officials in '04 testified they had four employees tracing financial transfers possibly attributable to Bin Laden and/or Hussein, and about 6X that monitoring possible Cuban embargo violations - a bit of mis-emphasis, at best. As for the U.S. troops stationed in Saudi Arabia that provoked Bin Laden, they suggest the troops instead could have been stationed in Kuwait.
The dominant trend in the 1960s Arab world was Arab nationalism (eg. Nasser). The U.S. used Islamic fundamentalism throughout Saudi Arabia to counter communism, secular nationalism, etc. This policy continued in Afghanistan, with us backing the Mujahideen and a similar group in Pakistan. (Talk about blowback!) The U.S. also reacted to the '58 overthrow of the Iraq monarchy, fearing it then would use oil for its own purposes, weakening U.S. control over Japanese and European countries. A U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would end our control/influence over mid-East oil.
In the U.S., Republicans have boosted Christian fundamentalists' concern regarding teaching evolution, gay rights, abortion rights - issues that the wealthy care little about and help build support for their causes (low taxes and wages, etc.). Real wages have gone down, beginning with the Carter administration. Political donations from insurance companies and financial institutions block both parties from addressing health and economic issues, instead resulting in a focus on religious issues.
The U.S.' democratic credentials in the Mid-East are quite poor, via our involvement in overthrows in Pakistan, Iran, and Iraq, along with little pressure on Egypt and Saudi Arabia for improvement.
AIPAC, the liberal intelligentsia, and Christian evangelicals are the main pro-Israel voting blocs in the U.S. - the latter are the strongest, and ironically, seeking the destruction of Israel for their own purposes. Israel's economic strength is in advanced military production using U.S. technology; the main market it is trying to develop is China, sometimes creating conflict with the U.S. Being pushed out of Saudi Arabia has increased the value of Israel to the U.S.
"Perilous Power's" weakest section criticizes the U.S. attack on Afghanistan - its authors believe more negotiation and development of greater evidence against Bin Laden should have taken place first. Regardless, the authors also assert that Afghanistan's people are not better off now, except in Kabul, with those in the countryside now subjugated by warlords instead of the Taliban; meanwhile, heroin production is up sharply.
The U.S. has created several ironies regarding its position on democracy. For example, Spain's P.M. joined Bush and Blair (despite the electorate's only 2% support), while the U.S. criticized Turkey's lack of cooperation with our Iraq invasion, acting with 95% support.
It was also interesting to learn that the Kurds serve as a U.S. proxy.
Finally, the Israel-Palestine issue. They report that the U.S./Israel position has been that unless Palestinians accept the right of Israel to exist, they can't be accepted as negotiating powers - total nonsense. The authors then use various examples from history, including America's treatment of its native American population, to create a patchwork logic in support of Israel's decades' old abuse of the Palestinian people. Basically, their point boils down to "possession is 9/10ths of the law."
Useful ideas for reducing the dangers of yet more wars.......2007-06-01
This fascinating book records Noam Chomsky and Gilbert Achcar's talks in January 2006. They are astoundingly well-informed and full of good ideas for reducing the dangers of war. They discuss terrorism, fundamentalism (especially in Saudi Arabia), the sources of US Middle Eastern policy (particularly oil), the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq, and the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Achcar points out that the Bush-Blair claim that they must now stay in Iraq because, having invaded, `we have the responsibility', is like the vile rule in some societies that a man who rapes an unmarried woman must marry her. They cite the US military commander in Iraq who admits that the presence of US troops `fuels the insurgency'. They note that most people in Baghdad believe that the USA's chief aim is to `rob Iraq's oil' and they note that most Americans think that the USA should get out of Iraq.
Chomsky and Achcar point out that the EU gives the Israeli state economic privileges and they suggest that the EU should desist until Israel stops building new illegal settlements and the illegal Separation Wall. They agree that an academic boycott of Israel is a bad idea, but worse, it is a divisive diversion from academic unions' main job, to defend their members' wages and conditions.
Chomsky observes that in October 2003, Iran suspended its nuclear enrichment programme in order to reach a general agreement. The EU said that it would provide `firm commitments on security issues', but it reneged when the USA refused to join the talks. In January 2006, Iran offered to suspend its nuclear programme again; the EU rejected this offer too.
Achcar observes, "There's a general trend at the level of the mainstream media to praise those ruling politicians who rule without consulting the polls; that is deemed a great virtue. But behind it is the very elitist idea, also embedded in the very concept of `representative democracy', that, once elected, a representative is free to do whatever he or she wants, even against the unanimous will of his or her constituency." So the Labour government opposes the will of the British people over the attack on Iraq, the EU, the Private Finance Initiative, immigration, breaking up Britain, etc., etc. But are we really surprised that capitalist states do not represent the people?
US terror.......2007-02-12
Chomsky does not say that the US should "accept" terrorist attacks as another reviewer suggests. Rather, Chomsky says the US should stop engaging in terrorism. The US has spent hundreds of billions of dollars developing weapons of mass destruction, and training all sorts of killers through our military camps and bases all over the world, places like the "School of the Americas" which has turned out some of Latin America's worst tyrants. We have proxy wars, special forces, and private mercenaries operating all over the world in the interests of corporatism. As General Smedley Butler said, war is a racket, and he was a "high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers."
Ann Coulter, Victor Davis Hansen, Hugh Hewitt and so many others very obediently avoid the fact of US violence against other people. They only speak in terms of the threats (blowback) our military superpower faces, never the actual harm it causes around the world. That's the "thought-crime" that Chomsky commits in book after book, he dares to suggest that the people of the US look themselves in the mirror.
For some more interviews with Chomsky, I'd recommend the website of Z Magazine.
Predictable Conclusion.......2007-01-16
I'd never read any Chomsky before, but I'd seen one of his movies and heard of his reputation. I was worried he was just going to be a knee-jerk, predictable Vietnam-era peacenik.
He discusses the Middle East, particularly Iraq, in a lot of intelligent detail, and then concludes (surprise!) that the US should withdraw all its forces from Iraq immediately and unconditionally, and that if we did that the Sunnis and Shias would just magically quit fighting against each other.
I felt pretty ripped off, because I thought while he was discussing the situation in so much detail he was actually thinking and digesting information that would drive a conclusion, while in fact the policy he was going to recommend was never in question and had no relationship with the facts on the ground being discussed.
When he was discussing Afghanistan, I had the feeling Chomsky doesn't really seem to feel that the US has any right to defend itself against terrorism, rather, he seems to feel that we should accept it as our just fate because we're such an evil country. As Ann Coulter says, "Terrorist don't hate America as much as liberals do - if they had that much energy, they'd have indoor plumbing by now!".
Conspiracy Literature at its Finest!.......2007-01-14
Every few years I'll pick up a book by Chomsky to get a clue as to what the far left is thinking. Chomsky is predictable. He will always impute the worst of motives to the United States and the best of motives to any State that is anti-American and embraces collectivist ideals. He is unpredictable in how he reaches some of his conclusions and thus you will find surprising and at times enlightening flights of reason -- and fantasy. I will never forgive him for denying the holocaust in Cambodia -- although he would say in his own defense that he was just questioning the evidence of such a holocaust.
This book is the text of a lengthy conversation between Chomsky and Gilbert Achar on the Middle East. They don't always agree, and that makes the book more interesting. Achar is a European -- born in Lebanon -- and thus his statements reflect the leftist European point of view on anti-Semitism, resolution of the Palestinian-Israeli problem, the war in Iraq, and other Middle Eastern topics. An interesting section of the book is the brief epilog which discusses the summer 2006 war of Israel on Lebanon.
The problem with thinkers like Chomsky and Achar is that, just about the time you get to thinking they are making good sense,out of their mouths comes the most outrageous nonsense. For example, Achar more than hints that the U.S. government welcomed the 9/11 terrorist attack. Now, I'm not a Bush fan -- far to the contrary -- but I decline to give credence to an opinion he and other US leaders are so venal as to welcome the death of 3,000 Americans. On his side, Chomsky's characterization of the US invasion of Afghanistan as an "atrocious crime" is misleading. Chomsky makes much of the fact that the US invasion put 5 million Afghans at risk of starvation. Baloney! He omits to mention that the five million were at risk of starvation long before the war because of the Taliban, and that during the war the US and UN kept a massive caravan of grain-carrying trucks rolling into Afghanistan to prevent starvation. Chomsky finally acknowledges there was no starvation -- after spending two pages describing the "atrocious crime" of attacking the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
So, I recommend the book for its originality, its unconventional thinking, and for the howlers you will find amidst its analyses.
Smallchief
Book Description
The Other Arab-Israeli Conflict illuminates the controversial course of America's Middle East relations from the birth of Israel to the Reagan administration. Skillfully separating actual policymaking from the myths that have come to surround it, Spiegel challenges the belief that American policy in the Middle East is primarily a relation to events in that region or is motivated by bureaucratic constraints or the pressures of domestic politics. On the contrary, he finds that the ideas and skills of the president and his advisors are critical to the determination of American policy. This volume received the 1986 National Jewish Book Award.
Book Description
The Israel Lobby,” by John J. Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen M. Walt of Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, was one of the most controversial articles in recent memory. Originally published in the London Review of Books in March 2006, it provoked both howls of outrage and cheers of gratitude for challenging what had been a taboo issue in America: the impact of the Israel lobby on U.S. foreign policy.
Now in a work of major importance, Mearsheimer and Walt deepen and expand their argument and confront recent developments in Lebanon and Iran. They describe the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the United States provides to Israel and argues that this support cannot be fully explained on either strategic or moral grounds. This exceptional relationship is due largely to the political influence of a loose coalition of individuals and organizations that actively work to shape U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction. Mearsheimer and Walt provocatively contend that the lobby has a far-reaching impact on America’s posture throughout the Middle East—in Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, and toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—and the policies it has encouraged are in neither America’s national interest nor Israel’s long-term interest. The lobby’s influence also affects America’s relationship with important allies and increases dangers that all states face from global jihadist terror.
Writing in The New York Review of Books, Michael Massing declared, “Not since Foreign Affairs magazine published Samuel Huntington’s ‘The Clash of Civilizations?’ in 1993 has an academic essay detonated with such force.” The publication of The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy is certain to widen the debate and to be one of the most talked-about books of the year.
Customer Reviews:
Meticulous and courageous.......2007-10-16
"The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy" is a carefully researched, scholarly, dispassionate, meticulous book. Mearsheimer and Walt must have understood how fiercely they would be attacked for this book, so it took guts to write it. The book refutes a number of old chestnuts about the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, such as: the idea that the Six Day War was a preemptive war that Israel launched because it was on the verge of being attacked by Arab states; the notion that Arafat turned down an exceptionally generous Israeli peace offer in 2000; and the proposition that the alliance with Israel helps the US in its "war on terror." The authors take pains NOT to blame American Jews as a group for the actions of the Israel lobby. I do think, though, that the ADL is right in thinking this book may feed anti-Semitism in the US, because of its core argument that a mostly Jewish lobby has led the US to adopt policies that are not in its interest. Any increase in anti-Semitism would be a very bad thing. But the solution is not to suppress the truth but to bring out MORE truths - such as the fact that very large numbers of American Jews are strongly in favor of an even-handed US policy that could result in the creation of a viable Palestinian state and would enormously reduce worldwide anti-Americanism.
Paranoid Premise.......2007-10-16
This book follows a long succession of anti Israeli books, that all seem to make it to the lower end of best sellers. That fact in itself demonstrates that far from being scared of pressing the wildest anti Israel accusations, taking an anti Israeli stance can actually pay quite handsomely in the book market.
I found the book extremely boring, based mostly on assumptions that the autors apparently consider axiomatic, on which they build other unsubstantiated assumptions, then add more of the same, to reach totally unsupported conclusions. For example, declaring that supporting Israel doesn't serve US interests, that the Iraq war could serve no US interest, that the Iraq war did serve Israel's interest, and that therefore AIPAC must have brought about the Iraq war. The theory resulting from this exercise in leaping logic is a tethering tower, that falls crashing down once even one of its unsupported assumptions is refuted.
The only interesting part about the book is it's truly paranoid premise, claiming that no one but AIPAC has any say on US Middle East policies. This plays well to the psychology of a considerable crowd, suffering from acute cases of Jew phobia, that faithfully keeps buying these books as soon as they're published. Others may realize from the grotesque demonization of Israel and AIPAC that the latter, while it obviously wields nothing near the overwhelming power attributed to it by the authors, is still apparently an efficient advocacy lobby for Israel (personally, realizing that convinced me to contribute financially to it, for the first time.) Maybe that would prompt other minorities to adopt AIPAC's model for efficiently advancing similarly worthy causes.
Welcome to CABARET!!!!!!!!!!!.......2007-10-16
Wilkommen, Bienvenue, Welcome, To THe W and M show of the remake of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion". Jews, Jews Jewish Lobby, Jews, Israel, Jews, Iraq, Jews, Iran, Jews, Palestine, Jews, all the problems due to the Jews. Their book should have been funded by Henry Ford, or The Thrid Reich. Even Norman Finkelstein, a staunch hater of the Israeli State, found flaws in this sad excuse for a book. I wonder if anyone is going to write a book about the Italian Lobby, how Italian Americans, and their "tribal" instincts (their words, not mine) connect them to Italy. Or how the Arabs, have found a sudden nationalism in the Ottoman Empire of Palesine. Give me a break, Anti Semites are just anti Semites, and these guys go out looking like Himmler and his ilk. Reading this book reminds me of the Wannassee Conference. Creepy, and getting to real for comfort.
Nothing new here but the same ol rhetoric!.......2007-10-14
While the book is an interesting perspective of the Israel Lobby and its influence on US foreign policy the authors specifically acknowledge the US should support Israel's right to exist and should come to her aid if needed. The authors give the impression they have a better understanding of what US strategic and moral direction should be. They want to blame the Israel Lobby as if the American Polity scene has no conscious or free will of its own. The authors write as if they are envious of the Israeli lobby and how effective they are with their money and powers of influence. As if the Israel lobby is better than other lobbies at accomplishing objectives. I can't wait for their take on the Arab lobby or Oil lobby.
So if the Israel Lobby is so all mighty powerful the authors conveniently leave out why the Israel lobby is ineffective at stopping the sale of weapons to US Arab allies who are Israel's past or present enemies. These same countries are in turn supporting Palestinian militants. Why is it the Israel Lobby cannot stop the US or EU from giving billions of dollars over the past 25 years to hostile enemies of the Jewish state. The authors give the false impression that if the Israel lobby is removed from the picture all problems with U.S./Israel relations in the Middle East would be minimal or nonexistent. This is nonsense!
History proves in 1948 the modern State of Israel was attacked by a Pan Arab world determined to wipe the Jews into the sea. Rather than accept a two state solution in which the Palestinians would have had two states which would have included Jordan. However that was not to happen and Arab leaders told their people to leave and they will return to wipe the Jews into the sea. In 1956 Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal cutting off Israeli, British, and French interests in oil and western trade. It wasn't long before Israel, Britain and France planned an attack on Egypt.
In June 1967, Nasser makes statements once again to destroy the state of Israel followed by an attack. We saw the attacks in 1973 known as the Yom Kippur war where Jews were attacked on their high holy day. By the way if this were Jews attacking Arab Muslims on Ramadan we wouldn't hear the end of world outcry!
In 1982 we saw the war with Lebanon where PLO militants basically take over the country and were using it as a haven to attack Israel. We see Saddam Hussein in 1991 firing rockets into Israel. Once again in 06' we see Israel attacked by Hezbollah in Lebanon funded entirely by Iran and Syria. It appears when people speak of "occupation" they never refer to Syria's occupation of Lebanon or the current Iranian occupation which is accomplished directly through Hezbollah. Today, we also see Ahmadinejad of Iran making the same threats to "wipe Israel off the map" the same Iran who is now pursuing nuclear weapons.
Israel has been in 5 wars in which they were attacked and defended themselves each time and won. In the last engagement with Hezbollah in Lebanon Israel was again attacked in what amounts to be an act of war. The fact is no civilized country in the world would have allowed these attacks upon them without heavy retaliation. They are indeed acts of war in which the authors fail to make the connection with their original statements of support for Israel's existence. It is in fact redundant! You can't do it without money and that's where the Israel lobby takes over.
A previous post refers to Israel illegally occupying territory when in fact the territory prior to 67' did not belong to the Palestinians anymore than it belonged to them prior to 1948.
It is a fact there was never in the history of the world a sovereign country called Palestine that was governed by Palestinians. Therefore there is no occupation!
However, there is a dispute over land and until the Palestinians find the strength to elect a leader to accept a two state resolution akin to the one originally offered in 1948, there will be no peace. To this day, the PA charter still calls for the destruction of Israel. It is truly unfortunate the Palestinians are the scapegoat for the Arab world as we continue to see very little effort by the Arab states to help secure a two state solution. These authors ignore the "other side" to embellish the importance of the Israel lobby and make it seem like an out of control political monster when in fact there is nothing illegal or immoral about it. Consider the fact Israel currently has peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt...
Finally..........2007-10-14
Finally, a recognized professor documents one side of the debate regarding the influence of a lobby organization. Why are we afraid of discussing a prominent lobby group? Every country has lobbyists or other groups that try to influence Congress, so why should we shy away from a pro-Israel group? Do not be afraid of this book. It simply provides information that everyone should discuss considering the risk of another war. Religious zealots will be unable to discuss the issue rationally, so save your money.
Average customer rating:
|
Selling AWACS to Saudi Arabia: The Reagan Administration and the Balancing of America's Competing Interests in the Middle East
Nicholas Laham
Manufacturer: Praeger Publishers
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Hardcover
 Asia
| History
| Subjects
| Books
| Afghanistan
| Armenia
| Bangladesh
| Belarus
| Bhutan
| Brunei
| Cambodia
| Central Asia
| China
| Far East
| General
| Georgia
| Hong Kong
| India
| Indonesia
| Japan
| Korea
| Laos
| Malaysia
| Maldives
| Mauritius
| Mongolia
| Myanmar
| Nepal
| Pakistan
| Philippines
| Russia
| Seychelles
| Singapore
| South Asia
| Southeast Asia
| Sri Lanka
| Taiwan
| Thailand
| Tibet
| Turkey
| Vietnam
Saudi Arabia
| Middle East
| History
| Subjects
| Books
Intelligence & Espionage
| Military
| History
| Subjects
| Books
Public Affairs & Administration
| Government
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Politics
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
History & Theory
| Politics
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Relations
| International
| Politics
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Diplomacy
| International
| Politics
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Ethnic Studies
| Special Groups
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Political Science
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Federal Government
| Levels of Government
| Political Science
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
All Amazon Upgrade
| Amazon Upgrade
| Stores
| Books
History
| Amazon Upgrade
| Stores
| Books
Nonfiction
| Amazon Upgrade
| Stores
| Books
All Titles
| Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007
| Stores
| Books
ASIN: 0275975630 |
Book Description
The AWACS debate represents one of the most critical and controversial events in the history of American diplomacy and legislative politics. It locked the Reagan administration and opponents of the AWACS sale in a fierce and pitched battle over American policy in the most economically and strategically vital region in the world: the Middle East. Accordingly, Laham finds there are at least five political lessons to be drawn from the debate. First, contrary to the arguments of its critics in Congress, the pro-Israel lobby does not control American policy in the Middle East. Second, the Senate tends to defer to the authority of the president on matters of foreign policy and national security. Third, while remaining a passive president overall, Reagan was among the most active of chief executives on issues involving the economy and national security. Fourth, given the enormous contribution the AWACS sale made to the vital economic and national security interests of the United States, Reagan's masterful handling of this politically explosive issue provides evidence that he displayed attributes of presidential greatness, but much further study of the other major foreign and domestic policy issues Reagan confronted during his tenure in office will be required before any definitve judgment can be rendered concerning where he stands in the ranking of America's 42 presidents. Fifth, the AWACS debate shows that the United States need not sacrifice its special relationship with Israel in order to forge stronger ties with Saudi Arabia. This analysis will be of particular interest to scholars, students, and policy makers involved with national security issues, presidential politics, interest groups, and Middle East studies.
Average customer rating:
- too one-sided to be helpful
|
Future Iraq: US Policy in Reshaping the Middle East
Geoff Simons
Manufacturer: Saqi Books
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback
General
| Politics
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Relations
| International
| Politics
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Political Science
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
Systems Of Government
| Political Science
| Social Sciences
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
| General
| Islamic Government
| Monarchy
| Representative Government
ASIN: 0863561322 |
Book Description
With a now indefinite American occupation of Iraq, Geoff Simons looks at the implications for the region as a whole. He considers the roles played by the disparate power bases both in Iraq and in the key states in the region--including Turkey, Iran, Syria and Israel/Palestine. Simons takes an incisive look at how these states will potentially respond to a Pax Americana, and what Islamist reactions the new US presence may engender. He also looks at the relevance of the regional oil resource, what roles remain for the UN, and the significance of America's expanding global hegemony.
Customer Reviews:
too one-sided to be helpful.......2006-09-21
Geoff Simons has written extensively on the Middle East and particularly Iraq. I've read one of his other Iraq books that dealt with the sanctions against Iraq during the 90's. At the time, I felt that he was completely in the right. He went that extra mile to point out all of the bad things that the U.S. was doing in the region. I suppose if you're young enough, liberal enough, and naive enough, then Simons will really appeal to you. However, after several years of studying the region and U.S. policy, it has become clear that Simons (like Chomsky) is of very little use.
Put simply, Simons' biggest flaw is that he puts all his energy into finding the parts about U.S. policy he disagrees with. Not that this isn't valid in and of itself, but that's all he does. If Simons were to be as critical of Saddam and the clerics in Iran as he is of the U.S., then he would be producing books of some value. Unfortunately, this book falls short in what it is trying to achieve.
Another problematic aspect of Simons is that he offers next to nothing in terms of real policy recommendations. Let's take one example. He's very critical of U.S. support of Saddam in the 80's. Fair enough, but he never explores the alternatives. Most of the world was supporting Iraq in that war, and you can't find anyone (aside from the Iranians) claiming that an Iranian victory would have been preferable from any point of view. This is a legitimate point, and Simons never approaches a problem from this perspective. Although I love reading about the Middle East and U.S. policy, I have to conclude based on this book that reading any of Simons' other books would be a waste of time.
Customer Reviews:
Good Succint Intro to International Relations of Middle East.......2007-04-18
This book is a nice introduction to the great powers' influence on international relations of Middle Eastern countries. Surely, it offers a partial picture which is mostly about the role of great powers in shaping international relations in the Middle East. But it does a good job in doing what it does. Some of the stories and argumensts are so important for understanding contemporary conflicts in the Middle East. Here are some excerps from the books:
"The Ottoman Empire had provided a far from perfect political system, but it worked. During WWI Britain and it allies destroyed the old order in the Arabic-speaking Middle East without considering the long-term consequences."
"Nixon and Kissenger also aided the shah in his compaign to destabilize the Ba'ath regime in Baghdad. In 1972 they agreed to covert American-Israeli-Iranian action in support of the Kurdish rebels in northern Iraq."
"[regarding Iran-Iraq war] Kissinger summed up the general preference when he indicated that the best outcome would be for both sides to lose."
"[The Iran-Iraq war] started as a result of rivalries inside rather than outside, but Reagan's intervention prolonged it unnecessarily."
"On July 31 [1990], three days before Iraqi troops charged into Kuwait John Kelly [the US assistant secretary of state for Near East and South Asian Affairs] testified on Capitol Hill that America had no treaty and no commitement obliging it to send forces should Kuwait be overrun."
"[The Gulf War] also demontrated that Americans are better at short, sharp burst of military intervention designed to restore the status quo than at sustained political engagement to resolve the undrlying origins of instability in the Middle East."
"Most of the American mistakes in the last half century can be traced to the combination of globalism and the Israel-first approach."
More--or less--than you bargained for.......2006-06-22
This is a brief work which bills itself as "A Concise History." Concise it is, and at fewer than 150 pages its pace is of a necessity very efficient, except at points where the author pauses to vent toxic fumes that rise from his belly while digesting certain of the more combustible materials of Middle Eastern history. Schlaim is an avowed revisionist--which is not to say propagandist--and is not delicate when recounting events in Israel's past at uncomfortable odds with history as taught in Tel Aviv elementary schools.
Nor is he inhibited--when incomplete historical records require extrapolation in order to connect dots otherwise forever separated--in offering his own sometimes byzantine, usually cynical, always overweight conjecture. If he succeeds in nothing else, it's in noting the inherent weakness of national folklores in which fragments of credible history are mortared into cohesion using generous spadefuls of agreeable, pleasant myth. Iron walls they are not. A true enough assertion, and perhaps of greater ultimate value to the reader than a dry listing of names, dates and events--even if it could be argued that the latter was the implied good or service, the thing you bargained for when picking up the book.
Having said that, I'll also say that I couldn't find, nor have since discovered any error in any fact Schlaim presented as such. There are times when a "revisionist" would be more aptly titled a "correctionist."
If I have a serious critique, it's that he at times overstepped the boundaries of both historian and social commentator in order to satisfy personal disdain he felt for some of the characters in the drama. Such as Ronald Reagan, for instance, whom he accused not only of "...intellectual mediocrity and lax leadership," but of spending "...sleepless afternoons in the White House worrying about the Soviet threat."
Get it? (wink, nod). Poor Ronnie was so afflicted with old age and infirmity that pressures of the job cut into his afternoon naps. Not the best nor worst old joke I heard spoken during Reagan's presidency, but Schlaim chose the wrong venue for it. With a scant 150 pages to wedge both a history and bloated personal perspective of the Middle East into, malicious humor would have been better held for Volume II, if only to preserve the dignity of Volume I.
How the West and East relate to the Middle East.......2006-02-21
Rather than a concise history of the Middle East this book offers only 146 pages of brief summary of outside powers effects on the region.
This isn't a history of the Middle East, it's a history of how Europe, the US and the Soviet Union interacted with the Middle East. Though undeniably important in understanding the region, Western and Eastern relations with the Middle East are not the only reasons for studying it. There is more going on, far more, that Shlaim does not address, and it opens a large crediblility gap.
What is missing? A lot.
This might be a good book if it's only goal were to teach people a very concise history of Western and Eastern relations to the Middle East, so perhaps it is just poorly titled. The information that it did offer though seemed good enough, and it provided a fair overview of US relations with the Middle East, but I expected more and was dissapointed.
Unmissable classic - please bring out a new edition!.......2005-12-17
When this first came out I nearly missed it because it appeared too short to be anything but a simplistic popularised summary. Thank goodness I did start browsing, because not only did the style have me hooked, the argument's balance and lucidity, and (whatever Likudnik propagandists may say) the thoroughly scholarly grounding of the account, made me realise that here at last I had the perfect introductory text for the intelligent student entering upon a study of modern Middle Eastern history and politics. It has been a top recommendation in my final-year university course on Middle East politics ever since. The only frustration has been that, since it went out of print in the UK, my students have had to rey on the few library copies and my own. I shall now be directing them to Amazon to get their own copy - and order some more for the library.
The book somehow manages to synthesise a mass of historical detail and controversy into a straightforward but finely judged account, bringing out all the key themes and dynamics: this is not only a list of facts and events, but a compelling analysis. He brings to life especially well the interplay of external actors (especially Britain, France and the US) and regional factors (the calculations of regional elites, balancing between dynastic/regime ambitions and the constraints of the international environment; and in places the outbursts of popular anger against both regimes and outsiders - including against the influx of Jewish settlers and eventually the establishment of Israel).
The book wears its scholarship and erudition lightly - but it is perhaps only someone as thoroughly grounded in the disciplines of International Relations and History as is professor Shlaim, that could perform this feat with such apparent ease and elegance.
Serious scholars of the region, while perhaps willing to quibble with small details, will (and indeed do) agree about the author's mastery of the material and the soundness of his judgement. That he ties a number of observations to the historical analysis that have a political flavour about current events (e.g. about US foreign policy), does not make the historical analysis itself any less rewarding. Nor indeed can the conclusions regarding the current shape of the Palestine problem be dismissed (as happens in one or two of the other reviews on this site) except by those with the sorts of preconceived convictions (and political agendas?) that brook no challenge.
This is a little gem of a book, and one of those few that serve the wider public as well as the novice student of Middle Eastern affairs. Buy it and help persuade the publishers (and the author!) to bring out an updated edition for the mid-2000s!
Try some other book .......2005-04-21
Daniel Pipes said about this book:
"With uncommon skill, Shlaim has managed-in the confines of a very small volume with very large margins-to pack misjudgments, arrogance, and lack of sense into 1994's worst book on the Middle East."
Well, is that true? Probably. But just to show everyone that I am not only tolerant and soft-hearted, but generous, I'll give this book not just one, but two stars!
You see, there are plenty of facts in this small book. In addition to the misjudgments, arrogance, and lack of sense which it does indeed abound with.
Shlaim claims that the 1973 Yom Kippur War broke the diplomatic stalemate in the region and led to peace. He's not the only one to have said this. But I wouldn't consider saying something like this on a dare. I'd be laughed out of town! Could I say with a straight face that the way to start negotiations towards peace is to launch a war of aggression against a neighbor? No. And just how strong is the peace between Egypt and Israel anyway? Not very. It is more a cease-fire than a peace, with a constant barrage of anti-Israeli propaganda from the Egyptian side.
After that, we see Shlaim explain that land-poor Israel can have territory or peace. Really? I think it is more reasonable for those who want peace to permit land-poor nations to buy or keep something closer to their fair share of land. In my opinion, Israel is more likely to have both territory and peace or neither of them than one or the other. And the author says that Israel can have territory or American support. Again, this could well be a false choice. Even if Israel, for some reason, can not have both American support and territory, why ought one expect it to have American support if it does not have territory?
Shlaim sums up the problem of the Arabs versus the Jews. Security pleases the Jews. Fairness pleases the Arabs. I wish this were true.
Let's see. Fairness. Does that mean letting everyone, including Jews and Arabs, buy land throughout the region and keep it? Does that mean a Truth and Reconciliation session or two where the Arabs can apologize for their violence and aggression against Levantine Jews? Sounds fair to me! Shlaim is totally out of line to pretend that it is unfair to not steal Jewish land, or that it is unfair to allow Israel to stay on the map.
As for the Oslo peace accords, Shlaim praises them as the beginning of a new era. Plenty of people were extremely suspicious of Oslo. Shlaim was wrong here. And those who were suspicious of Oslo generally had the right reasons to be suspicious. I think that ought to make us more than a little suspicious of Shlaim.
Now, what does Shlaim recommend? It is simple. America is simply too much in favor of Israel! Shlaim thinks we need a more "even-handed" approach. And that (this was written before 9/11) America ought not "bolster Israel as a strategic partner in an unwinnable war against an imaginary Islamic threat." Wow. Imaginary. But unbeatable. Shlaim really took a strong view here. I think 9/11 showed that we're dealing with a real, not an imaginary threat. And in the long run, why shouldn't a war in favor of truth, justice, and human rights be winnable? I see no reason to give up without even trying.
If you want to learn about war and peace in the Middle East, try some other book.
Books:
- Conservatives Without Conscience
- Created Equal, Brief Edition, Single Volume Edition
- Crusade: Chronicles of an Unjust War (American Empire Project)
- Democracy: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions)
- Doing Democracy
- Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts
- Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit
- Evaluating Practice: Guidelines for the Accountable Professional (5th Edition)
- Evangelism & the Sovereignty of God
- Fraud: The Strategy Behind the Bush Lies and Why the Media Didn't Tell You
Books Index
Books Home
Recommended Books
- New Women's Dress for Success
- Earthly Joys: A Novel
- 1915 - The Death of Innocence
- A Guide to the Wildflowers of South Carolina
- Black Womanist Ethics
- Indiana Jones and the Emperor's Tomb
- Bradford Washburn: Mountain Photography
- Collectible Microcomputers
- Accounting, Accountants and Accountability: Poststructuralist Positions
- Mizner's Florida: American Resort Architecture
The Shia Revival: How Conflicts within Islam Will Shape the Future
Hidden Iran: Paradox and Power in the Islamic Republic
Democracy in Iran: History and the Quest for Liberty
The Persian Puzzle: The Conflict Between Iran and America
Target Iran: The Truth About the White House's Plans for Regime Change
