Middle East Books

It is attributed to John Ford that he said "Print the legend, not the story." Whether that tale is true or not, the line was delivered at the end of the move `The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence,' as was said to allow a popular conception to be maintained. This same thought was behind the movie `Wake Island,' which portrayed the battle for the island as a notional last stand with all American defenders dying in its defense. In that case, it was part of a propaganda effort.

Author Urwin tells the true story of Wake Island and it is far more impactful and emotionally heart-rending than the movie or any other fictionalized version of the story could be. The marines and civilian workers were effectively abandoned in a worse way than were the defenders in The Philippines. A resupply mission to Wake Island was cancelled and the island given up for lost. \

Nor is the story as the movie was laid out. After successfully repulsing one assault landing on one of the islands making up the atoll, the Japanese landed on again and were in the process of being defeated when the marine commander - who had received incorrect information about the state of the battle, a classic case of "the fog of war" - elected to surrender. Afterwards, some prisoners were killed by the Japanese. Worse still, a number of the civilian workers were kept on the island as laborers. For them, there was no relief or respite; ultimately there were executed.

But, what is similar - though woefully underplayed in the movie - was the bravery and nobility of those involved. For this band of brothers, it was not an easy relationship among themselves. The marine and navy commanders conflicted over who really was in charge; the civilians were their own tribe, one initially excluded by the military; all components had a few cowards. But, it was a classic case of what Americans will do when all the façade is gone.

Urwin is brilliant as both a technical writer and a story-teller. He takes a scholarly approach with each chapter starting with an introduction telling what will be discussed. The book moves smoothly and competently through the story and its extended aftermath. One is left at the end feeling that the movie may have missed the point but your sense of pride in being an American overwhelms that feeling easily. I had to wonder what I would have done had I been there.

Most people only know about wake Island from the William Bendix movie made in 1942 when very few facts of the battle were known. What was know was that in 1941, as most American outposts in the far east fell in hours, this small Island with a garrison of some 450 marines and a few airmen held out for weeks and became a symbol of hope for Americans in a world of otherwise bleak news. The papers called this unlovely rock "The Alamo of the Pacific" in rememberance of that other famous last stand.
What Dr Urwin goes into is the detail beyond these facts, having interviewed survivors from both sides of the battle and poured over navy records he takes Marines who were little more than faceless icons, and made them human, with fears and hopes and lives all their own, and in so doing makes their stand more iconic. He gives them lives and personalities with annecdotes and humor as remembered by their friends in later years that shows them as a uniquiely American force.
Is it a big book? yup. Is it easy to read? Oh Yeah! The early chapters are about the finding, losing and refinding the atoll known as "Wake," then going into how it was developed in an attempts for commercial air travel in the 1930's. These chapters were so easy to read I found myself wondering if there were books on this, A topic I'd previously had no knowledge of or desire in. The writing is that good.
"What better way for man to die, then facing fearful odds, for the ashes of his fathers and the Temples of his gods." yup, sums it up well.

Professor Urwin has contributed a priceless addition to the collection of great American historical letters. Perhaps one of the best compilations of Wake Island information that at no time reads like the encyclopedia it resembles.
This is a huge and potentially intimidating book that is worth every bit of its seemingly steep price tag. Invest in your brain, you get what you pay for and then some!

REVIEW EVERY BOOK YOU READ, AUTHORS DESERVE YOUR OPINIONS!

I am a student in one of Dr. Uwrin's classes and he assigned this book for us to read. Usually I get annoyed when this happens because it is usually a way for teachers to throw their ideas further onto students and make them pay (literally) for it. Urwin's is one of only two professor written books that I have enjoyed reading for class. Dr. Urwin's writing is extremely clear and easy to follow, and he grips the reader. The language is not the pompous scholarly language one usually finds in books like this. You don't have to be a student of WWII to read this, anyone could pick it up and read it without problems. And to answer someone's musing that if Dr. Urwin's lecturing is as good as his writing, it is and then some! READ THIS BOOK!

The title, Facing Fearful Odds, is taken from Macaulay's "Horatius at the Bridge" (a poem I lovingly remember reading as a schoolboy), and it's evocative of the dramatic siege of Wake Island in the immediate aftermath of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

Gregory Urwin is a fine writer who vividly portrays the drama of a handful of Marines and civilian construction workers who repelled daily assaults by the Japanese navy and air force for 16 harrowing days before finally capitulating to overwhelming force. In stunning detail, the author depicts the frantic preparatory events leading up to the siege, the fierce resistance, and the bitter aftermath. It is sad that these heroic events are little known by today's generation.

What is compelling about Mr. Urwin's account of the Wake Island story is his depiction of ordinary men thrust into extraordinary circumstances. Although the Marines were volunteers, many of them joined the Corps to escape the Depression, and many of them never expected to find themselves in such a perilous position. Nonetheless, like Horatius at the Bridge, these men did more than their duty.

Facing Fearful Odds describes how the United States failed to marshal its considerable resources during the year and three months that Europe had been at war; we were dreadfully unprepared militarily, economically and psychologically for the sudden impact of the terrible defeats Japan dealt us. If we view the events of late 1941 in the context of the smug condescension most Americans felt toward Japan, and the fact that we woefully underestimated Japanese military prowess, we can begin to understand how shattering Pearl Harbor was. Americans were angry as hell and damned scared.

Then, a few gritty Marines and civilian construction workers - every one of them a regular "Joe Everyman" with whom any American could identify - held off the mighty Japanese navy and air force for more than two weeks and dealt them a stunning, crushing blow. That we ultimately lost Wake Island mattered little. That these brave men showed the world that Americans could - and would - fight back meant everything to the people at home and to those in the service. These few men lifted America from its fear and helped focus its anger in a powerful resolve to defeat the enemy.

The Marines of Wake Island were expendable, and they knew it. Mr. Urwin enables the reader to imagine why a man would willingly put himself in harm's way knowing - with near certainty - that he was unlikely to survive. One could argue that the man doesn't have a choice, but of course he has a choice - he can surrender. Urwin shows us that the willingness to fight and not surrender came from something more than patriotism. Though they fully expected to die, it was a matter of pride; though they believed no one would ever know it, they were determined to make the enemy pay dearly for American lives. They knew if they did that, someone else might live a little longer.

Facing Fearful Odds is about defiance in the face of certain death, of abject determination to make the enemy pay a terrible price for their arrogance. The men of Wake Island didn't save the world - that was for the men and women who came after them to do. But they saved America's face. Guam surrendered immediately. Wake Island did not.

Several weeks before the battle of the Alamo, Mexican troops marched into San Antonio demanding a siege cannon that the Texan rebels held. The Texans' reply was, "Come and take it." Implied were the words, "...if you can." Gregory Urwin gives the reader a rare opportunity to know how the men of Wake Island felt when they made the Japanese Navy "come and take it."

This is one of my favorite books--fascinating and informative. I've sent copies to several family members.

I have always fantasized about being a world traveling journalist living a life of adventure and bringing my unique point of view to my readers. Alas, that is not to be. However, I certainly have a deep appreciation for up-close and personal viewpoints of world events. That's why I absolutely loved this book and devoured the entire thing in one big orgy of uninterrupted reading.

Subtitled "A Journey on the Frontlines of Islam, from Bagdad to Timbuktu", Yaroslav Trofimov, an Italian citizen, is a Wall Street Journal reporter whose knowledge of languages, including Arabic, gave him access to people and places often denied to Westerners. He wrote this book between 2001 and 2005 and his writing style is simple, personal and full of facts, history and perspective. As I turned the pages, I was right there with him as he traveled around the Islamic world talking to clerics, ordinary Muslims and heads of state about their views on the current "War On Terror" that has brought attention to their perspective and, especially in the case of Iraq, has turned their lives upside down. He visited Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, Yemen, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Mali and Bosnia. That's quite a lot of places for one small book. They are all different, of course, but all share the Islamic world view, which, to my western eyes is a fresh perspective which gave me the chills as I slowly grasped the mounting significance of the present-day conflicts in all of these regions.

The clashes have been going on for thousands of years, but modern technology has accelerated the process and there is a culture class on a grand scale happening all over the world. The author devotes four full chapters to Iraq, and, to his credit, acknowledges the difficult job of American and British military personnel whose presence in the region has created a whole new set of problems for the Iraqi people who once viewed them as liberators. Those days are gone forever though. I knew all this before I read the book, of course, but it's one thing to read newspaper accounts and watch a small sound byte on CNN or Fox News. It's another thing entirely to feel I was in the shoes of this reporter, eating the food, dodging the gunfire and talking to individuals. My own sensitivities have also been stirred deeply and I know I will never quite view the Muslim world the same again.

The book is short, a mere 303 pages, but the author's skill managed to enlighten me about so much. Bosnia is very different from Timbuktu or Yemen, and sometimes it seemed as if these peoples have little in common. But the Islamic point of view is always there and very different from the Western world view. I applaud the author for clarifying this for me. Highly recommended.

This is a good book filled with personal experiences of a talented journalist who has travelled extensively in the arab world. It contains haunting images of people and suffering and explores the ironies and contradictions of the Arab world. One is presented with an image of a hypocritical Saudi Arabia, which uses Islam to keep its people down, and comparisons with a more secular Mali, which has found a way to reconcile modernity and religious values.

The book is unflinching in its critique of the American invasion of Iraq and the unintended consequence of the occupation. It is harrowing in its depiction of the vehemence of anti-Americanism from the wealthy suburbs of Cairo to the slums of Yemen. It create different looks at the seeming monolithic Hezbollah, unified by both public service and violent opposition to Israel.

The one drawback is that the book is totally framed by the perspective of the author. To say it is an uncomprimising look at the contradictions of Modern Islam and the failure of US foreign policy is to overlook the subjectivity of the writing. Choosing to focus on mismanagement or soldiers gloating over Arab deaths, the author ignores the nobility of others who struggle to make a positive impact. Some things in the book are taken at face value, when more thorough inspection should be required. For instance, at some point the book claims American forces shot and killed an Iraqi man for discharging his gun, thinking his house was being burglarized. How did the author arrive at this conclusion ? Ask the dead man ? The conclusion to be drawn is that Trofimov took representations of others at face value, but when Trofimov experience pro-US sentiment, he assumes it to be the result of toadying rather than genuine sentiment.

In the end, you have a well written book, containing fascinating yet selective experiences of the author. I recommend it as a fascinating journalistic travel journal, but like any journal one shaded by the authors subjective opinions.

I love this book so much that I already bought another to send to a friend. I will probably do it again if another friend did not buy it already on my advise. Mr. Trofinov succeed in making laugh while teaching me stuff about the world of Islam while others succeed only in making me cringe, fear, making my blood boil. The Journal is lucky to have him as a reporter.

Popular contemporary Islamic culture gets an airing in Yaroslav Trofimov's FAITH AT WAR, and the the non-islamic world is subject to a rude awakening 312 pages later. The author is very much a part of and participant in his inquiries into the attitudes that fuel resentment against the West and the US, whether in Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan or Bosnia.

I was astonished to learn of the paranoia and proclivity to believe the wildest conspiracy theories throughout Islamic societies. Indeed, and as a validation of Trofimov, a personal friend of mine recently visited Iran with his Iranian wife. On a mountain climb above Tehran with his Iranian-American daughters, he encountered two AK-47 wielding guardians of the Islamic revolution who were keen to ply my friend with all manner of anti-semitic conspiracy theories, including the long-discredited Protocols of the Elders of Zion and the "Israeli plot" to blow up the World Trade Center. Similar notions abound in Trofimov's accounts of his travels to "the frontlines of Islam" in the wake of the September 11 Al Qaeda attacks in the US.

FAITH AT WAR is a model of engaging journalism, with its riveting insights and Trofimov's determination - even at great risk to the writer's life - to get Islamic spokesmen to speak with him, revealing their livid concerns and lurid fixations. The paperback edition comes with an updated afterword and there is a helpful glossary of terms as well. The book is a fine primer/introduction to the contradictions inherent in the contemporary global Islamic resurgence largely fueled by the fanatical, retrogressive Saudi Arabian brand of Wahabist Islam. Highly recommended.

I was more than a little leery coming into this book knowing Mr. Glantz worked for Pacifica. I was afraid I might find a one-sided diatribe about how the U.S. invasion and the government is terrible and what a horrible crime the invasion was, but what I found was a balanced look at the situation and firsthand account from some Iraqis on how the invasion and occupation have affected them.

One of the telling moments of this book for me was when Mr. Glantz talks about having problems with his editors only wanting stories that paint a certain kind of picture of the Iraqi situation. With U.S. media this is so often the problem; a story will be bent depending upon the people reporting the stories own political leanings rather than the unvarnished truth. So often the Right and Left are pulling so hard that the story, which is actually somewhere in the Middle, gets lost, and the people who end up getting hurt are the victims (Iraqis) and the people who are relying on these reports to understand the situation and make informed decisions based on this information (U.S. citizens).

Mr. Glantz chronicles the failures of this administration and military leaders to understand the peoples they came to free. As I read his interviews with everyday Iraqis a picture emerges that should have been seen early on this occupation. Iraqis were happy the Americans toppled this mostly hated regime, but this enthusiasm would only go so far. It would only last so long. As the U.S. military continued to commit excesses and as life on the ground for ordinary Iraqis either deteriorated or remained the same, as under Saddam, that patience and enthusiasm wore thin until finally it broke.

As the U.S. broke every rule of fighting a counter-insurgency in Iraq, I have to ask myself what did they expect would be the result of this policy? What did they expect Iraqis with no jobs, no money and no prospects to do?

Here in the U.S. we too often forget about those we have chosen "liberate" and only focus on ourselves. Mr. Glantz gives us an Iraqi perspective that is sorely missed in our media today. He gives us a fair portrait of life in Iraq and for that he should be thanked. It is the stories from the Middle that are the most honest and important.

Mr. Glantz's book reads like a narrative of many of the events in Iraq told through experiential stories of conversations with every day Iraqi's. Mr. Glantz visits Iraq and travels through out the country talking with people about America in Iraq and how the Iraqi's he is talking to view the United States presence in Iraq.

Mr. Glantz is careful to paint the picture in 2005 as a loss for the United States. This is prior to any with drawl of American forces in the region, and demonstrates a bias noting the leveling of Fallujah and the picking of a fight with al-Sadr as mistakes the United States government undertook.

There is also an interesting perspective that isn't addressed in this book and that troubles me the most about Iraq and the discussion about the hardships of the average Iraqi in general. These perspectives in this book miss them completely.

In Iraq, you have a country that has known only war and destruction for over 20 years. From a societal perspective, if you had skills, and were not in the weapons making business you did your best to leave Iraq. The brain-drain in Iraq has hurt the Iraqi people more than any single cultural factor and rightly so.

Saddam has brutalized the Iraqi people until 2003 when the United States showed up and liberated the country from Saddam. The country suffered a horrible war against Iran where millions of people died and there were terrible exchanges of chemical weapons and all these horrible things happened to people in this country. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis disappeared in the Middle of the Night as they may have been considered political dissidents. Their mass graves prove that a terrible tragedy has been committed against the Iraqi people.

Given this unique circumstance, unique to the history of the world, the Americans have come to assist in the rebuilding of the country. When Saddam's regime disappeared, there were many plays for power in the local and regional governments. The United States made some difficult choices in the newly emerging democratic state and those choices were not supposed to be popular or easy decisions to be made.

While the author is quick to criticize the US Civilian contractors in Iraq who have not had a perfect record that meets American standards in terms of production, the author misses a broader point. The local corruption of the Iraqi's and the sectarian strife associated with the vacuum left by Saddam's removal make companies like Bectel and Halliburton the logical choice even given the challenges.

It fails to address the non Iraqi nationals flowing into the country and the inability of the sovereign Iraqi government to control its own borders as though America is supposed to be viewed as occupiers by the Average Iraqi when Syrians and Iranians are coming into their country to spread hate and violence and sabotage their own oil infrastructure.

The apathy created by all those years of destruction creates problems for many Iraqi's and villages. It creates problems of trust. This book gives a very human perspective on some of those perspectives but should be taken into the context that although the United States is responsible for the removal of Saddam Hussein, the assumption of the United States government has been that freed people would rise to their own occasion and commit to their own civil service projects with their own money. This has not happened effectively in Iraqi due to the brain-drain. Saddam often killed smart people. It was a control mechanism of the old régime.

Let us hope that this problem can resolve itself over the next few years, as this is not a problem that Mr. Glantz can take out of context of a few months. The historical precedents for this are rare if any and if you make comparisons to Germany and Japan, they did not have the Brain-Drain as we do in Iraq. That being said the Iraqi's were sovereign and operational with in a shorter time than either of those two countries. The Iraqi's in 2007 appear to be developing a sound oil policy for the entire world, which will help with oil companies and investment dollars.

The Americans will come home eventually, when their job is done. Perhaps the Iraqi people should worry more about their own security now that they have control of their own country and the ability to have their own elections. The war is not lost by America. It was won. Saddam is gone. That was public law and the goal. The rest of the pros and cons are the United States doing Iraq a favor. Reconstruction is the American people doing their best to help the Iraqi's help themselves. That is hard to do with militants from other countries crossing the border and attempting to kill you in Iraq just because you are an American. What Mr. Glantz isn't talking about is Arab on Arab, Muslim on Muslim violence which isn't there because Saddam is not in power anymore-- there is a different social reason for that and I'm afraid that Mr. Glantz wasn't too fair in his book for addressing those cultural aspects on the ground level between Iraqi's.

America has learned from those kinds of issues when we had millions of decent Americans fight for their civil rights. There were riots, massacres, violence, civil strife, and best of all heroes that came out of that. We are a great society because we were able to overcome our differences in many ways and have the ability to see each other as Americans and secularize our society. There was a lot of blood shed, involvement with National Guards, the Klu Klux Clan, and all kinds of other clashes between groups in this country. Ultimately it can be defined as great because if Mr. Glantz was writing the same kind of history about the American Civil Rights movement in the 1960's he would have called it a loss before it was really over...

Mr. Glantz, give those processes of democracy a chance and provide a better forum to show the Iraqi's how to do that. America is great because we were able to do it... we have the Stewardship to show Iraqis how to do it too. They can because they are human beings. They have a chance because Saddam and his brutes are no longer in power. That is the decent thing for Americans to do...

If that means eliminating Sadr in the political process through violent means, he is not a peaceful man. He should not be hiding in his Mosques taking shots at Americans like a coward behind those walls. He should show his followers a better way. He should lead them in a peaceful process to reform the politics of his newly formed country. Sunnis and Shiites have more in common than they are different and in that they should build their common framework for a new Iraqi society. Start by making the neighborhoods safe again. Take the violent criminals off the street...just as all civil societies do. Help secure the borders and eliminate corruption in your organization.

Mr. Glantz should not pick on Halliburton or George Bush and the Administration. Pick on the Iraqi's for not doing what they need to do now in this time of transition for their better way of life. I realize this is not ever the dream of the 'Hate America First Crowd', however, let us at least level the playing field.

Let us talk about some Iraqi heroes who are fighting for justice and freedom in their country for their compatriots...not about some folks who focus thier misfortune on the USA. That's always an easy scapegoat that fails to address some real purriahs in Iraq.

Glanz shows in a progressive manor, through Iraqi opinions how things spun out of control. He shows occurances that have been well hidden. Long before the Abu Ghraib debacle, there were injustices that lead up to copmplete frustrated as illustrated by the Iraqi opinions. He does present things as he witnesses them and tries to offer no opinion, but there are some stories that are gut wrenching, and he admits that he cried often. That is the part I liked the best.

Glantz punctures both left and right in this balanced analysis of what has gone wrong in Iraq. A powerful story that should be required reading for politicians and political groupies of all leanings.

Aaron Glantz, a Pacifica radio correspondent, painstakingly traces where and how the United States repeatedly messed up in Iraq. His title radically differs from other books on the subject, using multiple sources to deliver one of the most multidimensional and sophisticated critiques of Iraq.

Specifically, he talks to the Iraqi people themselves to get their own perspectives on this event. Not surprisingly, they were initially skeptical of his intentions, but he built up enough trust to produce this book. It is disturbing that talking to the Iraqi people themselves is considered a radical action.

Saddam Hussein was this infamous tyrant who appeared uninterested in his own people's well being so they were happy to get rid of him--until they also lost what basic services which they had been previously receiving. Glantz then writes that suicide bombings can be profitable for people who have been and are receiving little money otherwise in an allegedly rebuilt Iraq (pp. 119-120).

Because I predominantly receive my own news about Iraq (and the Middle East) from American news media, I had not previously considered the economic incentives to participate in a suicide bombing. Some people are participating in these activities to feed themselves and/or their families, with many other options currently unavailable. I had honestly assumed that the people who participated in these events were doing this for socioreligious sincerity alone; however I guess it's easy for Washington officials to moralize and grandstand when they don't have to worry about their own children starving.

Glantz also critiques us on the left for getting too in love with protesting against this very war. According to him, we are loosing perspective of the larger goal, again because we are also predominantly coming from and with an American-centric perspective.

While we need to be concerned what is happening with American soldiers and tax dollars, we cannot forget that the Iraqi people might lack even the most rudimentary services which we take for granted. We talk about how hard organizing is, but many American activists (myself included) live in a country where we know that sanitation and electricity is working and we do not have to worry about roadside bombs as we travel around our cities. Perspective is everything in and to effective community organizing.

There is considerable irony that President Bush and the Republican-controlled United States Government are so eager to talk about self-rule and democracy, but will not let the Iraqi people actually control their own lives.

This book takes you through the evolution of Zionism over the last 100+ years. It is essential reading for anyone wanting to learn about the unending problems of the land of Palestine.

Hazony is an excellent writer. The book begins as a slow, lumbering read, hard to get into, but you must get through the Introduction and first few Chapters. Then the book begins to roll and you will find yourself unable to put it down. The only complaint I have of this book is that mine is the paperback edition and the print font is too small. Spend a few extra dollars and get the hardback if you are over 40 and need reading glasses.

Yoram Hazony writes and expresses so clearly what has been on so many of our minds when we see Israel today. The anti-Jewish influence shows up on Israeli TV, in Israeli schoolbooks, Meretz party, and such anti-Zionist newspapers as Ha'aretz. Hazony tells us who these people are and what their background is.

The book describes in great detail, the workings of Herzl, Ben-Gurion and Buber. The inner workings of modern Israeli government are carefully dissected. I strongly recommend this book to anyone interested in the intellectual struggle that is as important to the State as relations with its Arab neighbors. Hazony's unimpeachable scholarship and his fluid writing style makes it an enjoyable must read.

Monty Rainey
www.juntosociety.com

Check it out on YouTube. I love the message of this 7 minute, 39 second recording. The narrarator quotes Napoleon and Mark Twain as the jews' infinitesimal history is told within this time frame. I can't help but think of Daniel chapter 2 and 7 as Mark Twain writes of how the ancient empires of Egypt, Babylon, Persia, Greece and Rome, "made a vast noise" but "faded into dreamstuff". Mark Twain asks, "All things are mortal but the jew...What is the secret of his immortality?"

There is virtually little mention of Islam or muslims in this book which at first seemed a little surprising to me, except that a jewish acquaintance of mine once told me a joke which I think of and chuckle at still. He told me that if you put 2 jewish men in the same room, you will get 3 different opinions! Imagine, if true, what it's like in the Knesset, where there seems to be at least 4 parties and several hundred men and women!

I can't recommend this book enough, especially since I mark myself as an ardent, christian, zionist. I loved Hazony's book about Esther. He writes very clearly and beautifully in English. I highly recommend this!

Zionism began as an idea, in the modern age, amongst mostly russian and european jews in the 1880's. At that time there had been terrible pogroms amongst russian jews and anti-semitic injustices on the european continent as evidenced by the Dreyfus affair in France. Amidst such persecution, the idea of a permanent state for jews was advanced most notably by Theodor Herzl who wrote a book entitled The Jewish State.

This book's content is about the anti-state sentiment prevalent within many Israeli jews and jews elsewhere in the world. The book begins with Hazony telling of his tour of duty within the Israeli army and how enthusiasm for the jewish nation has flagged and lacks the spirit of earlier pioneers like Ariel Sharon, Moshe Dayan, Menachem Begin, Golda Meir, etc. From thence, he begins a retelling, a modern Hagaddah, of the history of zionism and its earliest critics, until the present time. In explaining the generation gap among Israelis, Hazony brings to mind Turgenev's plot in "Father's and Sons". Hazony sees the mostly german or ashkenazi/european professors at jewish universities as having greatly influenced the thinking among Israeli youth. I could readily understand how such thinking could have reached a climax amongst european jews during the decades immediately preceding WWII. Having seen the abuse of power of fascist states, like Italy and Germany in the 1930's, the european jews would without a doubt be extremely wary of any state, jew or otherwise, having any power. They could easily find, I add, biblical evidence to support their claims. Though, I also add, there is biblical evidence to support it. I do love Ahad Ha'am's writing and thinking, mainly that the spiritual state is and should be preeminent over the physical. The reality, however, is, I'm ever more convinced after reading this book, that whether Israel is bi-national or not, there must be a physical, jewish state for the jews to remain alive and breathing on this planet. Although I'm beginning to understand why some jews might be anti-state, given the very recent past and immediate present climate within the international community, it seems to me that these views expressed by jews are very damaging to their own kith and kin and gives ammunition, figuratively and literally, to their murderous foes. Having such a large, critical majority within their own ranks, I find it EXTREMELY UNLIKELY that a totalitarian state could ever emerge from amongst the jews. And if it ever did, there would be a swelling of ranks amongst them of zealots and maccabees. I, frankly, cannot see it (a naziesque state) happening.

Hazony ends his book on a positive note, seeing that even amongst the jews, once the idea for the state is amply fleshed out within the realm of ideas, the support for the jewish state will be amply manifested, and freely embraced. One so often forgets the lessons of one's own life or the life of his or her people. I watched a documentary recommended by an Amazon friend called, "The Refugees of Silence" about jews in palestine, many of whom had managed to survive the holocaust, who immediately thereafter were herded into refugee camps, having been denied residence in all other countries of the world. The jews there were still powerless to do anything for their own relatives, in their own backyards. Such stories were totally new to me. But, as Hazony reveals in this book, even at times when support for the State of Israel was greatest, as that in May 14, 1948, the critics against it, within their own people, began to loudly voice their views. So, I still believe my jewish friend was right-for every 2 jews, at least 3 opinions! The war for the state amongst them in the realm of ideas continues today too as in my favorite YouTube selection which ends with these thoughts:

"Once you know who you are, where you come from, what meaning the past has for your future, you bring great meaning into your life. And when you do that, you bring great meaning into the world."

In this work Yoram Hazony takes on the anti- Israeli, Israeli intellectual elite. He traces the roots of their anti- Zionism to the group of people clustered around Martin Buber at Hebrew University.
He also writes a history of a certain part of the Zionist movement.
The best part of the book is the first one hundred pages in which the exposee of the anti- Israeli intellectuals is made.
As for the thesis it puts too many eggs in just one basket when there are many other baskets around.
Hazony is to be credited for writing courageously about one of the greatest survival problems Israel faces, the ' betrayal by certain elite intellectuals' of the state they live in, are defended by and supported by.

This book interprets Zionist history as a sort of political battle between what I'll call the Right and the Left. Let me explain what I mean by Right and Left and then tell you where Hazony is in this spectrum.

People on the Right want to, as a priority, help themselves and their close allies. That's what they know they can be good at. When this plan works, they become more productive and the whole society benefits. But there is a risk (that the Right is willing to take), namely that they'll help themselves so much at the expense of others that society as a whole will not benefit. And from there, it is a short step to harming society enough so that they are brought down with it.

People on the Left want to, as a priority, help all of society. That's what they know they can be fair at. When this plan works, the people they help generally reciprocate, and everyone benefits. But there is a risk (that the Left is willing to take), namely that the rest of society may benefit a little, but only by taking advantage of the Left and its allies. And from there, it is a short step to having thugs, not the rest of society, become the ones who truly take advantage of the Left's support, so society as a whole is harmed.

I'm on the Left and Hazony is on the Right. I'm first and foremost a citizen of the world. He's first and foremost a Jewish Israeli. And in this book, Hazony makes some interesting points about those in Israel who have gone too far off course on the Left. But I was always concerned that Hazony was about to go off course to the Right.

Hazony's targets are those who feel that Zionism is no longer needed (as well as those who feel it was never a good idea). I have no problem with that. Hazony describes the Biltmore Conference in May of 1942 at which the delegates voted overwhelmingly (478 to 4) for a Jewish state. There's no doubt that a Jewish state was needed then (both for Jews and for human society as a whole). And there is no reason to believe that it isn't just as necessary today, if only to protect the Jews of Israel. In addition, why aren't those asking for an end to Zionism asking for an end to French nationalism, German nationalism, and an end to all other nationalities?

Hazony discusses Herzl in detail. And he shows how the British wound up adopting the infamous White Paper in May of 1939 that certainly made a Jewish state a necessity, whether one was established or not.

The author shows how Ben-Gurion really tried very hard to establish a Jewish state. And how some on the Left, especially Buber, went overboard and tried to avoid doing anything that might require the use of force.

However, I think Anita Shapira is right to say that Hazony's Ben-Gurion comes across as monolithic, and that Hazony does not discuss the times when Ben-Gurion emphasized that Zionism is simply part of human rights, and that Israelis were to be free people within the family of nations. Clearly, these types of statements, making Israel a state for everyone, sound much better to me than they do to Hazony. I think Hazony ought to have presented a more nuanced and more accurate picture of Ben-Gurion. He should have told us that Ben-Gurion for many years regarded modern Zionism as unconnected to ancient Jewish history. On the other hand, Hazony is correct that once Israel became a state, Ben-Gurion began to talk more about ancient Israel. And this is actually not a big issue for me: we all know that many Israelis take ancient Jewish history very seriously and many do not.

In my opinion, Hazony exaggerates the importance and extent of antizionism in Israel, both historically and at present. Yes, there are a number of people in Israeli academia who present a revisionist and inaccurate view of history. And that is a serious matter. But most Israelis have no trouble telling the difference between the human rights in Israel and lack of human rights, especially for Jews, in neighboring Arab nations.

I think Hazony is not asking the reader to accept Zionism uncritically. And he's certainly not asking Israelis to be greedy or unjust. Far from it. He's asking all of us to reject antizionist lies. And he's asking Israeli Jews to demand their rights as human beings rather than allow themselves to be pressured into adopting the political positions of their Arab neighbors.

The issue of whether Israel is a Jewish state or not is similar to the issue of whether France is a French state or not. Until we're ready to get the French to abandon their flag and national anthem, I see no reason to ask if the Israelis ought to abandon theirs. And that's why I think this book is worth reading.

Yoram Hazony knows how to tell a story. He is not the arrogant intellectual who speaks from his ivory tower. He introduces himself so we know his family background and his personal stand of the Jewish question. The introduction is worth the whole book. There he succintly summarizes the book, points to Israel's troubles, gives names, origins and main developments. Puts the main characters on the scene, and we follow them through the years of Israel's modern making. It's the zionists vs the anti-zionists; the intellectuals (who nevertheless benefit from, and are accomplices of the Israel state they so decry) vs the common people who want to live free (specially if that means as a Jew). It's a tale that has become wide spread over the western world: the fight to win the minds and hearts of the people through the influence on the mass media. The tactics are detestably simple, but nonetheless they work, in the name of peace and justice the Israelis (Jewish and non-Jewish) are to give themselves up to their Arab neighbors, short of leaving the country or committing suicide directly. The book is comprehensive in its scope, and I wished it would be a little more succint in some developments that detract from the main story, but it definitely makes its point by not leaving any thread missing. Forceful and convincing.

Martin Buber epitomizes the intellectual anti-zionist from the ivroy tower (the Chomsky of the Israeli state). On the other side stand (or stood) the Founders of modern Israel, standing above all Ben-Gurion. With the Founders, of course, are the people, fewer every year because, bottom line: common-sense is the least common of the senses when challenged by the deafening noise of the professors and their billionaire friends (See Gore & Soros) and the media. It's sad to the point of upsetting to see how Buber and his clique wouldn't even have the refugees from the Holocaust when they were stranded in European camps come to Israel, while the university professors where safe and partying in Tel Aviv.

A last point I want to mention is that the very survival of Israel through all these years is nothing but a miracle, and you don't have to be a theist to see it. Surrounded by enemies within and without, reduced to a tiny territory, a speck in the back of the threatening Arab Empire, Israel lives, and flourishes.

This novel is very special in a lot of ways, and part of what makes it so touching is that it is true. You will love and feel for the characters, and above all you will share in their humanity. If any reader looks at Palestine as some kind of bizarre foreign country they will never understand, they will be surprised to discover a place where they feel right at home and a family that is just like any other family in the world but has to struggle through hard times.

Ibtisam Barakat skillfully and meticulously described the typical life of a Palestinian child and the life of the Palestinian's living in the villages and towns of West Bank after the Israeli occupation.

If I wasn't sure Ibtisam is not one of my siblings, I would swear we grew up in the same house.

This book is simply magnificent. Thank you Ibtisam.

If you've lived a middle class existence, this book will make everything you've ever complained about seem very small and ridiculous. No car when you were 16? Sharing a bathroom with your siblings? Boo hoo. Ibtisam Barakat grew up with real problems. Violence, war and famine were never very far from her front door.

Despite this, Ibtisam Barakat is able to recount her childhood growing up in Ramallah without an ounce of self-pity. What could be a maudlin tale is told from the eyes of a child who simply knows nothing else. She plays up the street with her brothers, has pets, and finds comfort and whimsy in a piece of chalk.

Barakat is also largely able to sidestep the politics that infuse the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and present a simple story--growing up as a child, surrounded by war and uncertainty.

This sweet memoir of Palestinian experience is written with so much creatively poetic description that one can get lost in the beauty of the words. The story of a little girl and her family set around the Six-Day War with Israel is a gently written narrative of displacement and loss, family ties, and Palestinian culture that is a rare look at a part of the world and a situation that we Americans generally know little about. I did wish to learn more about the parent's thoughts and how they avoided feeling hatred for their enemies. This is a nonpolitical story, however, and readers are left fascinated by the cultural details and impressed by the perseverence of this close-knit family as they struggle with the realities of war. The author chooses to remember in order to "give my story to the world in the hope that no others ever lose their home, and that the world would lend them a hand if they fell." Amen.

There aren't many books on the Palestinian situation available for children, and fewer still that are memoirs. I actually managed to pick up and read Ibtisam Barakat's, "Tasting the Sky: A Palestinian Childhood," without ever realized that it was more than mere historical fiction. As a bilingual author and poet, Ms. Barakat could have written a straight up autobiography, but somehow the memoir is just as moving and intense a portrait as anyone could ask for. It gives her struggles a weight, balance, and arc that wouldn't necessarily belong in a standard series of personal facts. Tracing her life from just before the Six-Day War when she was three to her state as a teenager, Ibtisam remembers her struggles in an occupied Palestine and draws strength from her past.

Facts guide Ms. Barakat's pen, and the horrors of the Six-Day War speak louder than anything else. If dehumanizing occupation is inherently political, then yes, there are politics in this book. More than anything, though, I was struck by Ms. Barakat's ability to write without pointing fingers or blame. Her primary goal is to attain peace in the land of her birth. Mentions of things like bulldozers are only brought up in the beginning. In the past, Barakat will show small beautiful things, like a fig tree with a single early ripe fruit on it. There is no mention of what might happen to that tree in the future.

The prose itself is pretty good too. An Israeli soldier butchering his Arabic pronunciations makes, "the words sound like they have been beaten up, bruised so blue they can hardly speak their meaning." When shouting down a well she says, "We called out one another's names; the echoes returned to us as though our voices had grown older than we were." I liked that the teenaged Ibtisam felt so claustrophobic under her mother's attentions that she wrote, "Mothers and soldiers are enemies of freedom. I am doubly occupied." You learn things too. At one point we learn that the Arabic word for "imagine" is "batkhayyal" which means, "to see the shadow of a thought."

Of course, you want to know more. If we understand that this book is a fictionalization of Ms. Barakat's own life then we want to understand how she came to be a resident of Columbia, Missouri after a childhood as a refugee. The answer to this lies in two parts. In a final note in the book that reads "Giving Back to the World" she writes, "Without the help of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency ... millions of other children and I would not have gone to school or learned to read, write, and use our pencils to clear a tiny path through the wreckage of refugee life..." Later in the backflap of the book we learn too that the author, "grew up in Ramallah and has a degree in English literature from Birzeit University in the West Bank. She came to the United States in 1986 for an internship at The Nation magazine." Considering the number of starred professional reviews (at least three as of this review) "Tasting the Sky" has received already, not to mention its inclusion more than a few Best Books of 2007 lists, Ms. Barakat might wish to consider penning a sequel to her story. Perhaps one that follows her heroine through her tricky years of a teen. Such a novel might make for a lovely companion to Marjane Satrapi's Persepolis, if nothing else.

Given the subject matter, I was intrigued by the suggested reading list at the back of the book. Barakat deals with some difficult issues, and I wanted to know which children and teen books she felt would best complement her own take on the conflict. The list consists of seven selections, both books and films, each one discussing the nature of peace and how to attain it. Each one also gives voice to the Palestinians living in the region, most also offering an Israeli perspective as well.

For many kids, the conflict in Palestine is a difficult topic to grasp. That probably goes for teens and adults as well, I'd wager. What Barakat's book offers is a modest introduction to the history behind some of the troubles via her own personal history. People who would like to include this in a unit for teenagers could consider pairing it with Joe Sacco's graphic novel Palestine for a more recent look at the problem. We may or may not see an answer to the hostilities in an occupied Palestine in our lifetimes, but at the very least we can know that there are voices out there like Ibtisam Barakat who are striving for a peaceful solution. As she says at the beginning, "Many countries have an intense involvement with the Israelis and Palestinians. But the approach of siding with one group or the other, caring about only one rather than both, seems to add to the strife." Let's hope she has more stories in her to tell.

The book opens with a history of the state of Iraq from its establishment after WWI to the present time. An understanding of this history is vital in coming to an understanding of the present difficulties facing the country. Two very salient points demonstrated persuasively by Iraq's history are that violence as a political instrument was institutionalized in Iraq long before the regime of Saddam Hussein. His regime was more a logical culmination of events which preceded it than a historical aberration. The second point relates to the primary reason for the development of institutionalized violence. The state of Iraq was constructed from disparate ethnic, religious and cultural groups to serve the political ends of the British at the time. This political expediency has lead to a state that has never been able to develop the sense of unity necessary to become a nation. Violence has been the primary means of keeping forces in line that could tear the state apart.

The history is followed by an examination of the perspectives of each of the three major groups that make up the state of Iraq - the Sunni Arabs, the Shi'a Arabs and the Kurds. Though this structure entails a certain amount of repetition of information from the first section of the book ( especially in the section on the Shi'a), it does help us understand the position of each of the three groups and what they stand to gain or lose as a result of different potential constructions of their future.

The third section of the book is devoted to examining the options available for the future of Iraq, including their potential positive and negative consequences and the likelihood of prevailing conditions allowing each option to become reality.

All three major groups in Iraq are shown warts and all. The book shows no favoritism in its analysis. The issues are analyzed with penetrating depth and the belief of the American government that the people of Iraq would welcome Western style democracy with open arms is scathingly laid bare as the ludicrously naïve position it is. A must read for all who truly want to understand the situation in Iraq.

Anderson and Stansfield have written a wonderful book that will appeal to both general readers and students. Its calm tone is a welcome change from a lot of the polemics about Iraq and it provides the reader with clear analysis of Iraqi history. My only complaint is that it is out of date. Hopefully a new edition will come out soon.

This is an interesting book. Anyone who is interested in an alternative to the right wing talk radio and tv news should seriously consider checking out the Thom Hartmann radio show opposite Rush Limbaugh weekdays at: thomhartmann dot com / showlisten.shtml

Whether democrat, republican, or indepedent, so many of the facts out there are completely ignored by the mainstream media and talk shows. This show is one strong example of an examination of the facts regardless of your political affiliation. I am not affiliated with the show in any way, just struck by the facts so many seem to ignore.

This book is structured in a very simple manner, following the history of this country:

First, the monarchy from 1920-1958;

Second, the revolution from 1958-1968;

Third, the Ba'ath Regime from 1968-1988;

Fourth, the wreck of Iraq from 1988-2003.

These chapters recount the history of Iraq from its beginnings after World War I--when the British created a country where none has existed before--with three parties holding very different views--Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds.

Each of these three groups is examined as the basis for speculation as to what is to come in the future. The authors wonder if Iraq might end up splintering into three distinct countries--Sunni, Shia, and Kurd. Questions emerge from this scenario: Is this desirable? Would the needs of all three groups be optimized in this manner? Will this encourage additional "ethnic cleansing"? Even beyond what we have seen? Would such a solution mark success--or failure--of the American intervention?

The future? America's role in that future? We cannot say at this point. However, it does appear that the American intervention never really understood the historical and cultural context. We can only hope that the Iraqi incursion turns out well. But it is also clear that Americans sadly misunderstood the context into which they entered. . . .

This book should have been required reading for those eager to enter Iraq, overthrow Saddam Hussein, and install a Western-style democracy. The book has three main points: (a) a history of Iraq from its flawed beginnings after World War I; (b) an analysis of each of the three main groups--Sunnis, Shia, and Kurds; (c) an examination of different scenarios that might illuminate the future of Iraq.

Each element is well done and provides context for the reader interested in something more than current events weith respect to Iraq. The end result of reading this book is to wonder at the arrogance of the war planners who apparently did not consider historical and ethnic and religious context as that critical for the outcome of the war. As one of the neocons once mentioned, reality is not so important to the United States; the country can create its own reality. To this point, the reality being created on the ground in Iraq is far different than it might have been had history acted as a guide.

In my second visit to Istanbul I bought this book at the Istanbul airport minutes before boarding the plane back home as a "divertissement" for the long flight. It turned out I couldn't put it down. Is a poignant memoir of a life style gone forever and happy times that would never come back. As a woman I ached for the mother, she is really the central character of the book, and of the author's life as well.
Is a sad, beautiful book which I enjoyed very, very much

Exellent book realy well written (if a little dry in some parts) This is Irfan Orga's personal biography of most of all how his mother held the family together in one of the most difficult periods of Turkish history. How his father sadly passed away fighting in Galipoli (something many Turks can relate to) but most of all the sad, pointless way he died as so many Turks did during those years not just in Galipoli but on the Eastern front against the Russians not by bullets buy by poor supply lines, confusion and lack of communication and support.

It should be kept in mind that Irfan Orgas family were of the middle class and were largely receptive of the reforms of Ataturk (I would be interested to read something from those who were not) There are some interesing parts of this book such as how when he was at school under the old system students would be punished for missing prayers under the new system they are now punished for attending them. How their hats (so important in Ottoman days) where slowly changed to have a peak on them in order both to make them more 'western' and also to prevent prayer.

Well written and interesing, worth a read.

Bought in a bookshop in Istambul in a more expensive edition. Found it deep on both sides of personal and historical insight. Relates from a child clear and sharp eye the involvement of Turkey in WWI and Ataturk "modernizing" impact on the country. Individual struggles outlined on common sufference and historical stream. Mooving and never pathetical. For foregner reader language is quite easy, reveals a non-native-tongue writer, yet is subtle and sort of classical. Pity most of I. O. books are out of print.
a.m.negri, pavia, italy

"Portrait of a Turkish Family" is a memoir of the decline of old Istanbul, and of the author's once-wealthy merchant family, during the military and economic crises that followed Turkey's entry into World War I, the wars of the early 1920s, and Mustafa Kemal's (Ataturk's) nationalist revolution. The book, republished by Eland Publishing Ltd., was written originally in English and in an elegant, end-of-the-19th Century style. In the Afterword, the author's son Ates, hints that his father Irfan planned the book and wrote a sketch, but that his aristocratic English mother drafted it. This warm and tragic remembrance is a minor classic of English literature; it echoes the aching nostalgia of the British upper classes for things oriental in 1950, the evening of the British Empire.

Though British in style and sentiment, the book belongs to Irfan Orga's very Turkish memories of childhood. It is his touching, often moving, evocation of the charms of a world lost forever; the world of servants, comfort, and of cloistered women and small children. Women of this social class stayed mainly at home in the Ottoman era, leaving their homes only with relatives and completely veiled. Small children were happily spoiled.

This charmed if out-dated existence was destroyed by Turkey's entry into the First World War and by the succession of military reversals that followed. These brought blockade, food shortages, inflation, and repeated drafts of militarily unqualified civilians. Many died, including the author's father; who was drafted, hardly trained, and sent off with his battalion, dying en route from marching day after day on swollen, bloody, and then infected feet. The fires that periodically ravaged old Istanbul burned the family home, and most of its savings --in paper notes- were lost. The tale follows the family's quick slide into poverty and even hunger, Irfan's mother's struggle to remake her self, by acts of will, to earn money through labor, and his grandmother's incapacity to adjust to new realities.

With the victory of the Mustafa Kemal's revolution, their mother places Irfan and his younger brother in officer candidate school, to avoid hunger and provide some education, and Irfan goes on to a career in military aviation and, during World War II, to a posting in Britain. What follows is sad, and according to the Afterword; although this book won recognition and sold reasonably well in Britain when it was first published, Irfan Orga fell into poverty once again.

Although Orientalism is famously out of fashion, this book is worth reading for its sincerity of feeling, for its extraordinary style, and for its personal point of view on the end of Ottoman Turkey. For an alternative point of view on Old Istanbul, this time of the 50s and 60s, read the Nobel laureate Orhan Pamuk's Istanbul: Memories and the City. This is also a mémoire of childhood and youth, but it is less sentimental, and instead, absorbed with eccentric aspects of Istanbul's near-past.

Portrait Of A Turkish Family is the true and biographical story of a Turkish family's effort to persevere through incredible and disastrous wartime hardships by Irfan Orega, a son of that family. World War I brought poverty and desperation to the formerly affluent Orega family, and small triumphs over something as small as a silver candlestick became crucial pieces of hope for the family's survival. A powerful true story of endurance and adaptation, Portrait Of A Turkish Family is an extraordinary biographical testament and very highly recommended reading.

Mr. Horovitz has written an excellent account of both the personal side to living in a time of constant terrorist attacks as well as a factual account of the detail that have been overlooked or misreported by most of the world's press outlets. Included in this book are some brief analyses of the political climate in Israel before, during and after some of the more violent bombings as well as Israel's responses. At times the author disagrees with the government's decisions, and is not ashamed to say it. In general, an excellent read and a good look into the facts of the situations as seen by a reporter who has to raise his family while enduring these terrible bombings.

When peace talks at Camp David collapsed in 2000, a conflict began which was stronger than any previously: Jerusalem Report editor and author David Horovitz considers the effects of this latest conflict and its terrorism in Still Life With Bombers, a survey of life in Israel since 2000. Israeli experience is the focus in a survey of daily lives, violence, and politics, with chapters juxtaposed between interviews with government officials on both sides of the conflict to experiences of relatives, refugees, and his own friends and family, creating an intimate social and political portrait of a country at war within its own boundaries.

After the collapse of the Camp David talks in 2000, Arabs launched a wave of terrorist attacks on Israel. And while some people in faraway nations may have failed to see just who the aggressors were, those who lived in Israel could not avoid noticing.

Horovitz does a superb job of describing living with the threat of terrorist attacks. We see how both Jews and Arabs react to all the fighting. And he also explains the extent to which the conflict is misdescribed by many in the media. I was shocked to discover that several star reporters were under the misimpression that the West Bank and Gaza had been some sort of independent sovereign territory prior to 1967. Other disturbing signs were the reluctance of reporters to believe Israelis who disagreed with Arab lies, the eagerness of reporters to believe that Israel Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was some sort of wicked war criminal, and the "conventional wisdom" that Israel was to blame for the conflict since it was holding territory that it did not stake a sovereign claim to. In addition, I was puzzled by the fact that a reporter insisted that Israel had to be held to a "higher standard."

The author explains how the Big Lie technique was used to accuse Israel of war crimes at, of all places, Jenin (where Israel went in with ground troops, dramatically sacrificing the lives of many soldiers to reduce Arab civilian casualties). And he quotes Kofi Annan, who maliciously asked "Can the whole world be wrong (in condemning Israel)?" Horovitz has a one-word answer. Yes. Any reasonable person would, if shown the facts that European Union officials were demanding to punish Israel for trying to thwart terrorist bombings and simultaneously shown that the EU was supporting the bombers financially, letting them buy explosives with its money, would see that the EU is wrong. His point is that a misinformed world will indeed be wrong.

For me, the mangling of truth by the media stood out in this book as the most serious aspect of the fighting. It is sad that Arabs are attacking Israeli civilians. It is good that the media are positioned to report on this. I think even vaguely honest reporting would bring enough political pressure to bear so that the attacks would stop. That is why it is such a pity that we are seeing nothing of the sort.

There are many other regions in the world where there is plenty of violence. They don't have anything like the media coverage we see in the Levant. If the media are failing so utterly in covering the Arab-Israeli conflict, one has to doubt their ability to get anything right.

I highly recommend this book.

This book is absolutely incredible! Thank you so much David Horovitz! I want to read your day-to-day accounts of life in Israel beyond the end of this book.

I have been a religious right-wing supporter of Eretz Israel, anxiously awaiting the time that I am in a financial position to make aliyah. I have strongly supported the anti-disengagement fighters.

Your book has made me think. It has opened my eyes to the Arab side of the story, as well as details of politics on both sides that I was not previously aware of.

This book has filled me with hope of someday living in the holy land and at the same time has made me cry, and evoked terror. Reading the chapter on Yussuf makes me wonder if there is ever any hope for peace - on the political side there is, but on the religious side it seems hopeless, as religious Jews can never voluntarily relinquish the Temple Mount or any of Jerusalem.

There have been times that I have had to put it down and walk away for a while to digest what I have just read (and cry) - and I'm only on page 166!

For a long time I have thought the solution to this problem was for millions of North American religious Jews to make aliyah and change the government in Israel, now I'm not so sure... More to come...

Reading through a volume of literature having to do with the Arab-Israeli Conflict, one is sooner or later impressed (or depressed)in realizing how little new ground is ever, really covered by the defenders of Israel, and by those of the Arabs. The same ground is laboriously traversed, over and over and over; the same charges thrown at the opponent, the same anger and outrage, the same impossible hopes floated. To paraphrase an unnamed British military man from Mandate days, "and Jew will kill Arab, and Arab will in turn kill Jew, now unto the end of time."
Horovitz's book, written by an Englishman who emigrated to Israel in the early 1980's, belongs to the Arab-bashing, or in his particular case, Arafat-bashing variety of books in this genre. He soon dispenses with his worm's eye view of fellow Israelis in the midst of the horror of the al Aqsa Intifada, perhaps the strongest and most interesting part of the book, and gets to his main argument.
To wit: all the violence that has afflicted Israel since the collapse of the Camp David Summit in 2000 can be left at the door of Yasir Arafat, who opted,