 
|
|
Paperback
Publisher: AK Press
ISBN13: 9781904859468
Condition: NEW
Notes: Brand New from Publisher. No Remainder Mark.
The Case Against Israelargues that Zionism was responsible for the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians and that Israel is responsible for its perpetuation. The argument rests on widely accepted factual claims and impeccable sources. It avoids rhetoric and gratuitous moralizing. There is no attempt to blacken Israel through association with colonialism, imperialism, or racism. Instead, Neumann’s argument emphasizes the fateful Zionist quest for Jewish sovereignty in Palestine. This quest—not the massacres or plans for transfer or other blots on Zionist history—made violence inevitable and compromise impossible. The prospect of Zionists gaining the power of life and death over all inhabitants of Palestine had to be seen by the Palestinians as a mortal threat. They responded accordingly. The tragic consequences of the quest for sovereignty did not follow all at once, but in two stages. The Zionists established a sovereign Jewish state in 1948. Had they been content with that, peace might have followed the 1967 war, when Israel could have backed the creation of a Palestinian state in the occupied territories. Instead, Zionists pushed to extend Jewish sovereignty, this time through the settler movement. The settlements were a renewed mortal threat to the Palestinians and once again necessitated a violent response. The only solution is for Israel to withdraw, unilaterally, to its 1948 borders. Michael Neumann was born in 1946, the son of German Jewish refugees. He graduated from Columbia University with degrees in European history and English literature, followed by a doctorate in philosophy from the University of Toronto. He teaches moral and political philosophy at a Canadian university. He has written What’s Left?, a critique of 1960s radicalism, and numerous articles relating to the Israel/Palestine conflict. His academic work includes The Rule of Law: Politicizing Ethics as well as articles on utilitarianism, rationality, and rights.
| Customer Reviews: |
|
| |
| Compelling |
| Customer Rating: 5 out of 5 |
 |
|
This is the single best book on the conflict in Palestine I have ever read. The power of Neumann's argument is originates in its simplicity, and that author's view that the underlying issues are relatively uncomplicated is not the result of his choosing to see it that way, for example, by ignoring evidence, but of his relentless application of a small set of very traditional, fundamental, and uncontroversial moral principles (e.g., the principles of self-defense and reciprocity) to well known facts. It turns out that most of what passes for scholarship on the Middle East conflict involves deliberate obfuscation, which has it own political purposes (specifically, the purpose of evading resolution of the conflict). That this kind of simple logic produces conclusions that appear to be radical and shocking demonstrates that The Case Against Israel is a genuine work of philosophy, which, from Plato to Wittgenstein, consists not in producing new discoveries, but in showing us what we all know to be true but manage to avoid. In so doing, Neumann also demonstrates the ongoing value of philosophy in revealing the world.
|
| Some interesting ideas, though lacking some important facts/quotes |
| Customer Rating: 2 out of 5 |
 |
|
As an Israeli and as an open minded individual, I often do not agree with everything my government does. There are arguments pro and against and I decided to start with a book about the subject which shows a case against the state of Israel. I tried to remain unbiased and objective as much as possible and wish to comment on certain parts of the book which are written and certain parts which are not written but should have been.
Things I liked:
* The author makes an interesting comparison of the current situation in Israel of that of a home owner that left his home for quite some time, after which he (or his descendants) came back and demanded it. That is an interesting comparison and shows that both sides have a valid point.
* Interesting letter of Ben Gurion indicating that removing the current population by force may/will be necessary. This I did not know though it would be interesting to read the actual letter (original writings) and see the tone of the letter or whether the context can be interpreted in more than one way.
* A few examples that force/violence is a driving factor behind many "peaceful" attempts or at least being an important catalyst.
* Many people think that because somebody speaks Arabic he is an Arab. This is an interesting topic about whether Arab is ethnic/cultural/political/geographical group. It may depend on the context.
Things I didn't find true or far fetched:
* The author refers to the Palestinians as the indigenous people of the region at least on three occasions throughout the book. He never mentions how the region attained this name. The second Jewish revolt against the Roman empire was eventually crushed and the area was renamed by the Roman emperor from Province Judea (Ludea) to Province Syria Palestina. That is an often looked after or deliberate omission. The first inhabitants of the area called Palestine were Jews. It should be noted that the "indigenous" people of the area, according to the author, cannot pronounce the name of their region/country correctly because they lack the letter P in their alphabet (Arabic).
* I'm not an archeologist and must rely on information I find in history books or the internet, which could be erroneous, and apply the logic filter. But I do believe there are ample historical and archeological from Assyrians, Babylonians, Romans, Nabat dynasty, Mamluks, Greeks, Persians, Ottoman, British, Crusader, and the Byzantine that Jewish presence always existed in the land. And some may also provide evidence of centralized form of government, currency, army, and law system. On the other hand, there is no Palestinian currency (never was), army, or government.
* Here I state my PERSONAL opinion which changed over the last few years, but I urge you, the reader, to do your own research and arrive at your own conclusions. The current Arab residents of modern state Israel are Arabs and not Palestinians. The Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview with Palestine Liberation Organization executive committee member Zahir Muhsein - it is worth reading what he said. Azmi Bishara, a Palestinian by the author's definition, don't believe there is such a thing as Palestinian people. This is actually available on video in youtube. One should also raise the questions whether there is such a thing as a Jordanian people. Jordan for sure, is a sovereign state. But one should look as to how it was formed and where the ruling family came from. There are definitely such a thing as Jordanian nationality. But is there such a thing as Jordanian people in a cultural/ethnic manner? An interesting thought.
* On page 83 at the bottom "...in fact, since the foundation of the state of Israel there haven't been" - this refers to "impending threats". This is totally untrue. On multiple occasions Arab countries (or the Arab world) openly called for the destruction of the state of Israel and have mobilized armies to make it happen. Countries which even do not border Israel or that have never had any border dispute waged war on Israel.
* On page 100 is says that some claim that the Six Days War was "...not thrust on Israel, but engineered by Israel". Note that this is a valid statement - some people do indeed think that. I'm fairly certain that Israel always had and always will have drawer plans for such scenarios. But the author could have mentioned that Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran for Israeli shipping, massed their army in Sinai, and expelled UN personal. I do not think that Israel was able to orchestrate that and it should be only fair to mention these facts in this context.
* Israel or the Zionist may have always conspired to drive the people using force. Perhaps yes perhaps not. Some letters suggest that some people thought it to be necessary but it may very well be that some other people thought it was not. However, it is a fact that initially land was purchased LEGALLY. Zionists never forced anybody to sell their land (at least I've never seen such an allegation). If the Palestinians didn't want the Zionists, they should have just refused to sell the land. It could be that open hostilities provided the Zionists with an excuse to conquer and expel but the fact is that until official large scale hostilities (I mean standing armies with the formation of the state of Israel) occurred, land was not seized in an illegal manner, as the author sees it.
* I wasn't able to find it, though I'm sure I read somewhere that according to the author the Arab countries waged for on behalf of the Palestinians. That is just absurd. Arab states never said: "We will conquer the land for you and then we'll leave it for you so you can govern yourself" or anything remotely similar. In fact, Egypt annexed the Gaza Strip and Jordan annexed what is today known as the West Bank after the 1948 war. Until Israel conquered these lands from Egypt and Jordan in 1967 (Six Days War), Arab countries never showed any intentions of having the Palestinians have their own state or autonomy.
* I believe it is mentioned about the PLO causing some "troubles" in Jordan. But the extent of the "troubles" are not fully covered. Nor are other "troubles" described in Lebanon and the fact that Kuwait expelled many Palestinians workers after US handed it back control of their country (first Iraq war). It is important to understand that certain Arab countries find the Palestinians problematic for various reasons so it could help a little bit to know more about this group.
* The author mentions that Israel is better of by fully withdrawing though and mentions that at the writing of the book, Israel has fully withdrawn from the Gaza strip though has the ability (which it currently does in the form of blockade) to enforce its will. He argues that withdrawing is not giving a reward to terror, as some Israelis think. It should be noted that when Israel withdrew from Southern Lebanon, thus ending its military occupation there (accepted by the UN, though pends verification), Hezbollah didn't disarm itself and claimed that the withdrawl is not complete. Massing of weapons, especially short range rockets, is likely to be the case in the Gaza strip. It is actually a fact. There is a genuine security concern none the less.
* The author often makes notes of how Zionists leaders and religious leaders use the bible and God as an excuse. It should be noted that most Israelis are secular and not religious. Some speeches (not all) by Israeli/Zionist leaders calling the land the Jewish historical right etc. can be quite understandable. As for messianic beliefs I think that is a stretch of truth. It is no difference than the president of the US saying God bless america, or god has blessed our people, or "In God we Trust" that is on the USD paper currency.
* Religious leaders hold great power/influence and are taken seriously, according to the author. Some are taken seriously by SOME Israelis, mostly religious. A very important note could be made here that Israel usually has to main political parties, that have to side with other small parties in order to form a coalition and thereby form a government. Many times, these smaller parties are the religious ones which side with whomever supply their political needs. So naturally, they must be thought of and considered, though more politically than ideologically. Hence their power.
* The following needs to be verified by those who have the resources to do so, but I read various comments/articles that indicate that a large portion of the Palestinian population immigrated from other countries/regions to the are and they arrived from Egypt, Syria, Jordan, North Africa, and more. The exact figures I do not know. But should these people be considered Palestinians? Are they that different from the Jewish immigrants?
* One should note the fact that the UN defines refugees and Palestinian refugees. There are some interesting differences between the two and this begs the question why?
* While judging a person/country/group/entity, I personally find it wrong to show all the wrong doings but ignoring the wrong doings of others. It does not mean that certain things aren't wrong. But it does promote the false idea that one entity is performing all these things and it is evil. However, it does ignore that other entities (neighbors and around the world) are doing by far worse things and are hardly criticized at all.
Please note that I have put some of my OWN personal opinions. I do not have the time/resources to make extensive research and reconstructing history is always a problem. I do try to apply my own logic and filter unbased or fishy looking facts. However, I do think that many of the above observations are true though hardly known and a constantly omitted by those who criticize the state of Israel.
|
| A call for debate |
| Customer Rating: 4 out of 5 |
 |
|
In the book you will learn in case you didn't knew that the Zionist movement meant the establishment of a Jewish controlled state in the territory known as Palestine. The problem was that there was already a large non-Jewish people living in this territory; therefore, logically, for there to be an Israel, the majority of the inhabitants of the land had to be removed by force. Thus, conflict was inevitable an a necessary outcome of the Israel project to be made on the back of the expultion of the others. I would argue that the project is still in progress in the so call East Jerusalem and the West Bank.
|
| Case against Neumann..... |
| Customer Rating: 1 out of 5 |
 |
|
Seems fashionable these days for Jewish authors to write tomes against Israel. "Hey, I'm Jewish, I can't possibly be anti-Semitic, right?"
Wrong. It is both trendy and fashionable among the elite 'intelligentsia'. But forget labels.... the factual errors and sins of omission in this book are simply overwhelming.
* Zionism pre-dated the 'Zionist movement' by 3000 years. Look at a Jewish prayer book... Jews pray for their 'return to Zion' three times a day. But philosophy students like Neumann, with his concordant ignorance of his own faith and liturgy, would dismiss this significant fact as trifling. The Zionist movement is one of the most pure liberation movements around.... that of returning an ancient people to it's ancient, documented, historical and archeological homeland. Apparently this is a BIG SIN in the author's eyes.
* His view of occupation apparently exits in a vacuum. He glides over Arab terrorism, yes terrorism, as 'resistance'. Well, resistance is shooting soldiers and blowing up ammo dumps. Terror is bombing Sbarros pizza parlors and civilian buses. There IS a difference, no matter how much you try to couch it in wordy,twisted political framework. Funny, but during the Holocuast one never read of Jewish boys strapping on dynamite vests and blowing up the local German-inhabited Kaffeklatch. They faced utter extermination, yet there was no organized, well-funded, justified campaing of killing German civilians. I wonder why....
*Apparently, it's ok for French, Finns, Germans and everybody else to have their state. Only the Jews are 'thiefs' who 'steal' the 'land of others.' Never mind that the King Davids Citadel predates Islam by hundreds of years! The twisting of historical fact and lame rationalizations are stunningly absurd!
Save your money. Don't be fooled by the intellectual pretensions of the author. He has an agenda, he is not objective (nor is the ultra Leftist Counterpunch which he is aligned with) and clearly is ignorant of both historical facts, his own religion, and what is construed as true political justice.
|
| well.. the problem starts with the Bible itself |
| Customer Rating: 5 out of 5 |
|
|
The jewish state is nothing but the FRAUD of the age. a state that existed on the blood of innocent people, and the fabrications of the Bible, or the Holy Bible, as it's jokingly referred to on the front cover; the costume drama from Hell, a mesmerizing soup of image and metaphor into which any fantasy can be read, and by which any horror can be justified. and therefore, we, the free western world, had to slaughter an entire nation, deport it, and replace it with a dispora of jews which we didn't like to welcome in our land, and so we invented a "holy" place for them, and what could possibly be better than Palestine? the alleged "holy" land of the people of Yehweh, the psychopath in the sky!
of course.. the term "antisemitism" that some Jewish use today is nothing more than a hopeless propaganda, the least educated individual with a basic common sense knows that Zionists continue their modern day extermination of TRUE semitic peoples, the local inhabitants of the palestinian areas. a quick glimpse at their fascist "security wall" tells you the whole story.
Arabs and those of Arabic descent are semitic, Semitic denotes a language group, arabic, nearly extinct aramaic, kaananites and Phoenicians, all were victims of genocide, war crimes and massive extermination in the Bible. how ironic when Yehweh orders his "pampered people" to smite the kaananites, Arabs ,Aramaics, Amalekites.. and then the zionist fundamentalist accuses other nations of being antisemitic. Something beyond schizophrenia I say, you name it.
professor weinberg puts it quite well I guess.. he says: in a normally moral universe situation, people of "good will" will do the best they can, and people of "ill will", the psychopathic type will do wicked things. If you want to get good people to do wicked things YOU NEED RELIGION.
|
|
