The Relentless Abuse of the Media by Antisemites - Rated 
There are some inconvenient facts that every anti Zionist needs to consider: That the Jews accepted every plan offered to them, by the Peel Commission and the United Nations. The Jews were happy to have the country partitioned in 1948 and the Jews were consistently prepared to live in peace with their neighbours, until the partition was voted in and all the surrounding Arab countries invaded the less than a day old state, and lost. People prefer to forget that Jews were expelled from Iraq, Syria and Iran in the 1950's and 60's. Facts, however, are only part of the story. To harp on about ongoing Israeli 'Apartheid' is to deny that Arabs in Israel have more democratic rights than in most Moslem countries. Arabs, both in Gaza and in Israel, receive medical attention in Israel's top hospitals. They attend Israeli Universities. It is the relentless obscene bending of the truth to fit in with the idea of the 'Zionist aggressor'that is so poisonous to the cause of peace. Hate has been the stance of the Moslems and every offer for peace that Israel has initiated, including the offer of the return of 90% of the West Bank, has been rejected. Anyone who claims the Arabs will eventually agree to a 2 state solution is misinformed or disingenuous. The Iran-puppet organizations (Hamas, Hizbollah and the other gruesome blood mongers) have no interest in anything apart from obliteration of Israel. And how Israel's success bothers Israel's enemies. It is time for world Islam to grow up and be practical and plan for a safe future for the Palestinians as well as Israel. They must insist on peace in the Middle East. What a sad indictment that the most the Arabs can think of is destruction and misery, for their own people as well as for Israel's Jews.
Must read - Rated 
A brilliant book. A forensic analysis of the Israel/Palestinian conflict from a moral and ethical standpoint from the origins of Zionism to the present day. The author sets out his reasoning with the utmost clarity, both in the language used - which is extremely accessible and at no time beyond the average reader - and in the organisation of his argument. Do not be put off by the title - Neumann is scrupulously fair to both sides. There is no better exposition of the issues in this troubled region than this book. And setting aside the specific circumstances of the Middle East, this book would also be a good read for anyone with a general interest in moral and political philosophy.
Intelligent, insightful, fair - if only those in power had such intellectual prowess.. - Rated
As a moral critique of the Israel / Palestine conflict this text is a resounding success.
By carefully and systematically analysing the moral argument and position of the various stages in the development of the Zionist project and the current situation, the author manages to brilliantly expose the fallacies surrounding Israel's supposed moral justifications for their past and current actions. By carefully demonstrating factual evidence with regard to early 20th century Zionists, he shows how the project was systematically planned with full knowledge and acceptance of the somewhat inevitable consequences to the indigenous population....a foreseeable prelude to the current situation.
What is most striking is that throughout his consideration of the past and current affairs regarding the troubled region, the author - in my opinion - maintains a great level of integrity and avoids emotional critique, instead focusing on a reasoned breakdown of the various scenarios, arguments and developments considered; bringing the reader to a rational and - arguably - unavoidable conclusion. That conclusion, in the vast main, being that Israel was and is in the wrong - both by international law and (arguably) even more importantly, from a moral perspective. In the crude but not incorrect question of "right and wrong", the arguments presented are difficult to counter. Ones not rooted in abstract philosophical thought as his critics may clamour to claim, but firmly grounded in analytical, fair and ethical reasoning.
This text is a brilliant expose of the historical and present injustices meted out against a largely defenceless population over a sustained period; a unique look and consideration of the ACTUAL options that this population had/has in response/self-defence and an extremely well reasoned, unemotional, unbiased analysis of the moral argument of both sides.(As a Jew himself, the author caveats his text that, if anything, his bias lies in favour of Israel). An impressive and somewhat unique approach to a subject clouded in misinformation, bias and propaganda.
An essential read.
Excellent analysis of the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians - Rated
Michael Neumann is a professor of philosophy at Trent University in Ontario. He writes, "I am a moral and political philosopher: if I have an expertise, it is in moral and political argument." In this brilliant book he clearly outlines the essentials of the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians. He concludes, "Israel is, generally speaking, in the wrong in its conflict with Palestinians. The Palestinians, I will claim, are generally speaking in the right."
In Part One he looks at the Zionist project and its consequences. In Part Two he examines the current situation - the occupation, the settlements, alternatives, possible Palestinian strategies, and terrorism.
He summarises Part One, "The Zionist project, as conceived and executed in the 19th and early 20th century, was entirely unjustified and could reasonably be regarded by the inhabitants of Palestine as a very serious threat, the total domination by one ethnic group of all others in the region. ... The illegitimacy of the Zionist project was the major cause of all the terror and warfare that it aroused." Zionism's "leaders literally conspired to dispossess or dominate the Palestinians. ... It was the implementation of this idea that made bloodshed in Palestine, if not inevitable, as close to it as we can expect to get. That blood is on the Zionists' hands."
The Palestinians were faced, "not with a long-standing conflict between two established populations, but with an invasion conceived and executed by a political movement. No one is morally required to compromise with an invasion. ... Any population may defend itself against the threat of an externally imposed sovereignty."
In Part Two, he argues, "Sometime in the late 1970s or early 1980s, there was a fundamental change in the situation .... Israel's existence became as secure as any state has a right to expect. Its settlement policy was not defensive but a form of ethnic warfare, and, therefore, outrageously wrong. The Palestinians were justified in claiming that once again some sort of violent response was not only permissible, but necessary. Moreover, all this holds regardless of whether the previous arguments hold: regardless of whether the Zionist project was justified."
The Palestinians have no alternative to fighting for survival, but Israel has an alternative - unilateral withdrawal from the Occupied Territories. Neumann points out, "Its willful and pointless rejection of that alternative places Israel decisively in the wrong. ... since Israel can withdraw at will and close its border, Israel can put an end to virtually all the violence. That violence is occasioned by the settlement policy, which is Israel's sole reason for the occupation. Since that occupation has no defensive or strategic rationale, Israel has no good reason to prolong it. Since Israel is willfully pursuing an unjustifiable strategy that it can end at no cost, it is responsible for all the consequences of that strategy. It follows that all the violence, and all horrors of the occupation, are to be laid at Israel's doorstep."
|
