4 comments about The Zionist Idea: A Historical Analysis and Reader.

1. If you are proud of the role that Orthodox Jews have played in developing the modern Zionist movement, you will love this reader compiled more than 35 years ago (and back in print). Orthodox rabbis and Zionist leaders Yehuda Alkalai, Zvi Hirsch Kalischer, Yechiel Michel Pines, Meir Bar-Ilan, Shmuel Chaim Landau, Samuel Mohilever, Avraham Yitzhak HaCohen Kook and Isaac Reines take up a disproportionate amount of space in Hertzberg's rich work. And for good measure you will find the writings of Ben-Gurion and Jabotinsky.



2. the a hundred page introduction of this work is absolutely essential for people of every ilk who want to undertand the whole zionist idealogy in one fine, easy-read scoop. the rest of this work is a presentation of every important leader of zionism in the course of 19th and 20th centuries with a short description of the writers life, endeavors, and accomplishments in the beginning of every excerpt.
   this book serves on two fronts which makes it into a bona-fide classic of zionist literature: (a) someone who wants to throughly understand the conception of the movement must read this book because without it even fine, scurpulous research is incomplete. (b) someone who wants to cursorly scan the movement to form a capsule of the zionist idea in his mind for all practical intents and purposes.
   i'm not a zionist, but this book gave me a clearer percpective of zionism. now i'm confident to vouch that i know precisely what zionism holds and so should you!



3. What is modern Zionism? Is it Jewish nationalism? Is it simply an ideology of human rights for everyone, including Jews? These are questions that I hoped would be answered (and are answered) in a book that contains articles written from 1843 to 1948 by about three dozen leading Zionists.
   
   A doctrine of human rights for all would permit any group, including Jews, to bid on land in and near Jerusalem and (upon obtaining it) pass laws ensuring their rights of life, liberty, and property there. As well as continued immigration. I wanted to see if most Zionists saw it that way, arguing that there are many Jews (and many Jewish nationalists) and that Zion is the Jewish homeland, with Jerusalem its capital.
   
   Moreover, I wanted to know if any of these thinkers said or implied anything like the following:
   
   1) We Jews don't care for Zion, but many non-Jews do, so we'll buy Zion and displace those who really love the land.
   
   2) We Zionists love Zion, so we'll steal it from the rightful and legal owners.
   
   3) We don't care about human rights. We want special treatment, so we can have privileges that are denied to non-Jews.
   
   Not one of these authors displayed any of the above three attitudes. None of them advocated wastefulness, greed, destruction, theft, or unfairness. They did indeed argue for the rights of Jews to be equal to those of other nationalities. And they went on to discuss Jewish culture, Hebrew universities, Jewish religion, and the need for a people to have a common language and a state. These days, when the international information supply is saturated with antizionist misinformation, it's worth noting all this.
   
   In this book, we see Theodor Herzl say that the Jews are a people, one people. A people that he thinks "will not be left in peace." And, most important, that he is not aiming to arouse sympathy on behalf of the Jews: "All that is nonsense, as futile as it is dishonorable." Those who ask that we make the dubious stipulation that Zionism is merely a claim of sympathy for what has happened to the Jews of Europe might want to note that!
   
   We then see Ahad Ha-am say that he wants to focus on a national culture, with Zion providing merely a "secure refuge," rather than starting with a state and relying on it to produce a national culture. That's a good answer to those who ask today what Ahad Ha-am would have said about Israel's desire to continue to exist as a refuge for Jews.
   
   Two other authors who are often quoted by "post-Zionists" are Judah Magnes and Martin Buber. I'd advise reading what they say as well. In particular, Buber splatters Mahatma Gandhi's argument that the Levant "belongs to the Arabs" by pointing out that "God does not give any one portion of the Earth away." A powerful comment for those who might otherwise think that the Jews, not the Arabs, are the ones who are regarding the Levant as theirs by Divine Right!
   
   Vladimir Jabotinsky is often given as an example of someone who favored Jewish greed over Arab need. Guess again! Here we see him speak forthrightly about there being "no question of ousting the Arabs," And that Arabs will be a minority in Israel, but that is no hardship. And that he asks "only for the same condition as the Albanians enjoy."
   
   If you want to learn something about Zionism, read this.
   



4. This is an anthology of works by major Zionist thinkers. It introduced me to the fact that Zionism was primarily a radical project of self-criticism and not a whining diatribe against the Gentiles. The ruthless mode of thought and pitiless self criticism of the founding fathers of Zionism makes one realize that this is our strength in the face of our enemies, who clearly lack the ability to engage in self-criticism. I try to follow in the footsteps of this tradition of Zionist self-criticism in my own book "The Optimistic Jew: a Positive Vision for the Jewish People in the 21st Century"
   The Introduction by Rabbi Hertzberg is brilliant and worth the price of the book alone. If you want to know something about Zionism, Israel, and modern Jewish history, buy this book and read the Introduction!

No comments about Zionism, Militarism and the Decline of US Power.

5 comments about A Man Called Blessed.

1. I can see why Ted Dekker can be considered the next big thing in Christian fiction! He has a captivating way of writing, with a carefully thought-out plot. Some books have too much fluff and move too slowly. Ted Dekker's talented story moves at an easy, although exciting pace. He used enough military and political jargon to give it depth and reality. There was a good amount of "spiritual talk" but he (and Bill Bright) says it with a new twist, showing God's presence in our hearts instead of in an artifact, such as the Ark of the Convenant.
   
   What can draw a beautiful assassin and a peaceful man of God together? What one thing can first make a person confused and sorrowful, and next, bring relief and joy? How can a newly discovered relic such as the Ark of the Covenant NOT bring a major war? Read this novel to find out!
   
   While the ending moves too fast for my taste, I did like how there was closure with the Ark. I kept wondering how it could possibly end. But I thought the ending was true to the story and the characters.
   
   I definitely recommend this book to anyone who likes to read Christian fiction. And I would expand that audience to those interested in archaeology. It's a modern story with a historical twist.



2. A superior story told with interesting history and spiritual quality. It is an excellent sequel to Dekker's "Blessed Child".
   Ted Dekker never fails to surprise me. In my opinion, he writes the best and most absorbing christian fiction of our time.



3. This was a very good book. I only gave it a 4 because most of the time I give a 5 only to a book I can't get out of the chair before I finish it, the same day I start it. I did enjoy very much reading about the miraculous events in this book. I couldn't wait to get back to it to find out what was going to happen when they found the Ark of the Covenant, assuming they were going to find it.



4. I started Blessed Child but gave it up because of the poor writing. A Man Called Blessed is much better written though there is still much in it which is very improbable or bizarre. However, it did keeps one's interest and moved along quickly.



5. 'A Man Called Blessed' is a great story from start to finish. It contains action, adventure, suspense, and even romance.
   
   It is centered around a quest for the missing Ark of the Covenant. The three main characters are an Israeli agent, a Muslim fanatic, and a Christian who had strayed from his relationship with Christ but regains it in this story. The Christian character, Caleb, is a grown up version of the protagonist in 'Blessed Child'.
   
   The spiritual aspects of the story are intense. There are some amazing supernatural events throughout the book. After one of these, Rebecca Solomon (the Jewish agent) 'wanted to rush over and tell him (her Jewish father) that it was all going to be fine.' After a second of contemplation, she concluded that, 'whatever it was, encountering the Nazarene's power could not be characterized as just fine.'
   
   Although 'Blessed Child' was very good, this story is several notches above the prequel. It should be read by anyone who has read the first book. For anyone else, I would definitely recommend it, but the reader should start with 'Blessed Child'.

5 comments about Foreign Agents: The American Israel Public Affairs Committee from the 1963 Fulbright Hearings to the 2005 Espionage Scandal.

1. Grant Smith's book traces the secret history of the American Israel Political Affairs Committee (AIPAC). AIPAC is an organization little known or understood outside of the Washington Beltway and those who follow American Middle East policy. However, its relative obscurity in the Heartland should not fool the public. AIPAC has evolved into one of the most powerful lobbying organizations in the United States. Politicians, regardless of political stripe, play homage to AIPAC. Indeed, critical pieces of legislation regarding US policies towards Israel and the Middle East are drafted in AIPAC's downtown Washington offices. While most lobby organizations represent genuine American commercial or social interests, Smith makes a compelling case that AIPAC is a functional extension of the Israeli government. The recent espionage case involving two AIPAC officials is a striking example of AIPAC's highly conflicted agenda (fully documented in Smith's book). It would be more accurate for AIPAC to rename itself the "Israeli Political Action Committee" to better disclose the efforts it makes to sway elections in virtually every US congressional district. This book shows how AIPAC, a nonprofit corporation prohibited from supporting political candidates, does just that in clandestine and illegal ways. It also shows the strategic revolution led by founder Si Kenen and why neutral sounding organization names, especially for political action committees, has been so important to AIPAC's stealth operations.
   
   Smith details AIPAC's involvement as one of the main cheerleaders for the invasion of Iraq through quantitative analysis. Anecdotally Smith notes that Democratic Speaker of the House Pelosi was roundly booed when she spoke before a recent AIPAC conference and called for the Congress to be consulted before any Bush administration strike on Iran. AIPAC's operatives in the White House such as Elliot Abrams would view that as an infringement on their prerogative. The Pelosi incident should be no surprise to the informed. Shortly before, the Prime Minister of Israel publicly condemned calls in the United States for military withdrawal from Iraq as "not in Israel's interest." Pelosi bent to the demands of the Lobby and at AIPCA's urging dropped her pledge to pass legislation for the common good of the American people.
   
   Portions of Smith's book read like a criminal indictment. It is filled with compelling and fully sourced facts and figures. He makes a strong case that AIPAC is indeed an organization that deserves far greater legal oversight and accountability than it has received thus far. Moreover the mainstream media now ignores AIPAC's alleged criminal activities and destructive political influence on our democratic process. This is appalling, but was not always the case. The mainstream corporate media's evolution from dogged investigators to AIPAC lap dogs is documented in the book, along with a stunning confession from the Washington Post's former Middle East Bureau Chief.
   
   No doubt Smith will receive the usual bludgeoning from the lobby. This is now par for the course. Whenever an American criticizes Israeli policy or that country's illicit influence over US political affairs, the predictable "Israel First" hacks make their way to the front of the line to smear and instill fear. We have seen this happen to Professors Walt and Mearsheimer, Norman Finkelstein, James Petras, President Jimmy Carter and of course Congressman Paul Findley who first dared to speak out. Mr. Smith has joined a group of dedicated, patriotic Americans whose sole interests continue to be the advancement of more rational US strategic objectives that are truly in the interest of all Americans. Kudos to Mr. Smith!



2. Grant Smith's book traces the history of the American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC). AIPAC is a little known and understood organization outside of the Washington Beltway and those that follow American Middle East policy. However, its relative obscurity in the Heartland should not fool the public. AIPAC has evolved into one of the most powerful lobby organizations in the United States. Politicians, regardless of political stripe, play homage to AIPAC. Indeed, entire pieces of legislation regarding US policies towards Israel and the Middle East have been drafted in AIPAC's downtown Washington offices. While most lobby organization represent genuine American commercial and social interests, Smith makes a compelling case that AIPAC is in fact a functional extension of the Israeli Foreign Ministry. The recent espionage case involving AIPAC officials is a striking example of AIPAC's conflicted agenda (fully documented in Smith's book). I would rather AIPAC rename itself the "Israeli Political Action Committee"- a more honest nomenclature.
   
   Smith details AIPAC's involvement as one of the main cheerleaders for the invasion of Iraq. As Smith notes, Speaker Pelosi was roundly booed when she spoke before a recent AIPAC conference when she called for an end to US military occupation of Iraq. This should be no surprise to the informed. Shortly before, the Prime Minister of Israel publicly condemned calls in the United States for withdrawal as "not in Israel's interest." Pelosi understanding her subservient role to the Lobby and at AIPCA's urging soon dropped her pledge to pass legislation requiring President Bush to first obtain Congressional approval before attacking Iran.
   
   Smith's book reads like a criminal indictment. It is filled with compelling, sourced facts and figures. He makes a strong case that AIPAC is indeed an organization that deserves far greater legal scrutiny and accountable that it has received thus far. Moreover, that the mainstream media ignore AIPAC's alleged criminal activities and destructive political influence on our democratic process is appalling.
   
   No doubt that Smith will get the usual claims of anti-Semitism. This appears par for the course. When ever an American criticizes Israeli policy or that country's influence over US political affairs, the predictable Israel First hacks make their way to the front of the line. We have seen this happen to Professors Walt, Miershiemer, Finkelstein, Petras, President Jimmy Carter and Congressman Findley, among others. Mr. Smith can be comforted that he has joined a group of dedicated, patriotic Americans whose sole interests continue to be the advancement of US strategic objectives and who have resisted prostituting themselves for foreign powers. Kudos to Mr. Smith!



3. I just finished this ground breaking work--not ground breaking because of new, long hidden material but because the material has not been examined because of fear. Smith has probed subjects that have rarely, if ever, been brought to light. These subjects have remained in the shadows because the Israeli government and its lobby do not want its relationship with its cash cow, America, to be spotlighted for fear that the spiggot will be turned off and the estimated 1.8 trillion in support for Israel will be lessened. This figure is quoted by Smith in chapter five and sourced from Harvard economist Thomas Stauffer and although Smith's thesis is more tightly formulated, the bigger picture inarguably materializes; that picture is of huge import for America and by extension people like myself living far away from this centre of such great international interest.
   
   Smith's book painted a conclusive, at least for me, picture of the terrible puppet lines that make it all but impossible for American government to function as it is constitutionally suppossed to operate. As he writes in chapter three, American democracy cannot act when lobbyists can exercise overwhelming influence on sigle-issue legislation under consideration. As Smith points out in chater one, J William Fulbright was the last major American politician to challenge the Israeli Lobby and that was nearly forty years ago.
   
   I found Smith's book hard going for a intellectual lightweight like myself because he peppers his work with many excerpts from legal writings of one kind or another. This comment is not to dissuade any potential reader, it is meant only as a caution regarding the nature of the writing to be faced. The legal material is there to provide hard evidence for virtually all of Smith's statements. He has sown the seeds of his ideas carefully and provided ample fertilizer in the form of documented evidence to insure a good crop; it is certainly evidence strong enough for this reader.



4. Grant Smith's authoritative and well documented research should be required reading for all those politicians and journalists who have long been fooled and manipulated by AIPAC. Hopefully, it will compel them to rectify their past misdeeds and to seek factual information on Israel-Palestine.
   
   All Americans should rise up and demand honest journalism and a change in U.S. policy in the Middle East from the one dictated by AIPAC's foreign agents to one protecting the national interests of our own country. I highly recommend this book.



5. When traitors from New York Times, who for now reason called themselves "journalists", published several articles disclosing highly sensitive information on how CIA and FBI traced global Islamic terrorists, including Al-Qaida, and drastically damaged security of American people and the country; they were under "freedom of speech" protection. When New York Times disclosed information on CIA agent, Valerie Plame Wilson, and literally put in jeopardy her life, life of her family, lives of her colleagues and success of her operation, this organization, which is an obvious traitor, was under protection of the "freedom of speech" principle. From this point of view, the book is complete lie and hypocrisy, as entire American judicial system.

1 comments about If I Am Not For Myself: Journey of an Anti-Zionist Jew.

1. As any anti-Zionist knows, raising opposition to Israel and Zionism immediately draws accusations of anti-Semitism, or if the dissenter is Jewish, accusations of self-hatred.
   
   It is precisely these attempts by Zionism to squash all criticism of Israel -- especially criticism by Jews -- that Mike Marqusee takes head on in his latest book, If I Am Not For Myself: Journey of an Anti-Zionist Jew. Starting with the papers of his late grandfather and Marqusee's own personal experiences being raised as a Jew in post-war America, the book beautifully weaves together a broad, yet intimately personal, history of anti-Zionism and radicalism in Judaism. Equal parts biography, autobiography, history, and commentary, Marqusee powerfully strips Zionism of its fundamental claim to represent and speak for all of world Jewry.
   
   Central to Marqusee's task is the re-appropriation of Jewish, anti-Zionist, and leftist history -- a history that is consciously buried by the Zionist establishment. In this process, he shows the strong connections between history, how we understand the present, and the frameworks we can utilize in determining the future.
   
   Marqusee weighs in on an impressively diverse and rich array of subjects including (but far from limited to) the Jewish workers' Bund, Jewish Enlightenment philosophy, political struggles within the New Deal coalition, the parallels between Zionism and right-wing Hindu nationalism, "left-wing anti-Semitism," discussions with Muslims about Zionism, Jews in the Middle East, and the parallels between anti-Semitism and Islamophobia.
   
   These discussions and explorations all radiate out from Marqusee's narrative center: the life of his maternal grandfather -- Edward V. Morand (aka EVM) -- a Jewish leftist active in New York politics in the 1930s and 1940s.
   
   Despite being involved in virtually every left-wing cause of his time, EVM increasingly became an ardent Zionist -- forcing him to unconsciously sacrifice many of his radical principles. Marqusee is particularly horrified by EVM's political positions in 1948 -- the year of Israeli "independence", or al-Nakba (the catastrophe), as it's known to Palestinians. Marqusee writes: "In the midst of [Israel's] one-way process of destruction, displacement and plunder, EVM's constant cry is 'no retreat.' He seems to have entirely lost his former distaste for war and militarism...In this war, there seems to be only one kind of victim, Jewish."
   
   Marqusee attributes EVM's political twists and turns, in part, to "[a] failure to imagine the people on the receiving end of your dreams. It's a failure rooted in Western and white supremacy, a network of unexamined assumptions that has proved much more ineradicable and insidious than anti-semitism. EVM's writings of 1948 resound with it, and offer inadvertent testimony to the racist character of the Nakba and Nakba denial."
   
   These political contradictions and hypocrisies are exactly what led Marqusee himself out of the Zionist trap.
   
   In a very candid section, Marqusee relates an experience that is no doubt familiar to many Jewish anti-Zionists: the first time he was accused of self-hatred. He describes hearing an Israeli soldier speak to his Sunday school class just after the 1967 Israeli war that began the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. The soldier was going on about how "the Arabs are better off now, under Israeli rule. You have to understand these are ignorant people. They go to the toilet in the street." Marqusee responds: "Now something akin to this I had heard before. I had heard it from the white Southerners I'd been taught to look down upon. I had heard it from people my parents and my teachers described as prejudiced and bigoted. So I raised my hand and when called upon I expressed my opinion, as I'd been taught to do. It seemed to me that what our visitor had said was, well, racist." The young Marqusee was immediately denounced. Angrily, he went home to share this experience with his normally supportive parents. At the dinner table, he added to the story, putting forward his opinion, heavily influenced by the anti-Vietnam War movement, that, "'It was wrong for one country to take over another, or part of another, by military force'...Suddenly [my dad] barked, 'Enough already!'...Like my Sunday school teacher, he made me feel that I'd said something obscene...'I think you need to look at why you're saying what you're saying,' he said...'There's some Jewish self-hatred there.'"
   
   In the end, Marqusee answers the question set out by the title, "'If I am not for myself...', then others will claim to be 'for me'...[I]n defining myself as an anti-Zionist Jew, I am for myself, and at the same time and without contradiction for others...I find in anti-Zionism emancipation both as a Jew and as a human being...Jews today can no more escape the question of Zionism than they could the question of anti-semitism in earlier eras. The problem today isn't that Jews are in denial of their Jewishness or of the threat of anti-semitism, but that Jews are in denial about Israel, Zionism, the Nakba, the occupation, the wall...The people who call us self-haters want to steal our selves from us -- appropriate our selves for their cause -- and speaking as a self, I'm damned if I'm going to let them get away with it."
   
   The task of anti-Zionists is to explain the role that Zionism serves in the US imperial project while also breaking the notion that Zionism has anything to do with Jewishness. As Marqusee puts it: "[T]he Zionist dominance of the diaspora, and especially the diaspora in America, is a mutable, historical phenomenon -- not the inevitable expression of 'Jewish self-interest' -- and the continuation of that dominance is by no means guaranteed."
   
   Easier said than done, right? In addition to reclaiming history, we have to understand that Israeli war crimes and the logic of Zionism itself can shake even the most veteran of Zionists. Just look at Marqusee's dad's own development -- the same dad that first called him a self-hater: "[I]n the end, the Zionists tested his humanity beyond endurance. After the news broke about the Sabra and Shatila massacre in 1982, he phoned me from New York. 'Ok,' he said, 'you were right. They're bastards.' He started to make contributions to Palestinian causes and to raise the issue among his friends."
   
   The struggle against Zionism's dominance over Jews and Palestinians won't be easy, but Marqusee has made an important and captivating contribution to that fight. If you've ever had trouble arguing that anti-Zionism is not anti-Semitism or if you just want to get a sense of the rich diversity of Jewish history and its relationship to radicalism, then you should pick up this book. I just bought a copy for my dad -- the first person to call me a self-hater. If Marqusee can convince his dad, then I guess I'll hold out hope for mine as well.

5 comments about They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby.

1. Extremely well written and informative book about the powerful Israel lobby that operates under the radar--often times against the interests of the US.



2. If readers want to read a book that evinces a pathological obsession with Israel and its American supporters and blames them for every problem under the sun, then by all means buy this book. But if you don't, avoid this book like the plague. Paul Findley is a former Congressman who now serves as a pro-Arab propagandist and Palestinian apologist. When I read reviews that refer to him as objective, I have to laugh. Findley is as one-sided and biased in his views as they come.
   
   The absurdity of Findley's thesis is easy to prove. People and institutions are constantly "speaking out" to attack Israel and the pro-Israel lobby in the most vicious terms. What punishment do they face for doing this from the Israel lobby? None whatsoever. No one is suppressing their free speech. Jimmy Carter and Professors Walt and Mearsheimer, among others, are free to present their biased and distorted views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the influence of the Israeli lobby without retaliation. Some criticism, yes, but no suppression of free speech.
   
   One might ask why Findley was defeated in his Congressional reelection bid some years ago by a candidate supported by AIPAC? I would submit that it was Findley's greater concern for Yasir Arafat's interests than those of his own constituents that was responsible for his defeat, not any conspiracy on the part of Israel's supporters.
   
   I note that many of the reviewers have repeated the standard and tired line that one can't criticize Israel without being labeled anti-Semitic. One can criticize Israel and the Israeli lobby without being anti-Semitic. Unfortunately, many of the reviews posted here show that some of the people who criticize Israel and the Israeli lobby resort to anti-Semitic stereotypes and cross the line into open anti-Semitism and bigotry, a la the Protocols of the Elders of Zion forgery. If you believe that there's a sinister Jewish conspiracy to control the U.S. government and media for nefarious purposes, you hold anti-Semitic views. For those of you who don't hold those views, stay away from this awful book.



3. This book is a perfect counter-point to The Power of Israel in the United States. I review that book also, and recommend both books to every American, just as I also recommend the books that document how the Saudis have bought the Bush Family and the Republican and Democratic parties, neither of which represents We the People. Completely apart from the venal immorality of Dick Cheney (see my review of Vice: Dick Cheney and the Hijacking of the American Presidency in which I itemized the 23 high crimes and misdemeanors documented by that book), the fact is that Congress has been bought by multiple parties, and no longer represents We the People.
   
   This book is a harder, longer read, so I recommend you start with the other book. As with the other book, this book is a strongly documented and very lengthy catalog of the sins of the Zionists and the Israeli Government, not at all against the moderate Jews and their legitimate concerns. I have seen Gaza and Beirut, and what Israel has done to the Palestinians, to the former "Paris" of the Middle East, combined with their Assault on the Liberty, is unforgivable.
   
   This book logically catalogs how the Zionists intimidate even such a person as Ted Turner, who was forced to back down when he said both sides were committing terrorism (there is in fact a UN Resolution that finds Israel guilty of genocide and racism, but then that is one of those "fog facts" that our totalitarian monsters choose to ignore.
   
   The author organizes the book around how Zionists silence the small and the weak, while buying out the Oval Office, the Congress, the media, while also subverting academic freedon.
   
   I especially like the author's conclusion, "What Price Israel?" The US taxpayer is subsidizing Israeli genocide and Israeli idiocy, and the US and Israel appear to be the last two countries to continue to believe in the value of force that is both unaffordable and unsustainable in an unconquerable world.
   
   Congressman Tom Moran, who represents my district, has personally said that Zionish have too much influence on Congress, and I agree. Tom Moran has been a very good representative, and he speaks the truth.
   
   Here are some books and a DVD that can put the totally unacceptable Zionist influence on the USA in a larger context:
   
   Hostile Takeover: How Big Money and Corruption Conquered Our Government--And How We Take It Back
   The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised As Freedom
   The Global Class War: How America's Bipartisan Elite Lost Our Future - and What It Will Take to Win It Back
   The Best Democracy Money Can Buy
   Fog Facts : Searching for Truth in the Land of Spin (Nation Books)
   Running on Empty: How the Democratic and Republican Parties Are Bankrupting Our Future and What Americans Can Do About It
   The Broken Branch: How Congress Is Failing America and How to Get It Back on Track (Institutions of American Democracy)



4. Findley, a pure PRO-AMERICAN is one of the rare congressman with a backbone who,... puts America first. He was and is the pioneer of bringing attention to Americas getting off course with a spineless and cowardly Legislature - especially today. I feel Findley's courageous and 'making America' aware of the cancer within it book should be read and taken VERY seriously. Outstanding and other A+ scholarly works on this topic are: Jimmy Carter's: Palestine:Peace Not Apartheid; ans most recent is "The Israel Lobby," by Mearshiemer and Walt. These are also excellent objective reads that bring true clarity to what's really going on today.



5. This book comes from a qualified credible source and is very educational. It not only speaks of AIPAC, but also of various pressures, and intimidation tactics in politics, media, academia, used by pro-Israel groups and right wing fundamentals in support of such. Findley also writes about the left democratic Christians who oppose the pro-Israel lobby, and of those founding Zionists (Nahum Goldmann) and Anti-Zionists that spoke out against Israel's treatment of Palestinians and Arabs rights. I found this book to be a significant piece of the U.S./world puzzle. And this is coming from a Jew critical of Israel policies and supporter of justice and human rights of all peoples. Highly recommended.

5 comments about Daniel Deronda (Modern Library Classics).

1. OHMYGOD- this book rocks! Quit work for a week and dive in- Every sentence will enrich your soul- She's THAT amazing.



2. I read this book as part of a graduate class on the "study of the novel" and was absolutely blown away by it. This was my first attempt at George Eliot and though I had been wanting to read her for some time, the sheer girth of most of her works prevented me from adding them to my "leisure reading" list.
   The character of Gwendolen Harleth is strong and commanding, Henleigh Grandcourt is perhaps one of the best villains ever written into literature, and Daniel Deronda is unequivocally the most inherently flawless character ever created who does not bore the reader with his goodness.
   This is a big book to be sure, but it reads fast and there is much said about the appearances and prejudices of Victorian society. There are many recurring themes and parallels to be on the lookout for. This is an intensely "smart" read, and for that reason it is one of my favorite Victorian novels ever---next to Dickens' "Dombey and Son" and "David Copperfield," that is.
   I look forward to reading more of Eliot's work in the future. She was a brilliant writer and observer.



3. Imagine a crowd of men and women of various age, stature, and alibi assemble in a place where you the spectator are going to infer an observation as to their true sentiment. This task is difficult in a train packed with commuters, but easy in a casino where gamblers share one and only desire; to extract gain from someone's loss. This is where the two main characters of George Eliot's final novel "Daniel Deronda" first catch a glimpse of each other.
   
   Gwendolen Harleth, young and vivacious, full of beauty but low on luck in a game of roulette resorts to gambling in order to help her destitute mother. With the last whirl of the disk comes the hope of big win amongst the sybarites vying for bestowal from the mindless wheel. The sight of the ill-fated creature bewitches Daniel. For is it not true that attraction is at its superb when mixed with sympathy?
   
   In this classic, George Eliot creates an exemplar in the character of Daniel Deronda, a fine English man with chiseled look. His magnanimity is put to the test with the introduction of Mirah Lapidoth, a poor Jewish woman whose striking beauty emanates from the person who wishes to see it. Her magnificent feature is like the underwater world visible only to the diver.
   
   Oh, if only our heart came in two like most parts of our body; so that we continue to live if we lose one. While our brain chooses as many objects to fill its contentment, our heart chooses singularly when it comes to truest love. Moreover, why is it when we lose this true love our head which houses our big brain does not hurt yet our heart feels inexplicable pain, what a power this organ as small as our fist has on our being.
   
   Like Daniel, we face ultimate decision, which puts our susceptibility in check. Nevertheless, most of us are not as steadfast as he is. We continue to err because our values change with whoever we are with now akin to chameleon in search of prey and acceptance.



4. This is a classic novel by Mary Anne (Marian) Evans. Soon after writing the excellent article, "Silly Novels by Lady Novelists," Evans decided to write some novels herself. It seems to me that while she admired the works of great lady novelists such as Jane Austen, her style was in part a reaction not only to superb works but to awful ones. She adopted the pen name "George Eliot" for her first novel. Although her actual identity was made clear to everyone fairly quickly, she kept that pen name for her remaining novels, including this one.
   
   This fine work gives us an interesting look at English society of the 1860s (the book appeared in 1876). And it includes an intriguing look at Zionism. While Theodor Herzl said he did not read her book, one key Zionist did, and he drew a real-life inspiration from it. That real-life person was Eliezer Ben-Yehuda (born in 1858), who was the individual most responsible for the revival of Hebrew as a language of everyday speech. Evans thus made a significant contribution to Zionism with this book.
   
   Evans basically applauds a Jewish character in her book who argues for Zionism, saying that "there is store of wisdom among us to found a new Jewish polity, grand and simple, like the old - a republic where there is equality of protection." And the character continues by saying:
   
   "Then our race shall have an organic centre, a heart and brain to watch and guide and execute; the outraged Jew shall have a defence in the court of nations, as the outraged Englishman or American. And the world will gain as Israel gains."
   
   I think it is a clever plot element when Evans winds up having Deronda take up this challenge of trying to implement Zionism.
   
   Daniel Deronda, who is raised by a Christian baronet and becomes an Etonian and Cantabrigian, is not sure that he is Jewish until he then gets to meet his actual mother (having last seen her at the age of two). That raises a couple of questions. Given that Daniel has no problems with his Jewish wedding, I think Marian Evans intends us to assume that Daniel was indeed circumcised soon after his birth, was not baptised (either as a Christian or a Jew), and that he eventually confirmed what his Hebrew name was (probably Daniyye'l, after his grandfather).
   
   Daniel's classmates (and Daniel himself) would thus suspect that he might be Jewish. However, the issue might at least be in doubt, especially with Daniel participating in Christian activities at Eton.
   
   Given that Daniel's Jewishness is a surprise to some of his acquaintances, I think it is also safe to assume that the author wants us to picture Deronda as not having what might be thought of as obviously Jewish facial features.
   
   Henry James wrote a very amusing review of this book back when it first came out. In his review, three characters comment on the book, one of them liking it very much, another liking some parts better than others, and the last, "Pulcheria," declaring herself to be a Judeophobe and disliking the whole thing.
   
   More recently, Ed Said, while not quite as silly as Pulcheria, still missed the opportunity to comment intelligently on the book because he was so averse to the idea of abiding human rights for Levantine Jews that he simply could not avoid substituting anti-Zionist propaganda for a serious discussion of the book. I mind the silliness of his comments even more than I do the ill will. To see what I mean, here are the first two lines of the book:
   
   "Men can do nothing without the make-believe of a beginning. Even Science, the strict measurer, is obliged to start with a make-believe unit, and must fix on a point in the stars' unceasing journey when his sidereal clock shall pretend that time is at Nought."
   
   Try to picture a silly astronomer writing about these two lines as if they were representing a critique of Big Bang cosmology.
   
   At one point, Deronda gets some easy but excellent advice from the baronet who has raised him: "my dear boy - it is good to be unselfish and generous; but don't carry that too far. It will not do to give yourself to be melted down for the benefit of the tallow trade; you must know where to find yourself." Later, Deronda gives very similar easy but excellent advice to Gwendolen, telling her to accept some money that is rightfully hers and show her generosity only in the way she uses the money.
   
   I think this is not merely good advice for us all, but especially good advice for Zionists: some of us are a little too inclined to refuse for ourselves what we might gladly award to anyone else.
   
   The second paragraph of the novel begins with a question about Gwendolen: "Was she beautiful or not beautiful? and what was the secret of form or expression which gave the dynamic quality to her glance?"
   
   Obviously, she was beautiful.
   
   Was this novel excellent or not excellent? Oh, it was excellent in both form and expression, with a dynamic aspect no less, and, for what it is worth, I recommend it.



5. Am I the only person who really really really wished that this book had been about Catherine Arrowpoint?
   
   Don't get me wrong, I loved Daniel Deronda, but I struggled for a long time with the fact that I did not actually like either of the two main characters. Gwendolen is insufferable, although I take the point that Eliot was making about the options open to high-spirited women. Daniel was worse-- as mealy-mouthed and moralizing as Gwendolen thought him to be in the casino at the beginning. And don't let me get started on the mincing wincing Mirah.
   
   This isn't a very forgiving novel. There is not very much room for redemption.
   
   I guess that is why I had hoped that it could be about Catherine Arrowpoint-- she seemingly the only character in the position to make healthy choices.
   
   Miss Arrowpoint invents herself, Daniel discovers himself. Gwendolen, well, it's hard to talk about Gwendolen without giving away too much of the plot.
   
   Difficult for me to imagine that some see the book as two separable halves and prefer the Gwendolen part. There's a thread of linked themes running through the novel. It all fits together, as a single whole.
   
   A phenomenal book, really. Read it if you haven't already.

1 comments about Rulers and Ruled in the US Empire: Bankers, Zionists and Militants.

1. This is the second book that I have read by James Petras- the first was 'The Power of Israel in the United States'. I enjoyed his first book as well as this one. He is quite an academic virtuoso providing a sociological, historical, organizational, and political perspective as to whom controls the world and its money, resources, and, of course, politicians. Mainly, he points the finger at MNC's (Multinational Corporations) that are quite effective at neutralizing any dissent, exploiting indigenous populations, and bribing politicians. He discusses somewhat the influence of Zionists in their quest to control the Middle East and the influence of money interests, i.e., hedge funds, equity firms, and investment banks, in capturing world industry and rsources. Moreover,Petras argues that China is simply a puppet of the Central Imperial Power- the United States given the amount of foreign investment in the country. I enjoyed this book very much - he is indeed thought provoking, challenging, and difficult read due to his complex and academic writing style. I think this book should be viewed as an academic reference- this is definitely not simple casual reading. The only few criticisms I had of the book was at times, he would have emotional outbursts against the Zionists and Capitalism in general- personally, I would refrain from this because I believe it leaves less room for credibility. Moreover, I do not agree with his idea that nationalizing industries is the way to go when it comes to foreign trade. Nevertheless, I recommend anybody read this book if your up for the challenge.

5 comments about Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-2001.

1. I have read several works on the historical roots of the conflict, but this book is probably the best overall history in one work. Morris does pretty well at taking an even hand with his writing; although he probably could have shortened it by a couple hundred pages by leaving out some of the "breathless" play-by-play commentary of battle tactics in the various wars. Overall, it is well worth the time invested if you want a better understanding of the subject.



2. Benny Morris rose to the forefront of Israel's 'New Historians' in the 1980's with the publication of 'Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem,' which provided radically new evidence which altered modern perceptions of the region forever. Morris retains his important findings in Righteous Victims and expands on them, covering virtually the entire history of the Israel-Palestine conflict. I found the earlier chapters leading up to the creation of the State of Israel on the earliest Zionist settlers to be particularly interesting; Morris presents a picture which indicates that the current bloodshed is by no means a product of natural necessity. The ethnic cleansing of Palestine and subsequent military occupation is the cause. However, Morris becomes overly ideological in the concluding sections of the book, allowing his harsh realist politics to creep in. Nevertheless, this is arguably the most comprehensive single volume about the history of the conflict.



3. Like every treatment of the Arab Israeli conflict, this book will not please everyone (or anyone?). The book is brisk. Fortunately, Morris has an even tone throughout and does not remain fixed on any one subject for too long. As anyone knows who has written on a broad topic, this is an exceptional accomplishment. Even at 600 plus pages, this book could have easily gotten bogged along the way on the wealth of detail about this well researched conflict. And this book shows that despite some of Morris' more inflammatory interviews recently, he can still present a work of historical research that is even handed and fair.



4. Benny Morris, the author of "Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-2001," has been counted as one of the Israeli "revisionist" historians, that group of Israelis that have debunked some of the myths that have surrounded the birth of Israel. In an earlier book, "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949," Morris examined one such myth: that Palestinian Arabs left the nascent Israeli state in 1948 of their own volition or under the direction of their own leaders. Although that occurred in a small number of instances, there were many more cases in which the Israeli army drove Arabs out at gunpoint. Such revelations have not endeared him to many of his countrymen. In "Righteous Victims," first published in 1999, Morris also describes many instances of Arab antisemitism, venality, and brutality directed against Jewish settlements in Palestine. He provides many fascinating details in the early years of the interaction of the Zionist organization in Europe, British and French colonial policy, and the moribund Ottoman empire. For example, the Balfour Declaration of 1917 in which Great Britain promised the Jews of Palestine a national homeland was seen to be a completely self serving act by Britain to further its own military-political aims in World War I. This nearly 700 page book, as its title indicates, covers the entire history of the conflict from the origins of the Zionist movement including the birth of Israel and all of the subsequent Arab-Israeli wars as well as political considerations and attempts by Arab and Israeli leaders at achieving peace. Objectivity is Morris's aim, and he achieves it quite well.



5. An excellent, detailed history. After reading this book of 700 pages, I have compared it to Dershowitz, Finkelstein, Neumann and others, and have perceived this detailed account to be rather objective in this revisionist history in both sides of the issues where the conflict exists today. I found this book very helpful in understanding the early pre-state intentions and the 1948, 1967, attrition and 1973 wars. It would be hard to simply follow the status quo and deny the deplorable conditions of the Palestinians and Israeli treatment in human rights, economic, social and cultural controls, which includes the occupied territories, new settlements, appropriations of water and resources with its determined discriminations.

5 comments about The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.

1. 
   I thought this book was going to bring facts and evidence. Instead they just support the majority of their theories on unsupported assumptions; for me it was a waste of time and money



2. Mearsheimer and Walt have done a great service for public discussion in the US pertaining to Israel and our relationship with that nation.
   
   They shed a clear light on the existence and influence of the Israeli lobby upon the American government, media, and public opinion. Their view is that this influence has, for the most part, been highly pernicious over the decades. They expose many successful attempts on the part of that lobby and its supporters to besmirch the character and smear anyone who should be so bold as to question the U.S government's fawning support of Israel's policies against the Palestinians and their Arab neighbors.
   
   Any criticisms directed against Israel are viewed as either: (1) anti-semitic attacks by racist gentile bigots, or (2) self-hating tirades from emotionally and psychologically disturbed Jews. These AIPAC attacks, although crude, Neanderthal in nature, and totally lacking in any creative imagination, are effective enough to strike terror in the wilting souls of our less than totally fearless politicians. When I think of our congressmen and senators hiding under their desks and shaking from the fear of possible AIPAC attacks, I am reminded of a great quote from Teddy Roosevelt in the early 1900's about his boss at the time, William McKinley. Teddy commented to the effect that, "...McKinley has the backbone of a chocolate eclair." Actually, Teddy was being a warmonger at the time--McKinley was actually right in his reticence to go to war against the Spanish in Cuba and the Philippines--but Roosevelt's image of political cowardice is timeless.
   
   The authors' presentation of the facts of the matter and their unfolding reasoned logic is first rate. The book is highly recommended as an exceedingly well-reasoned rejoinder to any and all of your friends and associates who think that our Israeli-Palestinian foreign policy posture couldn't be better. I think they effectively demolish most of the arguments in favor of continuing the failed U.S/Israeli policies of the past into the future.
   
   They promote the vision of the two state solution for Israel and Palestine with a financial settlement for all of the Palestinians and their families that were displaced by the formation of the state of Israel in 1948. The latter is not a perfect solution, but probably the best available give the deep hostilities between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
   
   Their suggested road map is not guaranteed to get the warring parties to a final satisfactory destination. However, as they point out, the other alternative proposed policies seem only to promise more hatred, bloodshed, war, and despair.
   
   The one point of view in the book, though, that I would take issue with the authors is the view that oil played only a minor role in our invasion of Iraq. I have no doubt, along with the authors, that the Israeli lobby had a great influence on the Bush administration in helping launch the Iraqi war. However, given the influence of oilmen (Bush, Cheney, etc.) in the Bush administration and the fact that Iraq is rated by many petroleum experts as having the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world (only surpassed by Saudi Arabia), I find it virtually inconceivable that oil was not a major part of the equation for war. It doesn't seem to take a whole lot to corrupt either an oilman or a politician. In this case, we're talking about an enormous amount of oil wealth in Iraq.... Finally, one shouldn't totally dismiss the apparent personal eccentricities and character flaws of Bush and Cheney. Those character traits undoubtedly strongly affected the US's march to war with Iraq.
   
   The book is well worth your time and money to read. It also would make a great gift to family, friends, and associates that could use a broader exposure to the issues involved in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.



3. The most disturbing thing that this book reveals is that you cannot run for President of the United States and expect to win unless you espouse the views of the lobbies described in this book and that is true whether you are running as a Democrat or a Republican. If you do not believe that this is true you are free to go to youtube and view the recent speeches the candidates for President gave before the most prominent of these lobbies. You can then decide for yourself after listening to the speeches of McCain, Obama and Hillary Clinton. This book is also impeccably sourced and very well written. These two men really did their homework on this subject matter.



4. Let me first start by mentioning that this would be an awfully boring book to someone who is not an Arab-Israeli conflict literature aficionado. It is extremely linear and narrow in scope, but nevertheless argues the point that the AIPAC is considerably influential on US policy towards Israel and other political policies that involve Israel or the Middle East conflict. As well, it argues that this sort of American inclination to Israeli policy, be it fair or not, has not been in the benefit of Israelis, Americans or other countries in the region. The arguments are thoroughly discussed, all statistics referenced, and the analytical inferences made are reasonably logical and...suffice to say I have a completely different view of the role of the U.S. in the Middle East conflict now that I've read this book.
   
   There book is not offensive in any way, it is not anti-Semitic, and certainly not pro-Arab. In fact, the authors seem to have done their best to filter out subjectivity in the issue and this is truly about as unbiased as you can get discussing an issue that has always been considered Taboo in mainstream media.
   
   This book is not a treatise and does not have a narrative; rather, it's an extended article. Originally, the topic was summarized in a paper commissioned in 2002 by The Atlantic Monthly, which rejected it (no surprise there). Anyway, a couple of years later the book was published in London and the truth was finally made public.
   
   The arguments in this book are convincing, the introduction thorough and strives to assure the reader of the author's impartiality, and it closes off with a brilliant conclusion which summarizes the opinions of the authors on how the US should deal with the AIPAC, how the situation in the Middle East and Iraq would've been different if the AIPAC was less influential, and finally they analyze a scenario wherein the roles of Israel in Palestine are reversed, where the Palestinians would have the more influential lobby and the much more generous aid and unconditional diplomatic support of the US.
   
   Overall, I truly enjoyed this book. It was an eye-opener and a terrific expose on what goes on beyond the doors at Capitol Hill with regards to America's support to Israel.



5. I was intrigued by this book after hearing the authors in an interview on the BBC World Service radio station in which, among other things, they recounted how the lobby had come after them after they published the article that became the basis for this book in the London Review of Books.
   The book is written in a cool, rational style and persuades through carefully accumulated evidence and well structured argument, not assumptions and overheated rhetoric. The section on political fund-raising is particularly shocking, while the statement in the prologue that the 2008 American presidential candidates will disagree on abortion, taxes and a host of other issues, but never gun law or Israel has been proven correct!