Order from a Major Online Bookstore
Ultimate Book Price Comparison Engine
Save Your Time And Money
| AnyBook4Less.com | Order from a Major Online Bookstore |
|
| Home | Store List | FAQ | Contact Us | | ||
| Ultimate Book Price Comparison Engine Save Your Time And Money |
||
 |
Title: The End of the Peace Process : Oslo and After by Edward W. Said ISBN: 0-375-72574-1 Publisher: Vintage Pub. Date: 08 May, 2001 Format: Paperback Volumes: 1 List Price(USD): $14.00 |
Average Customer Rating: 4.12 (16 reviews)
Rating: 3
Summary: When Said says "Real Peace", what does he mean?
Comment: In this book, Said has much commentray about Israel, the PA, and their leaders. The main theme of the book is that Arafat is a patsy, a tool of the Israelies, who is "used" by them instead of striving to achieve "real peace".
Said is mysteriously vague as to what exactly "real peace" implies. Is is really "peace", or merely a pretty obvious euphemism for "the destruction of Israel"?
Here are some examples as to why the second is more likely:
1). For Said, the "right of return" - "returning" over four million palestinians to present-day Israel - is essential for "real peace". That would be the equivalent of the US allowing about 200,000,000 mexicans to "return" to the US, due to Mexico's claim that otherwise there will not be "real peace" between the US and Mexico. In fact, it is much worse: while most mexicans do not harbor much hate towards the US, most of the palestinians that "must" return have a strong, unhidden desire to destroy Israel.
"Real peace"? I don't think so.
2). For Said, "Real peace" must involve the division of Jerusalem since it is "traditional arab land". Of course, the fact that Jerusalem might have *something* to do with Judaism and always had a jewish population, while it is not even mentioned in the Koran, is ignored. I guess that if Said says so, it must be so. After all, it is not MUCH of a concessions. Just the equivalent of the US giving up the national mall and half of Washington, DC to Mexico as part of "real peace".
"Real peace"? I don't think so.
3). Said keeps talking about how violence "might happen" if no "real peace" is achieved. He speaks as if violence is like a natural disaster - something that has no human cause, or a punishment from an angry god. This sort of talk is nothing but thinly-disguised blackmail of Israel, to wit, "either give in to arab demands or we will attack you."
This talk of violence that will just "happen", like a force of nature, if Israel doesn't give in to arab demands is just like the mob's representative's langague: the mob just wants to "protect" you, and warns you that dire things just "might happen" to your business (or family) if you refuse to see the benefit of this "protection."
"Real Peace"? Sort of like Mob "protection" really protects you.
4). Said will tell you all about his recent visit to the mideast... everything about how awful the Israelies are, how bad the palestinians are, you name it. There is one thing he will not tell you about: him being caught red-handed in an act of violence - throwing rocks at Israeli soldiers over the lebanese border.
The soldiers, incidentally, weren't doing anything. They were not in Lebanon. They were merely guarding the border. Also, the Lebanese-Israeli border has no people for Said to interview and no documents for him to read, of course; he came there *specifically* to throw rocks at soldiers, an act which shows his true character in much stronger way than all of his high-flying academic writing can hide.
Again, just think what you would think of Mexico's view of "peace" if, on a diplomatic tour of the US, the main Mexican adviser in the mexican diplomatic mission would stop over at the Mexican-US border *specifically* to throw rocks at US border patrol agents? And yet, this bully keeps talking about how to achieve "real peace". Sort of like the Mendenez brothers teaching us what "real love" for one's parents means.
I am not saying either Israel or the palestinians are innocent lambs. Nor am I saying that peace is impossible. But Said's "real peace" is anything but.
As the rock-throwing incident proves, for all his academic credentials, he is simply a bully. As the real nature of his suggestions for "real peace" prove, despite all his claims to the contrary, his real goal is Israel's desturction, hidden behing high-sounding talk about "justice", "peace", "traditionally arab land", "the legitimate rights of the palestinians", and so on.
Rating: 5
Summary: Powerful voice for Palestinian statehood and sovereignty
Comment: Some critics have chosen to question what Edward Said means by 'real peace' and claim that, in truth, he seeks the destruction of Israel. No one who reads this book can be left in any doubt as to what he believes are the conditions necessary for a just and lasting peace.
For decades Edward Said has been a powerful advocate of a two-state solution, preserving the state of Israel within its pre 1967 borders. In this book he again and again condemns those who continue to argue for the elimination of the state of Israel and urges his fellow Arabs to accept the reality of the Jewish state. Indeed, he even goes as far as to brand those who refuse to have any dialogue with Israelis as racist. Anyone who was under the slightest illusion that Said is in any way making a case that even approximates to the destruction of Israel can be left in no doubt by the articles republished in his latest book.
Said argues very powerfully that the Israelis must recognise the wrong that has been done to the Palestinians, and that those who have been forced from their homes at gunpoint, dispossessed, their houses seized or bulldozed should either be permitted to return to their homes or should be compensated (not that all should have an automatic right or return). The Jews have been very vociferous in their campaign to see compensation paid to Jews for losses and suffering inflicted by the Nazis. Why then should they refuse to compensate those who have been dispossessed by Israel, the victims' victims, the Palestinians whose only crime was to live in Palestine?
Although some may think it is absurd to allow the native inhabitants of the land of Palestine the right to return to the land from which they have been expelled over the past fifty years, it is hard for Jews and their supporters to maintain such a position. After all, the principal of the Jewish Right of Return - which says that the land of Israel belong to Jews, wherever they live and that all Jews have an automatic right to 'return' - is the very cornerstone upon which the state of Israel was founded..
Said makes clear the historical context in which the dispute over Jerusalem must be seen. Israel has illegally occupied East Jerusalem since 1967. Its annexation is not recognised by any country in the world and the United Nations has consistently resolved that Israel must withdraw from all illegally occupied territories, including East Jerusalem, which has an overwhelmingly Arab population. The fact that Jews have lived their throughout history has no bearing on matters: Jews have also lived in a great many cities for a great many centuries - are we to allow Israel to annex any city with an ancient Jewish presence?
Then, of course, there is violence. Said's very simple point, which has been amply borne out by recent events in Israel and Palestine, is that if there is to be any hope for a lasting peace it must be founded upon a genuine settlement of the conflict, not some phony 'peace deal' which amounts to little more than formalising the Israeli dispossession of the native population. This is not threatening anyone but rather making plain the simple idea that peace must be made and not taken for granted. Peace must be based on mutual respect and an agreement reached between two parties treating each other as equals, something which Israel has consistently refused to do. (for example, the Palestinians are repeatedly required to 'recognise' Israel and guarantee the security not only of Israelis but also illegal Jewish settlers, but Israel refuses to acknowledge the legitimacy of the Palestinians claim to statehood and refuses to guarantee the security of Palestinians).
Edward Said's book is a powerful, thoughtful statement from a committed Palestinian nationalist and highly respected academic. I do not agree with all he says but, nevertheless, I found the book thought provoking and engaging.
Rating: 2
Summary: A piece of propaganda
Comment: The book starts with what should be shocking statement by Kirkus Reviews, referring to the fate of Palestinians as one of the greatest tragedies of our time. Now, what's wrong with the life of Palestinians? They were not exterminated. They property was not looted and their women were not raped. They are not forced to work in concentration camps, but live in more comfortable conditions than Jewish immigrants fifty years ago. They are not starving but are provided with unprecedented welfare benefits, now in third or fourth generation. How odd is to compare this situation with real tragedies, like Holocaust of Jews and Gypsies in WWII, slaughter of two world wars, millions dead in Algeria and Rwanda, and other catastrophes, which are distinguished by most important feature: a desire to murder for the sake of it. No sane person can claim that Jews want to kill Arabs. There is a well-established record of Israelis taking heavy losses, such as in Lebanon and Palestine, in street fights instead of burning the place to the ground, as just about any other army would have done.
Speaking of Holocaust, the author mentions, many of us [Arabs] may wish to regard it as none of our business. But do not forget that major Muslim authority, mufti of Jerusalem, spent the wartime in Berlin, actively collaborating with Nazis in eradicating Jews.
In trying to find the most dramatic analogy to happenings in Palestine, Prof. Said settles on Bosnia. He has to admit that the difference is that while massacres took part in the latter, nothing of this kind happens in the former. Apparently, it does not bother the professor that this leaves nothing of similarity. To make his point by hook or by crook, he asserts that something similar to massacres is taking place daily in Palestine. What is it, you would wonder. Well, not really atrocities, just demolishing a house here and there or exiling several people. Not much of cruelty, considering the circumstances of retaliation for terrorist acts. The author fails to analyze that such actions in no way change the situation in Palestine. Even if we accept his inflated assumptions, it comes on annual basis to 500 buildings demolished, one square mile of land taken (presumably, purchased by settlers), thousand people exiled. This affects less than one-tenth of one percent of population. Indeed, the author affirms that even the Palestinians do not care, even do not see this persecution.
Indeed, there was a latent agreement on the part of some Jewish leaders to drive Arabs out, and Prof. Said is quick to condemn it. But every action should be considered in its context. You would not like to live with a next-door neighbor who tried to evict and kill you, would you? Now imagine you share a same flat with this guy. If there would be an opportunity to drive the fellow out by pressure, without undue crime against him, this is what you would embark on. Besides, Israeli measures were extremely mild by standards of establishing a state. Americans, Russians or, for this matter, Palestinians themselves readily killed people opposing them in conquest (or, if you prefer, in establishing their statehood).
The professor addresses unfairness of Jews being allowed sovereignty, while Palestinians are not. Well, both of them were allowed it in 1947. There are things, which once lost cannot be regained. Imagine a world where nations were allowed to return to status quo ante and correct their mistakes: France would surely assemble more forces at Waterloo, and Israel might have not start a war of 132, preventing formation of Palestine in the first place.
A few years passed since the publications reveal that the author's reasoning on importance of ceasing to hold the territories is wrong. He argued that it is necessary to give away Golan to Syria, some other territories to Lebanon and Palestine to achieve peace with them. During this time, Israel has indeed returned Golan, but no peace was achieved with Syria. Withdrawal from Lebanon did not bring peace, either. And, notably, Israel does not police or routinely strike these territories. So the only reason remaining for them not signing the peace treaty is their hostility towards Israel. This was perfectly evident before, with even those Muslim countries not in any contact with Israel, like Bangladesh, preserving the hostile state of affairs.
The professor leaves no doubts in defining his opponents. He expressly calls very authoritative Adam Smith Institute his enemy, precisely on the ground of its liberal orientation. The list of foes is joined by British Foreign Office (hardly an organization unsympathetic to Arabs) and, puzzlingly, Arthur Andersen consulting firm. Quite clearly, anything related to free market and non-partisan politics is abominable to him.
Prof. Said, comfortably living in New York, has leisure to advance radical slogans. Never in his book he implies that he offered any practical help, such as charity, to his fellow Palestinians. Nor did he fight Israel, even participating in demonstrations. He does not recognize hypocrisy of his position of fanning the destructive struggle from his safe haven. He wants to incite Palestinians to stick to unrealistic demands instead of quietly going on with their lives, as most of them want under beneficial and extremely tolerant Israeli administration. He does not leave the US and, I guess, did not relinquish his American citizenship, while harshly criticizing the policy of his new country. Apparently, he sees no trouble in violating the pledge of allegiance he owes to the US, being its citizen, but keeping his loyalty with Palestinians.
Overall, the author lacks the basic realism, and not for any idealism of his, but for the lack of even minimal understand of history. Borders of countries are in constant change. Nations come and go, or are driven away. There is no morality besides balance of power, and the power belongs to those who are willing to pursue their principles unto death.
 |
Title: The Question of Palestine by Edward W. Said ISBN: 0679739882 Publisher: Vintage Pub. Date: 07 April, 1992 List Price(USD): $14.95 |
 |
Title: The Politics of Dispossession : The Struggle for Palestinian Self-Determination, 1969-1994 by Edward W. Said ISBN: 0679761454 Publisher: Vintage Pub. Date: 30 May, 1995 List Price(USD): $18.00 |
 |
Title: Culture and Imperialism by Edward W. Said ISBN: 0679750541 Publisher: Vintage Pub. Date: 31 May, 1994 List Price(USD): $15.00 |
 |
Title: Peace And Its Discontents : Essays on Palestine in the Middle East Peace Process by Edward W. Said ISBN: 0679767258 Publisher: Vintage Pub. Date: 03 January, 1996 List Price(USD): $12.00 |
 |
Title: Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians by Noam Chomsky, Edward W. Said ISBN: 0896086011 Publisher: South End Press Pub. Date: October, 1999 List Price(USD): $22.00 |
Thank you for visiting www.AnyBook4Less.com and enjoy your savings!
Copyright� 2001-2021 Send your comments
