Not bad

books:


	• A Brief History Of Israel (Brief History) Bernard Reich Checkmark Books, 2004 - 350 pages average customer review:based on 1 review view larger image
	for more information click here

Not bad

This book could be considerably better. But it gives me a chance to show that I can be generous, and give five stars to any book that makes a serious effort to inform its readers. This book does that.

Sure, it made me gulp when it claimed that both the Jews and Arabs believed that they "had the right to the entire territory." Um, really? Anyone can see that the Jews saw it as their right to buy land and live on it, not to expel Arabs, while many Arabs appear to have fought for the right to ban, expel, rob, slander, oppress, and murder the Jews. There is a big asymmetry here! And that asymmetry is even greater when one considers the fact that Jews were indeed banned from Saudi Arabia and even Jordan (actually the bulk of the original Mandate!) but still did not consider returning the favor by banning Arabs from their fifth of the Mandate.

The book often misses a chance to show just how greedy many of the Arabs were being in demanding rights to all Jewish land. But it does report on the bulk of Israel's history in a reasonably accurate manner.

One problem one has in discussing the history of Israel is that there are a great many highly dubious Arab complaints about Israel. These complaints are manifested in absurd UN resolutions and in statements to the media. What does one do about it? If one dismisses the most ridiculous accusations, one appears to be taking sides. If one does not dismiss them, one is being misleading, and making it appear that the more outrageous UN resolutions against Israel reflect badly not on the UN but on Israel.

I think the book could have been much better in addressing all this, but it did report the reaction of both sides as soberly as it could, and it did let us readers draw our own conclusions.

One last comment. I know it is a tiny point, far less important than any other, but I simply have to make it. Israel is the only Jewish state. Were the Temple of Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva still in Aelia Capitolina (Jerusalem), I would have been surprised to see it adorn the cover of this book. If there is a book about France, I expect to see something French on the cover. If it is about Hungary, I expect to see something Hungarian. This book is about Israel, and the Dome of the Rock is not really the most Israeli thing, and certainly not the most Jewish thing that I can think of. Quite the contrary.

I can imagine the reaction that I would have were a book about my country to show some edifice that was not merely of a different people but of a people that were at war with my nation and were bullying my nation. I'd feel provoked. I'd be asking myself if it might be a good idea to tear that edifice down, so I wouldn't be seeing my country pictured this way. And that's a really bad idea.

If I were an Arab, I would still feel provoked. But now, I'd be wondering why, instead of showing that Israel is sovereign over something Jewish, it implied that Israel was sovereign over an Arab edifice! And I'd be asking myself if it might be a good idea to get total sovereignty over the place, so nobody would show it as part of Israel any more. And that is a really bad idea too.

I think this book (and a few others) ought to be faulted not so much for showing this picture, but for showing only this picture on its cover.

for more information click here