48 of 59 people found the following review helpful
A lopsided argument for a lopsided conflict.,
This review is from: Understanding the Palestinian-Israeli Conflict: A Primer (Paperback)
This primer filled gaps in my historical knowledge of the region, particulary the various Summits and Accords. Having lived with both a Palestinian and a Jordanian in college, I am familiar with the "other side of the story," which is difficult to come by even in the college classroom. We in the USA are so insulated to the reality of the conflict that it blows my mind. The PR/Psyops disinformation campaign waged against the American people by the media, acadamia, and the government concerning this coflict is nothing short of extraordinary. The only way to become truely informed about this issue, is to either visit the Occupied Territories, or read a book like this.
Tracked by 1 customer
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-4 of 4 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jan 5, 2009 10:21:36 AM PST
Hans Scholl says:
And you don't think the palestinians are not propagandize> Just because you talked to a jordanian and palestinian that doesn't mean yoyu know the "truth". The truth is far more complex than either you or your ex-roommates knows. I am amazed that you allow yourself to be so easily persuaded by obviously biased people.
In reply to an earlier post on May 25, 2010 5:08:07 PM PDT
S. Alkhatib says:
They said they are familiar with "the other side of the issue." YOU are the one who called it the "truth."
Posted on Dec 11, 2010 7:50:31 AM PST
Thomas J. Renna says:
M. Hand: I'm afraid Bennis' accounts of the Summits are at best dated, at worst full of errors. Her view of Oslo is overcritical (and from hindsight) and the description of Camp David II is simplistic. She uncritically accepts the interpretations of R. Khalidi, which not even S. Erakat (chief Pal negotiator) accepts. I suggest you avoid accounts by people who were NOT at the summit. Better to start with the written versions of those who were present: Pres Cllinton, D. Ross, S. Berger, M. Albright, R. Malley (cheif US negotiator), S. Ben-Ami (chief Israeli negotiator; see chapters in his Scars of War, Wounds of Peace: The Israeli-Arab Tragedy (Oxford 2006), who, although from Labor, is critical of Barak's negotiating tactics), G. Sher (co-chair with Ben-Ami). And don't forget interviews with Barak, A. Ala, N. Amir, I. Kamel, Arafat (who alas wrote nothing about it), and other members of the teams. Since there was no official communique--or maps-- after CD II, there is much room for interpretation. Bennis has chosen to ignore the views of the negotiators and focus on the most pro-Palestinian view of what were in fact highly complex discussions. This is at the least questionable scholarship. Why advertise this book as a "primer" when it is actually a narrow one-sided slant on complicated events? She even accepts the conspiracy theory (Clinton and Barak tried to compel Arafat to "abandon" Jerusalem). There is enough hate and truth-twisting in this part of the world. Why add to it under the guise of scholarship?
In reply to an earlier post on Nov 9, 2011 8:54:56 AM PST
naji el ali says:
Where you there? It's all about intentions.
Bennis talks about that and makes a damn good argument of it
‹ Previous 1 Next ›