Why Blame Israel

by Neill Lochery

Book Overview

Examines the true history of the conflict and asks what could inspire such a caricature or whether any truth contributes to this. Should Israel shoulder the blame, or are the realities of the conflict... This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Paperback
• Language: English
• ISBN: 1840466243
• ISBN13: 9781840466249
• Release Date: September 2001
• Publisher: Icon Books
• Length: 208 Pages
• Weight: 0.04 lbs.
• Dimensions: 0.8" x 5.0" x 7.8"

Customer Reviews

Good insight, a little lengthy

The book absolutely accomplished a lot. I find the tit for tat political info a bit dry and deep though.

Attempts to explore the facts behind the headlines

"Why Blame Israel" by Neil Lochery attempts to get to the bottom of some of the persistant prejudices and untruths about Israel , and it's war against Arab terror , and to explore the reality of the conflict and Israeli politics. As Julie Burchill so aptly puts it : " There exists a quite striking bias against Israel. Neill Lochery's excellent , accesible book is a must read for anyone wanting a tonic to this persistent and illogical prejudice". Lochery describes the battle over the existance of Israel as "the battle of the maps" from maps purporting to show the first Jewish settlements after the return to the Land of Israel , to attempts by the international powers to divide the land , to the maps dividing the Land of Israel today such as the "Oslo Redeployment" map., Lochery provides us with several maps in the middle of the book showing the Sykes-Picot agreement of 1916 for the partition of the Middle East of 1916 , the map of British Mandate Palestine , which includes all of modern Israel , the Disputed territories and Jordan folowed by a map showing how 78.2% of the Palestine Mandate was cut off by the British in 1922 to create the Arab Kingdom of Transjordan , leaving 22.8% for the Jewish homeland which included what today are the Disputed territories in the ancient Jewish homeland of Judea and Samaria. The "Palestinian" Arabs now had their State in most of what before 1922 was known as "Palestine". Maps No 3 and 4 show British attempts to limit the Jewish presence to a fraction of "Western Palestine" : The Peel Commission recommendation for the partition of "Palestine" in 1937 an the Woodhead reccomendation for the partition of "Palestine" in 1938. Map No 5 shows the United Nations partition plan , which divided the remaining 23% of Palestine into a Jewish State and a SECOND Arab Palestinian State (Trans-Jordan being the first) based upon population concentrations. The Jews accepted... the Arabs rejected. The Arabs still wanted ALL of Palestine... both east AND west of the Jordan River . Other maps show Israel's borders after the War of Independence (1948) and the Six Day War (1967) , Israel's very strategic width as a result of the 1949 borders and the Oslo Redeployment map under which large parts of the Land of Israel were to be turned over to PLO control. Lochery also reminds us how the deep rooted conflict is characterized by visual images , describing how two images have come to characterize the Arab-Israeli conflict : A burned out bus with only it's basic structure intact , symbolizing the grisly Arab strategy of sucide bombing in which hundreds of Israeli men , women and children have been murdered and maimed , which reduced life in Israel into a peverse game of Russian roulette were Israelis going about their ordinary life could never know if they would live or die. The second image is of "an Israeli soldier firing on a Palestinian and the wounded Palestinian being carried onto a waiting ambulance". The latter image however is u

Detailed history up to 2004

With events moving so fast in the Middle East, this book is already outdated with regard to its possible scenarios for the future and the hopes based on the Geneva Accords of 2003. Even the Postscript to this paperback edition is a bit irrelevant now that both the election victory of Hamas and the Iranian nuclear threat have entered the arena. It does, however, provide a thorough history of the conflict up to the year in question. The narrative starts with the failed Camp David talks of year 2000 but throughout, it deals extensively with the history of Israel from the 19th century onwards, including the British Mandate, the Holocaust and the 2nd World War. The birth of Israel, the Palestinian refugee exodus and the role of the UN are also examined in detail. Chapter 3 looks at international relations, how Israel's alignment with the West came about, and its relations with its neighbours. The next chapter: The Second Republic, discusses Israel in the 1960s, including cultural change, the 1967 war and its aftermath, the Yom Kippur war and Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria. Chapter 5 goes into great detail about developments in Israeli politics in the 1980s, a decade that encompassed the National Unity Government and the Lebanon war, whilst chapter 6 investigates the 1990s. This includes sections on the arrival of the immigrants from the then imploding Soviet Union, the nature of the Israeli economy and a discussion of secular versus religious rights. The next chapter analyses the failed Oslo peace process. The passage titled The Culture Of Language And The Meaning Of War is of special interest. It explains the seemingly separate conflicts being waged in Hebrew, in Arabic and in English, examining the media coverage in Israel, the West and the Arab World. In this regard, I refer the interested reader to an excellent book, The Other War: Israelis, Palestinians and the Struggle for Media Supremacy by Stephanie Gutmann. The Postscript addresses the Geneva Accords of December 2003, in which the author placed high hopes. The book concludes with notes arranged by chapter, a glossary of terms, an extensive bibliography, a section on websites and an index. The map section from pp. 128 to 138 is very valuable for understanding the land issue. These maps include the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916, the 1922 Partition, the UN Partition Plan of 1947, Jerusalem since 1967 and the Oslo Redeployment Map. Books that may contribute to an understanding of the Middle East situation include the aforementioned title by Gutmann, The Case for Israel by Alan Dershowitz, The Mountains of Israel by Norma Archbold Parrish, Dream Palace Of The Arabs by Fouad Ajami and From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict over Palestine by Joan Peters.

A reasonable introduction to the Arab - Israeli conflict.

I initially purchased this book on the premise that it investigated the role and coverage of the media in relation to the Arab/Palestinian - Israeli conflict. Although it does pay some attention to these and related issues, it is my personal opinion that this analysis does not go anywhere near deep enough. In relation to such media coverage, initial intimations are made as to how the reporting of the international media has allegedly been dominated by a left-of-centre political culture which has served to reinforce stereotypical perceptions of the conflict. Reference being made as to how certain incidents have even led to the media allegedly breaking it's own codes of practice. A case is presented that the alleged perception of most journalists is that the Palestinians are the "victims" and the Israelis are the "aggressors". The book elaborates how this attitude allegedly underlies the nature of many reports emanating from the region, with many reporters cited as having little background knowledge of the conflict. As a result it is alleged that many in the media elite are more concerned about the selling of a particular story than presenting facts objectively and as a result are purportedly liabale to disinformation and political propaganda. References are made to support these accusations. Written entirely from a secular perspective the study provides a reasonable account of Israel's history in relation to the Arab - Israeli conflict. A chronicle of Israel's history being provided, especially in relation to the Jewish presence in the Land, together with the political, international and regional overtures surrounding the re-birth of the Jewish state. The effective carving-up of the Middle East by France and Great Britain after the First World War and the part that this has played in subsequent history is also studied. The book pays some attention to the strategic, self interests of the Western powers & their political machinations - past, present and future - and the part that all continue to play in the ongoing conflict. Whilst attaching blame to both sides in the conflict, the book presents the opinion that the ongoing "Road Map" will not bring peace and that to some degree, such has been seen by terrorist groups as a "reward/incentive" from the international community in relation to the years of attacks upon the Jewish state. Replete with references, the writer also shows how the Arab/Palestinian world has allegedly refused 'statehood' on numerous occasions whilst refusing to recognise the existence of a Jewish state, irrespective of any negotiated borders/boundaries. Due reference being made to the numerous regional wars and their context, culminating in the unrest of the present day. The "peace process" itself is afforded appropriate attention. At the outset the writer declares that amongst the fundamental issues being investigated are the realities behind the Arab - Israeli controversy. These include the question as to ho

Ought to annoy most people

I suspect that many folks will disagree with much of what this book says, no matter what their own views may be. I sure did. I agree with the title. With so much oppression to fight in the world today, why waste one's time applauding oppressors who fight Israel? But do the Geneva Accords basically supply the parameters of a deal, as Lochery states? I doubt it. I think a Levant that could accept those accords would already be at peace. I think the Geneva Accords would do more harm than good. I think a Mediterranean that has never allowed Israel to so much as participate in the Mediterranean Games is not ready for peace negotiations at all. And I think Lochery underestimates the need for truth and human rights to resolve this conflict. The author makes some interesting statements. He says that international powers, by denying strategic victory to either side, have prolonged the conflict. I think this denial of strategic victory has indeed been part of the problem. Lochery also makes the point that Britain's refusal to allow Jews into the Levant was bipartisan. In 1946, the Labour Party was in power, and it behaved very badly. But even Winston Churchill, in Opposition, agreed, in a speech on August 1, 1946, that it would be "silly" to try to help solve the "Jewish problem" by allowing lots of Jews into the Levant. As Lochery says, "the Zionists survived, and indeed flourished, despite the actions of the British." Lochery says the Arabs ought to have accepted the 1948 Partition Plan, which was more than fair to them. While that is true, he ignores the fact that rejecting that Plan was an Arab goal in and of itself. The author then says that Israel was not "innocent" following the 1948 war because it did not return land it gained nor did it allow refugees to return. Lochery wanted Israel to make "meaningful concessions" for peace here. I disagree completely. Israel had nothing to give, but even if it had, concessions would not have brought peace. Considering how desperately Israel needed peace, these are very strange statements from Lochery. The author says that Israel's strategic planning tends to be short-term. And he says that the term "peace process" is simply a "disguise" for lack of progress towards peace. I think he may be on the right track on these statements, but I'm not sure I agree. Lochery says that anti-Semitic propaganda in Arab lands is dangerous and may lead to the Arab world resembling Germany of the 1930s in this respect. And that Israel in 1967 was a victim of aggression that was forced to fight. I agree with the author on both counts. We then read that the 1990s were a decade of Israeli concessions which "when taken together came close to amounting to a collective form of national suicide." And that the U. S. State Department has not learned "the lessons from the disastrous Oslo peace process." Lochery continues by telling that the mere signing of peace agreements is not a method to bring an end