I wish I could give this book more than 5 stars. This author deserves high praise for this Biblical tale of King David's Queen Michal, daughter of King Saul. Starting from childhood Michal tells us of her love and obsession for David as it blossoms after his famous slaying of the giant Goliath. David has a silver tongue and a beguiling way that soon has the people enthralled with him.

Michal learns the hard way that men will have their way and power is the game they play. It is in David's court that she learns to manipulate, while using her wits and beauty to play a game that is just as intricate and winning.

This is a captivating story that will have you eager for more conspiracy and intrigue. This first book by India Edgehill will soon be followed by a sequel that will bring the reader into the court of King Solomon. ... 1/02/02

After reading The Red Tent by Anita Diamant earlier this month, I did not think I would ever find another Biblical novel as entertaining or as enjoyable. But when I read Queenmaker, I knew I had found it. Queenmaker is the tale of King Saul's daughter, Michal, and her husband, King David. Michal falls in love with David at a young age, but when King Saul plans to murder her new husband, David escapes. Michal, left alone, is given to Phaltiel in marriage, while David builds a kingdom. Over the years, Michal grows to love Phaltiel, but David returns to claim his Queen. This is a wonderful, deeply involved novel that will make it hard to put the book down for dinner (or work). Thank you, India, I can't wait to read your next book!

India Edghill has done a stellar job of bringing to life the story of Princess Michal - the wife of the great King David. The character portrayals are wonderful, very complete, and the dialogue she has created defies the imagination.

This is a truly inspirational book in the way it has brought to life a biblical tale that I had only the vaguest knowledge of. Michal was not a name I was familiar with, and although I remember reading the tale of David and Bathsheba in high school when we studied the Bible as a work of literature, most of the story was very new to me. I was spellbound for the 2 days it took me to finish the book - I really cannot recommend this one enough! I enjoyed it much more than "The Red Tent", I'm not sure why, but that is what I felt. If you find a copy of this book, do pick it up! It is a masterpiece!

I am a Lebanese who is living in Sweden for the past 9 years. I have read this book twice so far, the way that the author describes the events that took place during the Lebanese war, in a very detailed way mentioning dates, names, places, is very impressing. Which proves the personal expereince of the author. We Lebanese are very naive people that get carried away by men like Elie Hobeaka, who sold his country just for personal pride. I encourage every Lebanese person to get this book and read so that they can realize what kind of country and society they are living in. Finally i would like to say something if this book is a total lie, then why did the Lebanese goverment abandon it from entering Lebanon?, why dont you ask yourselve this question.

I read the book and altough it contains a lot of facts, I got the feeling that Cobra was trying to make himself one of the most known guys in Lebanon during the war. Why he did not write about all the crimes that he also comminted during the war? He is not a victim no and he also was one of those who destroyed Lebanon because of the "CAUSE." I always thought about the "CAUSE" and I hated what was happenign to Lebanon and all Lebanese (Christians and Muslims) but I did not join those who pretended to protect the Christians and the "CAUSE." I am not writing to defend HK or accuse Cobra. HK is a monster that should be punished for what he did, Lebanon still have such monsters in power and as long as we have such people, Lebanon will always be doomed. However, the book is a must read. It makes me feel sick, sad, and laugh at the same time. Sick to know about those monsters, sad for the victims of Lebanon, and laugh on those who always beleived and still beleive in the "CAUSE."

The secret files of how Lebanese Christian leaders betrayed their people have finally been exposed. This will revolutionise the way Lebanese within Lebanon and abroad will think of our beaurocrats. I hope people can come to terms with this explosive account of murder, curruption and sex. The most evil sins man can commit. I would love to see the faces of the evil men mentioned in Cobra's book. Thankyou Cobra. Thankyou for giving us the honest truth.

Ostrovsky's book is a must for people who want to understand the secret services. Initially, you are shocked by the revelations, recognizing that it may compromise Israeli national security and its agents. Then you are awed by the training, the logistics and coordination of information gathering. You then become worried, that such a complex and effective organization has no real accountability. Perhaps, the real worry is that Ostrovsky describes a mode of conduct whereby Mossad redefines right and wrong (redefining it in terms of "what's good for Israel and especially Mossad is good, the hell with the rest"), and acts on that basis. And finally, you reconcile your emotions with the knowledge that this couragous book can only force a re-evaluation of Mossad practices. Today's Israeli leaders cannot ignore the claims made by this book, and because of it, there is a little more accountability in the world. I enjoyed the book thoroughly.

Recently I finished reading this book, truly captivating history of Mossad. It is no less than a thriller movie like James Bond series. Considering the number of covert operations told all within this book, it can be definelty made into a television series if not a hollywood blockbuster.

The author himself a victim of hypocracy, as he says, of Mossad's top brass. Going through the covert operations right under the nose of MiddleEast, Europe and North America, it leaves me with no doubt that Mossad is no less than a real thug, ruthless monster. It just doesnt do the intelligence gathering for national security, it does industrial espionage, sabotage etc which in turn makes money for the weapons industry of Israel.

What it left me with a bad taste in my mouth is that, Mossad during late 70's and 80's raised millions of dollars through international drug trafficing and maybe still is doing. Most of it reached American market. May be now its the time for Israel Government bring a new law to arm-twist Mossad and accept its existance. But, it looks like Mossad is more powerful than Israel's primeminster.

This book has lot of lessons for world's intelligence individuals. I truly liked this book for its depth.

Outstanding, true personal account of an honored Israeli officer, telling of gross misconduct at the highest levels of the most secretive agency within the Israeli government. This is the story of a man who fought for Israel's independence in 1948 and was specially selected to perform covert operations in defense of Israel, without regard for international law and borders. He is a passionate Zionist and maintained the code of silence until he saw many of the corrupt practices of top personnel. It is sad that many Jews view him as a traitor to Israel, when it seemed to be his goal to reign in the abuse of power of the country he loved so dearly. Question....Why is the well reviewed 1991 book, "By way of Deception" out of print? Why is the 1995 sequel also not available and out of print? I think it is to prevent Victor Ostrowski's compelling tale from getting into the mainstream of social thought. One last question, who else beside the Jewish Defense League, The Anti-defamation League and other such organizations have a motivation to use their influence to keep this story secret?

(...) This book is specifically designed to address very topical issues, such as: the causes of the latest uprising against Israeli occupation, what the situation in Palestinian land has been since the uprising began, whether or not the American media has been objective in its reporting of events, what actually happened during the negotiations between Barak and Arafat at Camp David, etc. Detailed maps of what exactly was offered at Camp David are provided - something that you never see in the general, mainstream media.

Why do I give this book five stars? Because it reveals many things that it is simply not possible to learn from reading the NY Times, Washington Post, etc., and because it is very well presented - both well argued and complete. The descriptions of what life is like in the occupied territories is quite stunning, not at all what I was expecting. It is also quite shocking to see what it is that was offered by Barak at Camp David - and what the media so gratiously refer to as a "generous offer." It may very well have been the best offer ever, but it was still a far cry from adequate - a literal swiss cheese, full of holes. And on that point, there are some very objective and scientific studies that explain why it is that so many people refer to the American media as biased.

The arguments made are very strong and very convincing. The book brings together writers of varied backgrounds - Jews, Arabs, and westerners. It may not as some people have correctly pointed out be a complete account of what the entire history of this very old conflict, but that wasn't the point of this book. Its purpose is to address the New Intifada, and it does it extremely well.

As this book succesfully demonstrates: Israel's treatment of the Palestinians has always presented a moral problem to the West, as that treatment has violated every law and moral standard on the books. Some 750,000 Palestinians were driven from their homes in 1948-1949, and since then scores of thousands more have been pushed out by force, their houses demolished or taken over by Israeli Jews (not Israeli Arabs). Under the supposed "peace process" following the signing of the Oslo Agreement in September 1993, a UN Special Report of November 13, 2000, says that "In the past seven years...Israel's confiscation of Palestinian land and construction of settlements and bypass roads for Jewish settlers has accelerated dramatically in breach of Security Council Resolution 242 and of provisions of the Oslo agreements requiring both parties to respect 'the territorial integrity and unity of the West Bank and Gaza Strip.' Since 1993 the settler population in the West Bank and Gaza has doubled to 200,000 and increased to 170,000 in East Jerusalem." The report also describes and condemns the demolitions of Palestinian houses, the diversion of water to Israeli cities and settlements, the policy of closures that has damaged Palestinian social and economic life, and the "widespread violation of their [Palestinian] economic, social and cultural rights" both within Israel and in the occupied territories. It also assails Israel's use of excessive force against Palestinians and hundreds of Intifada killings, "most of them unarmed demonstrators."

The settlements have been made in territory outside of Israel, technically "occupied" by Israel and subject to international law that clearly prohibits dispossession and settlement by the "belligerent occupying power" (the Palestinians are "protected persons" under the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949; violations of that Convention, including dispossession and settlements, are "war crimes"). This systematic violation of international law has been going on for several decades, just as the creation of new "facts on the ground" in brazen violation of Article 31(7) of Oslo has proceeded since 1993, but as the United States does not object, and in fact has supported these law and agreement violations by massive economic and military aid, and by vetoing any hostile UN actions (it has used the veto an estimated 60 times to give Israeli ethnic cleansing and law violations free play), international law is inoperative.

As an American citizen who has been living in Israel since before the 2nd Intifada began, I found this book to be both accurate and insightful. Probably the most important information to be found in this book is the actual maps used in the various Oslo Peace agreements, from Camp David to Taba. These are the maps never shown to either the US or Israeli public. The maps of the "generous" land offers given to the Palestinians. The maps by themselves explain why Arafat had to reject the offer and why the Israeli occupation of Palestine is referred to as apartheid. In addition, other details that were never fully disclosed in the general public include continued full Israeli control over water resources, electric and phone service, and economic expansion. Settlements were to remain along with the system of newly constructed highways (off-limits to Palestinians) which connect the settlements and completely surround all Palestinian controlled areas.

My only disappointment with the book is that I thought there could have been more about the Arab citizens living in Israel. There is one interview with Azmi Bishara, the Arab Knesset MK who is facing trial for exercising his freedom of speech, yet a lot has happened inside Israel since the 2nd Intifada began. The 2nd Intifada has significantly affected relations between Arabs and Jews living inside Israel. It has directly affected unemployment among Arabs and detrimentally affected the economic conditions in Arab Israeli towns and villages. I would have liked to see more about how nothing has happened to the police who killed 13 Arab citizens and wounded hundreds during demonstrations. How hundreds of Arabs were put in jail, including many kids as young as 14, and held without charges while very few Jews were put in jail for firebombing mosques, throwing rocks, and beating Arabs. It would be enlightening, at least for American readers, to see how "democracy" in Israel really works depending on whether you are Jewish or Arab.

a must read for our world today (unfortunately)
God Bless America!

I just finished "Hatred's Kingdom" by Dr. Dore Gold, a former Israeli ambassador and a scholar on Islam and, especially, Saudi Arabia. His book documents the connection between Saudi Arabia and terrorism, including the side-by-side translations (Arabic/English) of memos and official documents calling for terrorism against America, Israel, Jews and Christians. Included in the book is the written proof of Saudi financial contributions to terrorists and actual sermons of the top mullahs calling for jihad. This is a chilling book. Saudi Arabia is not a friend and ally of the U.S., as this book proves. Of course, many of us have known this for a long time (duh), but seeing the collected evidence drives it home hard.

Whatever "usefulness" the Saudi's may be in the war against Saddam Hussein, it is superficial at best. Dr. Gold's book proves that the heart of Islamic terrorism beats in Saudi Arabia. I recommend this book to anyone who cares about freedom of religion and freedom from armed zealotry.

The source of the major terror loose in the world today is described in shocking and sinister detail in this book.
R. James Woolsey, a former Director of the CIA is quoted on the cover as stating, ÒIf you read one book to understand the roots of al-QaedaÕ fury, it should be this one.Ó
This book should be required reading for every high school senior, every member of Congress and every western government official. It should be prominently displayed in every non-Saudi library world wide.
As stated on the flyleaf of the book, Ò. . . Middle East expert Dore Gold provides the startling evidence of how Saudi Arabia not only is linked to terror, but in fact has spawned the current wave of global terrorism.Ó
The Saudi's are clearly not with us.They are not only WITH the terrorists, they ARE the terrorists parents and sponsors.
The book reveals that the perception that a major factor in al-QaedaÕs fury is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a serious and dangerous error.
The Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia have built a fearsome and largely unseen worldwide network which is controlling the riches of Saudi Arabia and other contributions to their cause obtained through supposedly innocent charities.
This sinister, savage, and growing cause has as its principle goal, the elimination of any human being who is not a Wahhabi or who can not be converted to the Wahhabi religion, including non-Wahhabi Muslims.
Wahhabi sponsored and supported organizations include Hamas, Hezbollah, the al-Aqsa brigade and numerous others. They also control organizations still operating in the US.
Everyone should read this book, and insist that members of their Congressional delegation read it and then take appropriate action to destroy these monsters before they grow further.

Gabriel Allon, one of the world's top art restorers, and former Israeli Intelligence Agent, is persuaded to return to action by his old mentor, the formidable Ari Shamron, Head of Israeli Intelligence. Allon has been living in Cornwall, England, working intensely on bringing a painting by Francesco Vecellio, brother of the great Titian, back to life. He is persuaded to leave the Vecellio and return to his old day job, to kill a man - Tariq. Tariq is the infamous leader of a Palestinian terrorist organization, who was responsible for the car bombing in Vienna, years before, that killed Allon's son and maimed his wife Leah. The radical Palestinian now plots to destroy the Middle East peace negotiations, which are presently in high gear.

A French Jewish celebrity model, Sarah Halevy, A.K.A. Jacqueline Delacroix, is recruited to assist Allon. She had worked with him in the past, as his "bat leveyha," female assistant agent. They became lovers, and when the assignment was over, Gabriel returned to his wife and confessed all. Sarah/Jacqueline is still in love with him. Allon blames himself for the car bombing that destroyed his family. He believes that if he had not been unfaithful, his wife and son would never have accompanied him to Vienna, etc, etc..

Having read other suspense thrillers by Mr. Silva, I picked-up this book, hoping to enjoy another terrific read. Wrong! The shallow narrative and dialogue, are scattered and loose. The chapters are very short and insubstantial, and the author rapidly moves the action from Cornwall to Tiberias to Greece to Tel Aviv, Zurich, London, Amsterdam, etc., but not much happens except movement in trains, planes, boats and cars. Little is accomplished except lots of page turning by the reader. There is also time travel, in the form of various flashbacks, which serve to confuse whatever plot there is. The characters are not developed enough to form any real attachment to them. They all carry enough excess baggage to fill a cargo plane. Gabriel, with his lost family and need for revenge against Tariq; Tariq, who hates Allon for murdering his terrorist brother; Jacqueline with her grandparents killed in the holocaust and her unrequited love for Gabriel; everybody with mixed feelings for Ari Shamron. Oye...they all need intensive therapy!

The action and plot do begin to move a bit faster on, or around, page 205. I barely hung-in that long. And even when things do pick-up, the plots and plans are not believable, nor very exciting. I would pass on this one and read another of Daniel Silva's much better novels instead.

I was really excited about Daniel Silva after finishing his excellent WWII thriller "The Unlikely Spy". However, his subsequent books have been uneven - "Mark of the Assassin" was OK but bordered on copyright infringement on "Patriot Games", while "The Marching Season" was virtually unreadable. So, I got scared off from him until my Dad loaned me this pleasant surprise. Again, nothing groundbreaking, but at least the characters are well-rounded and the interpersonal conflicts are interesting. Also, the Gabriel Allon protagonist has the potential to be a good franchise base - the duality of assassin and art restorer has the makings of many interesting reads.

This is my first Silva book. It won't be my last. Within the first twenty pages I was caught in Silva's deceptively easygoing rhythm of writing. With thinly sliced scenes and sparsely evocative description, I soon felt I knew the people and places of which he writes.

"The Kill Artist" refers to Gabriel Allon, a former Israeli agent who has retreated to his world of art restoration. He is drawn back into service to track down a Palestinian terrorist named Tariq. With the help of a French/Jewish model and a handful of others, Gabriel must not only outwit his opponent, he must also battle his own guilt and demons of the past. With memorable characters such as Shamron, the Israeli secret service head, and Isherwood, the beleagured art collector, Silva draws us into a world of suspense and emotion. The motivations of Gabriel, "The Kill Artist," are believable. As are those of Tariq, the terrorist. The showdown between the two is worth every page.

I've long been a Ludlum and Le Carre fan. Where Ludlum seems melodramatic and over-the-top, where Le Carre seems cryptic and obtuse, Silva manages to mix tight plotting and action with thoughtful insights and characterisations. I couldn't have found a better new author. I've already purchased two of his other books.

This book attempts to indict Israel, without basis in fact, history or reality. Beginning with myriad false premises--for example, that the U.S. is now and has always engaged in a nefarious plot to dominate the Middle East via a "client state"--the book quickly grows misshapen.

Chomsky's first strike: His "client state" thesis ignores the fact that, but for Harry Truman's insistence, the U.S. would have opposed the 1948 United Nations partition plan -- and Israel's founding. Through the Six Day War, the U.S. remained neutral and often hostile to Israel, providing no help whatever.

His second: The "Israel as aggressor" thesis ignores the existence and history of Jerusalem Mufti Hajj Amin al-Husseini, who in 1948 promised a "war of annihilation" against Israel, that for all intents and purposes has continued ever since. In that war alone, Israel catastrophically lost nearly 1% of her population, including 600 Israeli civilians captured and mutilated beyond recognition. In total, Israel has lost some 24,000 Jewish and Arab citizens to Arab wars and terrorism, proportionately comparable (today) to over 1 million U.S. citizens. To this war, as Werner Cohn notes in Partners in Hate: Noam Chomsky and the Holocaust Deniers (available free online), Chomsky devotes only parts of two pages, taking events entirely out-of-context.

Chomsky similarly avoids full treatment of the pivotal 1929 Arab riots. To this, as Cohn reports, "Chomsky devotes two paragraphs." His main text admits that in August 1929, 133 Jews were massacred, including a "most ghastly incident" in Hebron, where 60 Jews were killed. Chomksy quotes Christopher Sykes' Cross Roads to Israel.

For the record, Sykes leaves no doubt that in 1929 Haj Amin el-Husseini was likewise a major instigator. A Jewish boy was murdered after innocently kicking a ball into a neighboring Arab garden. The Mufti's henchmen walked about Jerusalem carrying clubs. Unconcerned with "sacred frontiers of the fatherland," the Mufti was "interested in religion.... The enemy was the Jewish people." Chomsky neglects to mention "the goading policy of the Supreme Moslem Council" or its purposeful "driving Jews to exasperation," (Sykes, 1967 Nel Mentor ed.). No, Chomsky relies largely on a single eyewitness (contradicted by many others, whom he ignores), thus falsely blaming the 1929 riots, as Cohn notes, entirely on the Jews.

All that--and the 1973 Yom Kippur War--negate Chomsky's theses, so the vast bulk of his action begins in 1982, with the false notion that Israel consistently rejected "any political settlement" with Arabs. This not coincidentally also avoids such mitigating factors as Israel's return to Egypt of Sinai (including Israeli-developed oil wells and resorts), within 12 years of Nasser's (renewed) 1967 vow to erase Israel from the map. Instead, Chomsky speciously cites a "flood" of letters to the U.S. media in "strikingly similar format," falsely inferring U.S. media and government support for "establishment of a Greater Israel." Good grief.

As to 1982, Chomsky avoids noting that Israel was only then responding to decades of cross-border terrorist raids and bombardments suffered by Israeli towns that took innumerable Israeli lives--all of them from staging areas in southern Lebanon. Rather, he focuses on ostensibly pro-Israel media, including profiles of Jane Fonda and Tom Hayden, whose "state worshipping" he terms worthy of the "annals of Stalinism."

This book, in fact, hardly touches on of the considerable Arab hostilities to Israel over more than 54 years. Thus, Chomsky avoids the critical fourth, fifth and sixth corners of the complex Middle East "triangle"--that render it hexagonal--Arab incarceration of Arab refugees, Arab expulsion of 900,000 Jews from Arab lands and Arab oppression of other non-Muslim peoples, including Sudanese Christians and animists, Iraqi and Turkish Kurds, Egyptian Copts and Moroccan Berbers.

Readers should, instead, somehow believe that a "persistent and sinister" ideological American Jewish plot creates "illusion about Israeli society and the nature of the Arab-Israeli conflict," and presents "the major obstacle to an American-Palestinian and Israeli-Palestinian dialogue." In short, Chomsky's false allegations closely resemble age-old libels that blame the Jews--for everything.

This book was first issued in 1983 by Noontide Press, as Cohn reports, the publishing arm of California's neo-Nazi Institute for Historical Review, whose catalogue prominently features Holocaust denial, Nazi-era propaganda films banned for sale in Germany, hate literature by Hitler, Joseph Goebbels, the late Father Coughlin--and the crème of its choice selections, the notorious Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

The French publisher of Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson, Pierre Guillaume, recounts in glowing terms his 1979 introduction to Chomsky and the latter's independent promotion of a petition supporting Faurisson's "findings" and "extensive historical research into the Holocaust question," according to Cohn.

In "Quelques commentaires élémentaires sur le droit à la liberté d'expression," (Some elementary comments concerning the right of free expression), Cohn shows, Chomsky himself declares that even fascists and anti-Semites may speak freely--but that Faurisson is neither. Chomsky writes that Faurisson is best described as "a sort of apolitical liberal." As freely as Chomsky gives patronage to such "revisionists," he gladly accepts theirs. The prominence of his books in their catalogues does not concern him, says Cohn.

Triangle strikes out at last--by likening Jewish, Israeli and Zionist actions to Hitler's in all 12 of its references to history's worst tyrant (Cohn).

Better Chomsky should call this volume "Hex-again," to make his purpose clear.

--Alyssa A. Lappen

Because many of the other reviews on this site seem to illustrate blind trust in Chomsky, I felt it was my civic duty to give another perspective. First and foremost, Chomsky is neither a scholar of the Middle East, nor of geo-politics in general. Not to say that because of this he couldn't necessarily express informed opinions, but Chomsky, in this book as in many of his other writings, cites selective facts that he feels will support his thesis, while conveniently omitting and ignoring many others that would help to establish a more balanced and truthful account of the Middle East conflict (I am choosing not to give examples as there are so many I wouldn't know where to begin and this is supposed to be a book review, not a thesis. Besides, the examples are all out there for you to find if you so desire - see some of the other reviews on this page). I think this book, as with Chomsky's other writings on world affairs, has appeal to extreme western liberals because it presents a view contrary to that of the American "establishment". I would ask, isn't blind trust in anti-establishment rhetoric equally as dangerous as blind trust in the establishment? If its hidden, immoral agendas you are concerned about, look for them on BOTH sides of this conflict. The United States is deserving of criticism but so is the United Nations and the Arab regimes who have selfishly used the Palestinians to deflect attention away from their own failed states. (Why has none of the vast Arab oil wealth gone to helping the Palestinians establish any kind of decent society for their people instead of funding terrorism and encouraging people who they supposedly care about to kill themselves and others? What would the ... regimes of Syria and Saudi Arabia have to lose if there was peace between Israelis and Palestinians? Everything!) The really sad thing about this kind of one-sided thesis is that it ultimately does nothing to enlighten or bring anyone any closer to a solution. Anyone who really cares about the Palestinians or about Israel or, hopefully, about both, should be furious at how both sides have been co-opted and exploited to serve other agendas. Read this book if you must, but if you are truly interested in a full understanding of a complex conflict, I implore you to read everything out there and make up your own mind.

I am fascinated by the Middle East conflict. However, it is very hard to get reliable information about what is happening out there. Israelis say one thing. Palestinians say the opposite. Whom do you believe? To be honest, reporters such as Thomas Friedman and David Shipler, both Pulitzer prize winners, appear much more reliable than Chomsky. I recommend their books on the subject as opposed to this book. But, first, what is good about the book? Chomsky is very good at exposing hypocrisy on the part of Israel and the United States with regard to Israeli/Palestinian conflict. I am also certain that many examples of Israeli human rights violations that Chomsky cites are true. Plus, I share Chomsky's distaste for those US supporters of Israel who always support Israel's policies no matter what. In general, this book is a very good representation of the views of the extreme left, and so ,in this sense, it is useful to those studying the subject. However, to be honest, I don't really believe Chomsky. I don't really believe him because he undermines his credibility again and again. First, Chomsky implies that the war of 1967 was simply aggression on the part of Israel, something that every major historian would disagree with. How does he support this point? He proceeds to very selectively qoute a few major Israeli generals who suggest that Israel started the war. first of all, the quotes are taken out of context. Second, for some reason, Chomsky never even bothers to mention that Egypt's Nasser explicitly stated at the time that he and other Arab countries opposed co-existence with Israel and desired its destruction ( this is a matter of record). Neither does Chomsky mention massive military mobilization of Egyptian armies on the Israeli border at that time. Why would Chomsky not even address these issues? There are many other instances where Chomsky's explanations are, at best, problematic. For instance, he basically blames Israeli unwillingness to create a Palestinian state on racism and dismisses all security concerns as irrelevant. But why? Sure, Anti-Arab prejudice may be involved here but there are also some legitimate security issues involved. After all, Israel is surrounded by hostile states. Given its small size and past Arab aggression , why would Israel want another state next to its capital? Chomsky is right in a sense that security concerns do not justify gross human rights violations. However, to explain Israel's unwillingness to allow an independent Palestinian state purely in terms of racism and selfishness and to downplay the danger posed by the Arab states who could have probably used the Palestinian state as grounds for an invasion is unfair and misleading. Chomsky also suggests at one point that the Jewish homeland should have been created inside the US. That might have been nice but it could've never worked politically. The US would have never agreed to establish another nation inside its borders. This is the kind of argument one might expect from Hamas, not a professor from MIT. Chomsky also states that the Israelis intentionally destroyed USS Liberty. While certainly a case could be made for this position, there is plenty of evidence (check out ...) suggesting that is not what happened. The fact that Chomsky confidently accuses Israel of this with no definite proof and without even examining all the evidence that does not support his position is troubling. Sometimes Chomsky's distortions are minor but nevertheless annoying. For example, to persuade the readers that Israel's legal system is biased, Chomsky mentions the case where Israeli soldiers buried a few Palestinians alive and got only a short jail sentence. He has a point but would it hurt to at least mention that the Palestinians were rescued? Chomsky does not. Moreover, some of the sources in this book are just bad. At one point, the author states that Israel blew up some Lebanese fishing boats. His source: Pictures in a Lebanese newspaper. Since when is state-controlled censored Arab press a reliable source of information? All these things seriously undermine the author's credibility. If you want more intelligent criticism of Israeli policies, I would once again recommend the authors I mentioned earlier. To summarize, read this book but take everything with a grain of salt...

...

Seriously, [I] read through the book thoroughly [and came] out with the following conclusions:
1) The book is exteremely fun to read (I read it in one night)
2) The book is thoroughly researched (with many good references at the end - including Israeli sources).
3) While each reader have their preferences regarding style of the book, there is no question the reader will a lot. I considered myself an "expert" on the middle east and still learned many new things.
4) The facts mentioned can all be verified .. (of course it is good to do your own research about any book you read).
5) You will come out with a good understanding of the Middle East.

Of course, some of the things in it will seem unbelievable at first sight or extremely shocking, which is natural. Truth is shocking when it is revealed about a subject that has been so misrepresented and propagandized. So the one prerequisite for reading this book is an OPEN MIND and an inquisitive spirit. If, one the other hand, you like others to do the thinking for you, just tune back to CNN or Hollywood and don't bother reading anything.

Thinking myself an "expert" on the Middle East, I hesitated buying this book for a long time, thinking it won't be of any use to me. When I got it, however, I couldn't let go of the book until I finished it from cover to cover - reading the entire thing in one night. Whereas most history books tend to be a drudge, the drawings and cartoons make this book so interesting and engrossing. The humor, which is typical for the "for beginners" series, also helps lighten up this rather heavy topic of blood and conflict. My main surprise with this book is that I actually learned a lot from it, and I am no beginner! It contains almost an encyclopedia of facts about the Arab-Israeli conflicts, and most are backed up by a well-selected bibliography for the curious reader who wishes to embark on his or her own research.

Make no mistake. Some of the facts presented are hard to believe at first sight. They stand in stark contrast to the picture painted by the mainstream American media. However upon conducting my own research, I was able to verify most of the facts that shocked me. For example, the facts about the 1948 war can be verified from the scholarly studies by Benny Morris, "The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem," and "1948 and After: Israel and the Palestinians". The information in "Arabs and Israel for Beginners" about the (1st) Palestinian Intifada can be corroborated in the classic Israeli treatment of it "Intifada: The Palestinian Uprising", by Don Peretz.

Among the shocking facts this book reveals, for example, is the International treatment of Jewish refugees from Europe during the Holocaust, and how every port in the world, including New York City, was closed to their ships, forcing them to go unwillingly to Palestine. In a way then, the whole world participated in creating the Arab-Israeli conflict, but now, fortunately, the world has in this book a great resource from which to learn about this complicated issue. My only regret about this book is that it has not been brought up to date on the latest developments. As it stands, it ends somewhere near the end of the Oslo Peace Process. The author's prediction on the last page that the peace process is doomed for failure cannot be closer to the truth.

Makes an excellent gift for your friends and family. I bought two copies and ended up giving them both away. If you liked this book, you'll also enjoy reading "the UN for beginners", by Ian Williams.

Well, I read many reviews and there are those who feel deceived by the book. I beg to disagree. The author lays his cards on the table on the very first page and states that if this not the kind to book you don't want to read, don't buy it. He plainly asserts that modern Israel doesn't have equality, fairness, and social justice at its roots. He states that he grew up, like most Americans, thinking the Israelis are the guys in the white hats and arrabs the black ones. And through extensive research, he came to the conclusion for the most part, the opposite is true. He documents his findings extensively, quotes from Israeli sources, and provides this reader with answers to the questions I wanted answered. It becomes clear why the conflict is hard to resolve, and what each side sees in the other. I think any avid Zionist would really hate this book for the following reasons. It rejects the idea that one group has the right to something over another based on first! groups religious beliefs, and that the rights of white, colonial rulers, have a greater say then the majority of idigenous inhabitants. I suspect the author is Jewish, as indeed he lists many of his heroes as members of the Jewish faith, and from his Judaism he draws humanistic and progressive socialist ideals, as such he refreshingly draws conclusions that Arabs and Jews are all equals and Zionist Jewish attempts to create an Israel where Jews are the chosen people or master race goes against what he stands for as a human being. Highly recommended.

Too many books about Israel and the Middle East either paint Israel as a flawless sole democracy surrounded by hordes of anti Semites seeking only her destruction; or as an oppressor and violator of the inherent rights of the Palestinians. This book clearly falls somewhere in between; freely finding major fault in Israel's policies, particularly of the Likuds, while only seeming to touch on the Arab nations intolerance of the state in their midst.

Credit is deserved for the Arab nations who eventually did secure a peace treaty with Israel, and for the Israeli diplomats who sought peace even at the protest of some of Israel's elements who insisted that none of the West Bank or Gaza should be bargained away and that there was no Palestinian people (Golda Meir).

Schlaim offers some illuminating insights to the most complex political situation in the world. The aftermath of the Holocaust left the Jewish nation with an overwhelming drive for security, dictating the development of its awesome military. Zev Jabotinsky, one of Israel's earliest figures, envisioned the Iron Wall as a needed step to get the surrounding Arab nations to accept Israel, who would only then negotiate a peace.

Yet it was this military, so important to that security, that alarmed Israel's neighbors and made peace so hard to attain. Schlaim argues that Jabotinsky saw beyond the Iron Wall to peaceful relations, but that some of the current disciples saw only the continuing struggle, particularly Netanyahu. Schlaim was particularly harsh on Netanyahu, holding him singularly responsible for destroying the breakthrough Oslo accords.

The time frame of the book ends just before the current intifada and the dramatic changes taking place today. It's coverage from the War of Independence through 2000 presents a revisionist perspective, that in spite of many flaws will help an open minded reader gain some valuable perspective of this complicated crossroads.

I have searched over and over for an objective non-prejudiced book recollecting the events and issues that shaped the Mideast conflict.The only book I have found that is characterized as such is The Iron Wall by Avi Shlaim. Given the fact that this issue is so complex, and since the factors affecting the conflict include-among others-sensitive issues like religious beliefs, racism and roots; often with an emotional dimension, most writers tend to be on one side or the other, almost always biased. This book is not only accurate, but more importantly very interesting as it reveals the most intriguing details about the people who shaped this history and events of the said conflict. Most books I read are either written by Arabs and so clearly overlooking the emotional value of the land to the Jews, or by Westerners, who always seem to neglect the basic Arab side of the story. I am very impressed by the comprehensiveness of the book. Although Shlaim does not draw conclusions (he only accounts for the background and tells the facts), the book is very 'intelligent' as it helps analyze the problem in a way different from all the other accounts of the Arab Israeli conflict. I wish everyone who holds a biased opinion as regards the Middle East-especially out of ignorance of the complete story-reads this book.

Avi Shlaim has painstakingly gone through the Israeli state archives as well as the public record office in London and interviewed many prominent notables including Abba Eban, King Hussein, Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, and many other major players for this massive history of modern Israel and its relations with the Arab world. All of this massive research and inquiry has culminated in what is one of the most complete and compelling history books written about Israel. Uncompromising in his inquiries, Shlaim addresses the problems that both sides faced during their struggles for supremacy in British Palestine.

Starting with the Prologue, Shlaim begins with an interesting look at the early years of Zionism, which began as a nationalist movement in Europe. Shlaim makes some good points regarding its birth as a response to European anti-Semitism and the inability of some Jewish groups to fully integrate into European society (many exceptions to this existed however). We get insights into all the major Zionist figures including Birnbaum, Herzl, Weizmann, Jabotinsky, and the mastermind himself, Ben-Gurion. The problems faced by the early Zionist movement can be summed in an interesting early statement from a fact-finding mission sent by Herzl, which stated [about Palestine], "The bride is beautiful, but she is married to another man." Meaning that the proposed land coveted by the Zionists already had a population of predominantly Arabic speaking peoples. Here begins the conflict that Shlaim writes about.

Shlaim goes over the relentless and systematic approach of early Zionist leaders to court all the prominent leaders of the early 20th century by telling them what they wanted to hear. The Ottomans were offered money and investment for their cooperation, while the British were given promises that the new Jewish state would be a British colony, and so on. Two forces emerged from the early Zionists according to Shlaim. One group wanted a complete population transfer and a new Jewish majority state planted in the area, while another group sought a partition plan that would give them a state, while leaving some territory for the Arabs. Both camps varied in terms of how they viewed the natives of the area. Some like Jabotinsky, Shlaim contends, basically viewed the Arabs as savages who could be easily removed in order for the Jews to have a homeland. Others were more conciliatory towards the Arabs and sought some sort of co-existence.

Israel was born during the tumultuous events following the UN resolution 181 to partition the region. The new state of Israel had many anomalous problems such as an Arab population that was nearly half the population of Israel itself. After decades of selective political pressure, the new state of Israel emerged as the most powerful state in the region. Shlaim correctly points out that the new state of Israel was not a David battling the Goliath of the Arab world. On the contrary, the new state had a military that was twice the size of the ill-equipped Arab adversaries it faced. Shlaim does a great job in showing what was reality and was fiction. The Arabs were never told to leave by surrounding Arab nations, but fled after hearing about massacres like Deir Yassin and in some cases were expelled by Israeli forces in order to create a decisive Jewish majority in Israel. The result was the Palestinian refugee problem that came to be the biggest obstacle to peace during the subsequent peace talks at Lausanne. The views of both sides by this time had become uncompromising. Shlaim points out that the Arab states opposed the creation of Israel from the outset for the simple reason that it was based upon an undemocratic process that would give Jews dominant political power, while nearly half the population was still Arab. In addition, leaders like Menachem Begin (once a terrorist commander of the extreme nationalist Irgun) proclaimed that, "The partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized.... Jerusalem was and will forever be our capital. Eretz Israel (biblical Israel) will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And forever." So while the Arabs sought to extinguish the state of Israel in 1948 as something they had never agreed to, the Israeli view was that they too wanted all of British Palestine. Preferably without any Palestinians left to oppose them.

The details of the wars in 1956, 1967, 1973, and the invasion of Lebanon are quite interesting as well. Israeli leaders often had conflicting views as to how to pursue different goals that Shlaim correctly describes as Byzantine in complexity. We learn that France and Britain were Israel's main allies during the early years and in order to maintain its military advantage, the Israelis even turned to Germany only a decade after WWII and the tragedy of the Holocaust for arms. Effectively outmaneuvering the Arab states through smart diplomacy, the Israelis managed to maintain the upper hand over the years. Shlaim goes over the political process and interaction before and after the 1967 with great detail in a section entitled "Poor Little Samson." This is a reference to the Israeli leadership's attempt to depict Israel as an underdog, when in reality they had the military advantage from the beginning. The saber rattling of the Arab states is interesting to read about as well. Why did Nasser order the removal UN peacekeepers in the Sinai? To appease the Arab critics who complained that he was "hiding" behind the UN. From Israel perspective, this made war a possibility though. Both sides misinterpreted each other's moves and this led to war, according to Shlaim.

I have compared Shlaim's work with many other books I've read, and have found this book to be one of the more objective books about Israel. It is critical of all groups involved and presents an honest attempt to analyze the conflict using mostly primary sources. I would recommend reading Shlaim's work along with other similar works such as "Righteous Victims" by Benny Morris. Highly recommended.

This new summary of Israeli / Palestinian archeology is presented by two of the most eminent authorities in the field, both highly-esteemed scientists attached to major Israeli universities. The book is a work of popular science, and an attempt to bring the general populace up-to-date with very well-known research.

The conclusions are: 1. Abraham and the other patriarchs had no historical existence. 2. Moses, the Exodus, and all the story of the wandering in the Wilderness, the Golden Calf, Mount Sinai -- none of this had any historical existence. There was no period of Egyptian bondage in Israel's history. 3. Joshua never conquered Canaan. There is no historical evidence for this at all. 4. David and Solomon existed, but they did not do any of the great deeds recounted in the Old Testament. David did not conquer Canaan, and Solomon built no mighty temple.

The authors claim, naturally, that the books of the Old Testament remain majestic religious metaphors essential for civilization, and so on.

But Huckleberry Finn might have a different reaction to learning that the tale of Moses and the Bulrushers was just a made-up story. "You mean it ain't true??"

The plangent question is, "What does the Old Testament contain of fact?"

And I am somehow only mildly surprised to see my childhood suspicion confirmed: that the epics of Homer and the legends of the Old Testament were both fictions, none of them guides to historical reality.

It remains a curious fact that for a period of some thousand years or more, any refusal to believe in these romances could have cost a European his life. There was a long time when men were REQUIRED to believe this stuff.

Wow! A lot to think about. The authors, Israel Finkelstein (Tel Aviv University, and co-director of the university's excavation at Megiddo) and Neil Silberman (Ename Center for Public Archaeology and Heritage Presentation, Belgium), have really put a great deal of material together in a small volume (355 pages). I had come across their names in other venues and become curious. In some of the popular archaeological magazines, their theories have created quite a stir--most notably the proposal that the united monarchy of David and Solomon might not have existed or at least not as it was portrayed. When The Bible Unearthed came to my attention, I decided it was a "must read" kind of book.

My own areas of interest have always been Mesopotamia and Egypt. When I studied ancient history for my MA, I tended to avoid the Levant as too fragmented and confused. It almost seemed one had to have a score card to know who all the players were! I realized, however, that it was an area rich in cultural, social, and political diversity and rampant with change--as most transitional regions are--and I could well understand other students' fascination with it.

The Finkelstein-Silberman work makes these facts abundantly clear. They examine the Biblical narrative from the prospective of archaeologists and political historians. I was first introduced to this more collaborative approach to biblical studies by a recent book by George Mendenhall entitled Ancient Israel's Faith and History, a work that typifies this type of multidisciplinary approach. I was very impressed. Hitherto I had been exposed only to the "Bible as history" approach, which tends to be very circular. In both books the authors start with more recent archaeological data, based on more modern methods of research and more current dating, and with external historical material to make sense of how the patriarchal age and that of ancient Israel as a political entity were likely to have fit the international venue of which they were a part. The results are very informative.

Almost from the first it becomes evident that much of what the Biblical narrative records does not quite fit with what is actually seen in the material remains from the area. When making sense of the discrepancies through a more anthropological approach to interpretation, both the Mendenhall and the Finkelstein and Silberman books come up with some surprising results. Although they do not necessarily agree entirely with each other's vision, their recounting of the events of the period makes abundant sense.

I found the central theme of The Bible Unearthed, namely that the narrative was a seventh century BCE redaction of popular oral traditions designed to suit a dynastic political and social agenda, to be eminently believable. Admittedly this is partly because I myself live in an environment where politically motivated propaganda is an almost daily occurrence and when historical redactions occur with every generation. Still their argument from the material data is impressive and forceful.

Although the authors don't stress it until the end of the book, one might well perceive the activities of the political players of the Middle East at the time as being more of a competition of ambitions rather than of nations. Instead of seeing the populations of the territories as identifying themselves as "Assyrians," "Egyptians," "Elamites," "Edomites," etc. one might rather view them as populations controlled, to a greater or lesser degree determined by proximity, by the individual dynasties on whose "estates" they lived--much as during the European feudal period. Officially sanctioned written histories might be seen as attempting to the achieve political goals of individual rulers, in this case that of the Davidic line in Jerusalem. What makes the Biblical tale more unique than other popular tales is that by post-exilic times, this particular tale had been again redacted to take into account the on-going experiences of the people themselves, something that had not heretofore occurred. The book became not simply an account of heroes and mythical figures, it became a book of inspiration and national identity, perhaps the first time that a coherent philosophy and shared laws had been created that actually did so, the test being that the population survived a sojourn in exile and returned an identifyable body. With further redactions, including the Christian testaments, the work could become a source of personal inspiration. What finally made the Bible a more international book was probably the mass communication possibilities that alphabetic scripts, wide spread literacy, and Roman roads and internationalism created much later. At this time, the book could become a recipe for living with ones fellow man.

The entire episode suggests that the "meme," a theory by Richard Dawkins, was working overtime in this instance. Each redaction of the material created a mental "animal" that was more "fit" to its environment, allowing it to be propagated into the next generation until we have the work in its present form. As the authors write, "The power of the biblical saga stems from its being a compelling and coherent narrative expression of the timeless themes of a people's liberation, continuing resistance to oppression, and quest for social equality (p. 318)." In short a keeper.

Great book.

The fundamental thesis of this book is that modern archaeology demonstrates that the remains uncovered to date in the holy land suggest a much less developed world in early Iron Age Canaan than the biblical tales would indicate. What follows from this is that the supposition that the biblical tales of David and Solomon's unified Israelite kingdom may no longer be reliable and more, that the actual post Bronze Age flowering of culture in the area didn't take place until the development of the kingdom of Israel in the northern hills, contrary to the report in the Bible which tells us that the northern kingdom was the residual portion of a mighty empire, a breakaway tribal state established after the death of Solomon. What does this mean for our understanding of biblical history? Simply put, that the Bible would have been a product of a very different set of developments than the history it reports and thus its historical veracity is questionable at best. If Israel in the north was really the first kingdom, then whence came Judah, the state ruled by the so-called Davidic kings? According to the authors, Judah came later, as indicated in the archaeological record of the area, and only reached its height after the destruction of Israel, its more sophisticated and powerful northern neighbor, had been utterly destroyed by the Assyrian juggernaut. Refugees from the more cosmopolitan, and somewhat pagan, Israel fled into the wild and more inaccessible, and less resource-rich, hills of Judah and this infusion of more cultured people of a similar ethnic heritage led to an abrupt flowering of the Judahite land. In this context, with Judah suddenly experiencing a surge in its population and seeking to assert itself in the region, the newly combined population group, reflecting the rich skills of the new immigrants and their natural interest in the land they left behind, devised for itself a common history, including a legendary unified kingdom under the Davidic kings of Judah to justify a policy of expansion into the more or less abandoned lands of ancient Israel. This, in a nutshell, is the thesis of this book and from it the authors explore the implications for the entire biblical narrative. They weave a convincing tale although much depends on current and future finds in the archaeological tels of modern Israel and Palestine. If you hold the Bible to be absolute truth, then this book will not please you. But if you have an open mind and are interested in the possibilities, wherever they lead, and you're fascinated by biblical issues and tales, then this book is for you. -- SWM