The New Jew Canon: The Truth About Camp David

I am very pleasantly surprised to see this book recommended here.

I would suggest that Helen prepare for a fusillade of invective from some of Jewcy's more provincial readers. Palestineisamyth, would you care to start?  

Someone like me could recommend Dennis Ross' book.  No need for invectives, just thorough historical investigation.  Always a good thing that is, historical investigation.

Ever since I saw Carl "The Truth" Williams get knocked out by Mike Tyson in the first round, I've been skeptical about anyone or anything claiming that is is the "Truth". I've had no reason since then to change my opinion. Whether it be Ayn Rand speaking about the "the truth about Marxism" or Ronald reagan revealing the "truth about communism" or the guys wandering around New York City speaking about the "truth behind 9-11", someone claiming the "truth" invariably spews forth an invective rant or conspiracy theory (except in the case of Carl Williams where he really didn't do anything).

These rants are often interesting as a curious study of the abandonment of objectivity and the use of propaganda and are often useful in understanding the minds and beliefs of extremists. In this light, I too recommend this book as well as:

Reefer Madness: "The truth about Marijuana"

Fitna: "The truth about Islam" (also read the "Truth about Muhammad")

"Why we hate Jews" : The truth about the Talmud

Jewcy's own "Fowl Play" : the truth about Thanksgiving

and of course the staples: "The truth about the moon landing", "911truth.org", and "the truth about area 51".

I've also found that institutes and policy forums with impressive names, advocating causes for which no one would superficially disagree, seem to be growing like kudzu. And the purpose of many is the opposite of that which their majestic titles seem to advocate.  In other words, lots of food for cynicism.  Orwell wouldn't just be turning in his grave, he would be banging on the lid of the coffin trying to get out because there is so much work to do.

The spin now placed retroactively on Camp David of 2000 is a real spectacle.

I have read through all the chat condemning Israel and America's role in the affair and a significant part boils down to the following. Israel held its own belief in its bottom line negotiating stand. President Clinton did not want to push Israel beyond its maximality and because of this, the US is seen, by the political left now in retrospect, as spoiling the hopes for peace by being in "Israel's pocket."

This is nonsense. The assertion that negotiation is defined as giving away far more than a nation can tolerate is pointless. The US is not an honest broker if and only if it can push a sovereign state beyond what it can possibly give. The US can be an honest broker if it stands to share in the enforcement of an agreement that both sides can come to accept. Arafat was rightly condemned for missing another opportunity to achieve something better for his fellow Arabs.

The UN correctly agreed in Res. 242 and 338 that Israel be allowed to have borders which are defensible. It seems to me that Israel is far too timid in telling its Arab neighbors its requirements for defensible borders and what future acts will constitute acts of war that will trigger an Israeli military response. Honest brokers need to stick to Israel's needs to have secure borders and if an Arab mini-state along side Israel fits with this need--fine. Otherwise, given the history, honest brokers are correct to REQUIRE a minimum of peace from the Arab side instead of a maximum of territorial compromise from Israel.

Barak was correct in not wanting his offers to be publicized since it would mean his immediate removal from office. The stakes for Israel are much higher than for the Arab side since there is only one state for the Jews while the Arab need to be free of Jews in their midst is merely a desire bred of hatred and convenience. Life and death for one side, a "moral" victory for the other. What is "fair" therefore must be understood in the context of the conflict.

It is easy to see justification for every US President to state categorically that they wish to defer to Israel's security needs as a pre-condition for peace negotiatons. This is a fair-minded assessment that comes from an understanding of the history of the conflict. Israel has acted honorably and has prayed for a peaceful outcome from the beginning. The Arab side has balked and waged war for decades. An outcome that delivers a reward for war waged in a stubborn refusal to recognize the presence of another people--should be opposed.

Books written by people in love with terrorists deserve to be shamed and not applauded. This is why it took a little bit of guts for proud leftists to yap at Jimmy Carter's anti-Israel rants. The same kind of sanity is required when faced with the "truth" offered by others. Since all Jews, even leftist Jews, have something at stake in Israel's continued existence against mounting threats--it seems a good idea to come together instead of running after people pushing their stories in books.

...is that I agree.

I'm always skeptical about those claiming to have the monopoly on the truth. The Truth in this case, then, is that my working title (when it was my thesis at Georgetown) "Investigating Blame: US Mediation of the Arab-Israeli Conflict from 1999-2001, wasn't sexy enough.

So Carl Bromley, Editor of Nation Books, invoked his contractual privilege and changed it. I also thought he should have made it a hardcopy rather than a paperback. Send him all these rants to carlb at nationbooks dot org. 

Don't hate, celebrate!

Swish-