David Ben-Gurion, the first prime minister of Israel, sometimes called "Father of Israel," was intimately involved in the creation of Israel almost from the inception of Zionism. Such being the case, he knew better than anyone else the intricate and complex history of relations between the indigenous Palestinians and the mostly Ashkenazic Jewish imigrants who made Israel their home. Toward the end of his life he became pessimistic about the future of Israel and had this to say about the prospects for peace with the Arabs:

"Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader, I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: we have taken their country. Sure, God promised it to us, but what does that matter to them? Our God is not theirs. We come from Israel, it's true, but two thousand years ago, and what is that to them? There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschweitz, but was that their fault? They see only one thing: we came here and stole their country. Why should they accept that?" (Quoted by Nahum Goldmann, former president of the World jewish Congress in his book "The Jewish Paradox")

Most of the hot air coming from pro-Zionist propagandists is an attempt to cover up, confuse, or complexify the original perpetration inherent in the formation of Israel; the expulsion of Palestinians from their homes and the theft of their homeland. Until this injustice is rectified or forgiven there will never be peace in the Middle East. And as long as Israel continues to confiscate and appropriate Palestinian land in the West Bank and Jerusalem and destroy Palestinian homes and crops with impunity (which it continues to do to this day) such rectification or forgiveness becomes ever more remote.

Most people might be turned away by the title, but the book is only in retort to Dershowitz's book, the Case For Israel. This book, also written by a man of Jewish descent, shows the hard to accept reasons that Israel's foreign and inter-ethnic policies do not benefit Israel. Point in case, or shall I say in the case against, Israel should get used to the idea that if they pull their troops out of the Occupied Territories they will furthermore have more troops to protect the actual Israel Proper borders. This would also allow Israel to reduce their military service to two years, not three years as it currently is, thereby gaining a larger possibility of new youthful Jewish immigrants. Their troops could have less land to protect and because of the odd nature of the borders of Israel proper, they would have more troops able to protect their borders per square mi/km. Occupational orneriness must end, it's not in the best interest for Israel and certainly not for the "stateless" Palestinians.

Most people might be turned away by the title, but the book is only in retort to Dershowitz's book, the Case For Israel. This book, also written by a man of Jewish descent, shows the hard to accept reasons that Israel's foreign and inter-ethnic policies do not benefit Israel. Point in case, or shall I say in the case against, Israel should get used to the idea that if they pull their troops out of the Occupied Territories they will furthermore have more troops to protect the actual Israel Proper borders. This would also allow Israel to reduce their military service to two years, not three years as it currently is, thereby gaining a larger possibility of new youthful Jewish immigrants. Their troops could have less land to protect and because of the odd nature of the borders of Israel proper, they would have more troops able to protect their borders per square mi/km. Occupational orneriness must end, it's not in the best interest for Israel and certainly not for the "stateless" Palestinians.

Well documented analysis of Israel's apartheid and sadistic policies against entire Palestinian populations under occupation in the West Bank and Gaza.

This book by a principled and brave writer like Michael Neumann is another compelling and revealing indictment of the daily human rights abuses suffered by the Jewish state's palestinian victims (christians and moslems alike) on a daily basis and which regretfully are systematically ignored or underreported by the zionist or neocon controlled so called mainstream media.

The overreactions of some of these reviews told me I just had to read this book for myself. It is no surprise that Neumann has hit the bullseye with his book. It feels like FREEDOM of SPEECH, is actually coming back to America - slowly but SURELY! Neumann has written a great book and a heroic book. If you want to go full circle on this topic after reading Neumann's book, then read "The Israel Lobby," by Mearsheimer and Walt. You won't put it down, as it is an eye opener just like Neumann's courageous work. Scholarly and Highly Recommended! WHERE HAS ALL THIS INFORMATION BEEN FOR THE LAST FIFTY YEARS?!

If fairy tales were real, I'd enjoy this book. It is common knowledge that the author is not Jewish, had his name legally changed from Muhammad in 1992, and has never had a positive thing to say about Israel or anyone of Jewish faith. This book is serious humor - and to those who follow the nonsense of the author's "sources' as being reliable, then as the old adage goes..."I have some swampland in Florida I have for sale - wanna buy it"?

This book, written by a philosopher, misses the key points that would be obvious to any historian - or for that matter anyone who lives in the real world. The author writes: "The Zionist project, as conceived and executed in the 19th and early 20th century, was entirely unjustified. ... " That's an interesting view in retrospect but one that conflicts with the views of world community as reflected by the League of Nations and the UN in their respective times. In any case, how will the application of a certain 21st century moral viewpoint to the 19th century help us resolve the conflict? Regardless of the rightness or wrongness of Zionists of 100 years ago (note that actual historians sensibly avoid making such retrospective judgments), both Israelis and Palestinians find themselves in a difficult situation today (to say the least). In fact, as a philosopher, Neumann is smart enough to understand the irrelevance of the historical background. Therefore in order to judge the Israelis, he simply stipulate premises, which, if they were true, would in fact validate his argument. Thus he claims: "Israel can withdraw at will and close its border, Israel can put an end to virtually all the violence....Since that occupation has no defensive or strategic rationale, Israel has no good reason to prolong it." Indeed in the hypothetical alternate universe that Neumann inhabits, this would be a valid point. However, in the real world, even the most naive observer understands that simply withdrawing from the occupied territories will not conceivably end the violence. The violence began long before the territories were occupied (rockets were routinely launched into Israel prior to 1967) and currently Hamas, with the support of maybe half the Palestinian population, refuses to recognize the right of Israel to exist (and routinely launches rockets into Israel). The fact that the real-world situation is not amenable to a simplistic philosophy-based analysis, does not give us permission to ignore the real world.

Professor Michael Neumann's compelling expose does a very tidy job of cutting through the Zionist propaganda that has brainwashed and enslaved America for far too long. It is definitely a Must Read for any American or citizen of the world who truly cares about advancing the quality of human rights that the Israelis have so masterfully striped the Palestinians of and who heartlessly gloat in their triumph...all to the tune of over $8,000,000 a day in American tax dollars!

Michael Neumann is a professor of philosophy at Trent University in Ontario. He writes, "I am a moral and political philosopher: if I have an expertise, it is in moral and political argument." In this brilliant book he clearly outlines the essentials of the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians. He concludes, "Israel is, generally speaking, in the wrong in its conflict with Palestinians. The Palestinians, I will claim, are generally speaking in the right."

In Part One he looks at the Zionist project and its consequences. In Part Two he examines the current situation - the occupation, the settlements, alternatives, possible Palestinian strategies, and terrorism.

He summarises Part One, "The Zionist project, as conceived and executed in the 19th and early 20th century, was entirely unjustified and could reasonably be regarded by the inhabitants of Palestine as a very serious threat, the total domination by one ethnic group of all others in the region. ... The illegitimacy of the Zionist project was the major cause of all the terror and warfare that it aroused." Zionism's "leaders literally conspired to dispossess or dominate the Palestinians. ... It was the implementation of this idea that made bloodshed in Palestine, if not inevitable, as close to it as we can expect to get. That blood is on the Zionists' hands."

The Palestinians were faced, "not with a long-standing conflict between two established populations, but with an invasion conceived and executed by a political movement. No one is morally required to compromise with an invasion. ... Any population may defend itself against the threat of an externally imposed sovereignty."

In Part Two, he argues, "Sometime in the late 1970s or early 1980s, there was a fundamental change in the situation .... Israel's existence became as secure as any state has a right to expect. Its settlement policy was not defensive but a form of ethnic warfare, and, therefore, outrageously wrong. The Palestinians were justified in claiming that once again some sort of violent response was not only permissible, but necessary. Moreover, all this holds regardless of whether the previous arguments hold: regardless of whether the Zionist project was justified."

The Palestinians have no alternative to fighting for survival, but Israel has an alternative - unilateral withdrawal from the Occupied Territories. Neumann points out, "Its willful and pointless rejection of that alternative places Israel decisively in the wrong. ... since Israel can withdraw at will and close its border, Israel can put an end to virtually all the violence. That violence is occasioned by the settlement policy, which is Israel's sole reason for the occupation. Since that occupation has no defensive or strategic rationale, Israel has no good reason to prolong it. Since Israel is willfully pursuing an unjustifiable strategy that it can end at no cost, it is responsible for all the consequences of that strategy. It follows that all the violence, and all horrors of the occupation, are to be laid at Israel's doorstep."

Zionists of course will hate the book, because it questions the very bases of the neo-colonial "state" of Israel. Most Americans brainwashed by constant Zionist propaganda don't understand that Israel was the colonial creation of British imperialism and American militarism inflicted on a helpless people who were too weak at the time to resist. Israel is comparable to the Boer regime in South Africa, or the medieval Crusader States that were imposed on the Arabs in the Near East. In short, it is a ruthless, aggressive and sadly successful attempt to colonize a people and suppress them and steal their territory. So far it has been successful, though finally the subjugated people are rising up, as best they can, to resist their oppressors. The last thing the Zionists want is that you understand this. Neumann's book will help you to do that.

Obvious attempt by hack third string "academic" to cash in on the "progressive"/Stalinist/Extreme Right market by bashing Israel. Whether it's Neumann, Zundel, Cockburn, David Duke or Chomsky, there is an avid market for drivel that would be dismissed as sophmoric racism if the same sentiments were expressed against any other national group.

I bought this book to gain insight into the arguments that others are making against Israel. Here is what I found.

The book's 194 pages of text are divided almost equally in two parts, corresponding to the two items that Neumann seeks to establish:
1) The Zionist project was entirely unjustified, and its illegitimacy was the major cause of all the terror and warfare that it aroused.
2) Sometime in the late 1970s or early 1980s Israel through its settlement policy, started ethnic warfare that resulted in a permissible and necessary violent response on the part of the Palestinians.
This review addresses the first of these two items.

When in the introduction Neumann said "What I will seek to establish is the following:" I anticipated an orderly and logical presentation. This hope was dashed upon flipping the page, where I found that
"Though these arguments are easy to sketch, to fill them out takes much more time and space. This is because so many irrelevant issues are raised, on every occasion when the Israel/Palestine conflict is discussed".
I lost hope of reading a logical presentation a-la the proof that the square of the hypotenuse is equal to .... Perhaps someone can enlighten me on the methods that philosophers use to prove their assertions. My anticipation was a math-like logical exposition that leads from point to point until the assertion is established. Even after I constructed a detailed outline of the first 90 pages, I could not find a coherent thread. In my opinion, this text, by not following a good outline, seeks to arouse the heart rather than convince the mind.

Zionism, according to Neumann, implies that there is a people who have a right to a homeland in Palestine. From page 12 to page 20, Neumann argues that no one, including the Zionists, has a right to `ethnic' Self-Determination. I read an article, in 2003, by Tony Judt with similar arguments bemoaning the existence of any form of ethnic nationalism. Therefore, this is probably not a new argument to most persons in the world of academia. It, of course, does not prove that Zionism is illegitimate; it argues that Self-Determination cannot be used to justify Zionism. However, in using such an argument, one has to show that Zionism strived for such Self-Determination.

A significant portion of the first part of this book is devoted to `showing' that Zionists strived from the outset, in the 19th century, to establish a sovereign state in Palestine. Neumann does this with the use of citations from various sources. I leave it to others to evaluate whether Neumann does it properly and with correct contexts. What stands out is his loud accusation that from the beginning, Zionists engaged in deception and conspiracies. I cannot avoid thinking about the `Protocols of the Elders of Zion' that are similarly used to fan the flame of anti-Jewish passions. Why is this point necessary to prove that Zionism is illegitimate? After all, you could conspire to achieve a legitimate goal.

Neumann `understands' Palestinian violence as a reaction to the impending Jewish sovereignty in Palestine. And what is so bad about that? His answer is that a Jewish state means a Jewish `monopoly on violence' in Palestine. I know there is more to the argument than this brief statement; Neumann goes to lengths to reach this conclusion. It is ok for professors in the universities to talk like this. However, Neumann justifies Palestinian violence at the end of the 19th century based on this reasoning. I find it difficult to imagine that peasants in the 1880s attended a lecture where they heard that the Jews are seeking a `monopoly on violence' and the only alternative is Palestinian preemptive violence.

A significant shortcoming of this book is the absence of statistics. You would think that demographics, land sales, land owners, immigration patterns, would add weight to arguments here; or diminish them. I cannot recall any such statistics and all the arguments are thus qualitative with no chance of real proof.

Does Neumann like Jews? Does he hate them? I do not know. However, it is 99.999% certain that he hates Zionists. On page 66 he gives us a `clue' when he discusses whether Zionists deserve `similar indulgence (as he gives the Palestinians).
"They do not. ... no adult Zionist can be said to have posed an innocent threat. They should have known better. Zionism was no worse than many ethnic nationalisms ... That blood is on the Zionists hands".

If you need to assess Neumann's tendencies and objectivity, consider this citation from the chapter where he concludes that Israel need not be destroyed just because it is illegitimate.
"The mere fact that, say, the United States is founded on genocide, massacre, and exploitation is not sufficient reason to destroy the United States"
This I think, shows clearly that Israel is a proxy for everything in this world that Neumann dislikes and this is why his arguments are not systematic or convincing.

One last point. On page 23, Neumann refers to Noam Chomsky as a Zionist who would justify some form of socialist Zionism. I know nothing about Chomsky except what I read in papers and columns. He does not sound like a Zionist; may be he was a Zionist when he was younger. I wonder if Neumann is being funny, provocative, careless, or all of the above.

This is a poorly written book by Michael Neumann. I am an avid reader and love to read about the different perspectives regarding issues which are important to us today, although this book is not worth a penny or the time. His claims clearly go against reported and factual history, and if I had to make a decision - the land should be the land of Israel.
This is a hateful text with virtually no scholarly support - Israel is the land of the Jewish people and this book makes me lose great respect for all Arabs.

Michael Neumann should be ashamed of himself. As a Jew, this is by far the most disgusting thing I have seen in a long time. Self-loathing, and virulently anti-Semitic, Neumann should move to the Palestinian territories and see what happens.

The only people who can stop jews are jews. That's why applaud people such as Michael Neumann and Norman Finkelstein for hopefully starting a movement that will spread like wildfire. We need it...more than ever.

The book is utter rubbish. Pure polemics, biased predetermined opinions, little of which has any basis in verifiable fact. Nothing like taking a position and then either creating data or misinterpreting data to support it, rather than the other way around. Don't be fooled into believing it. This man is obviously a Jewish anti-semite (oxymoron?).

I always considered myself pro-Israel. But I struggled to see how the West Bank and Gaza settlements could be considered fair to the Palestineans. When I raised the issue with my pro-Israel friends, I was surprised that they were so angry at my even bringing it up. I also found it peculiar that they had so many arguments to justify the settlements, none of which I found persuasive. As I questioned their responses and pointed out how one-sided they were, completely ignoring what I thought were legitimate Palestinean positions, they practically accused me of anti-Semitism. I could not understand why an open discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of each side's positions in the Israeli-Palestinean conflict would make me anti-Semitic. I found it interesting that they essentially refused to answer when asked what they would do if they were Palestinean.

Then it dawned on me. The presentation of this issue in the American media and throughout our society is so one-sided and imbalanced that any attempt at a balanced and reasoned analysis appears pro-Palestinean. So I sought out a book on the issue which went through all of the issues my friends had raised in support of Israel to see how they held up to a more informed scrutiny than my own. This book provided just what I was looking for.

The author, Michael Neumann, is a Jewish professor of philosophy at Trent University in Ontario, Canada. After a thoughtful and fair discussion of each side's positions, his ultimate verdict is that "Israel is the illegitiate child of ethnic nationalism. The inhabitants of Palestine had every reason to oppose its establishment by any means necessary. No one is required to submit to a sovereignty from which they are excluded, much less a sovereignty arrogated to one ethnic group and excluding all others. Given the life-or-death powers of the proposed state and the intentions of its proponents to maintain ethnic supremacy within its borders, the Palestineans were justified in taking the project as a mortal threat, and, therefore, to resist by any means necessary.***It is admirable to fight those who come to dispossess or dominate you rather than flee."

Neumann's point is not to argue that Israel has no right to exist, but that the Palestineans can fairly be said to have given up something if they agree to recognize Israel at its pre-1967 borders, and that Israel could be said to have succeeded even if it permits all of Gaza and the West Bank to become a sovereign nation ruled by the Palestineans without Israeli interference. And that under such a mutually satisfactory approach, peace is possible, assuming both sides agree that peace is the goal. This book showed me that I am pro-Israel, but that I disagree with the ardent Zionists.

I always considered myself pro-Israel. But I always struggled to see how the West Bank and Gaza settlements could be considered fair to the Palestineans. When I raised the issue with my pro-Israel friends, I was surprised that they were so angry at my even bringing it up. I also found it peculiar that they had so many arguments to justify the settlements, none of which I found persuasive. As I questioned their responses and pointed out how one-sided they were, completely ignoring what I thought were legitimate Palestinean positions, they practically accused me of anti-Semitism. I could not understand why an open discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of each side's positions in the Israeli-Palestinean conflict would make me anti-Semitic. I found it interesting that they essentially refused to answer when asked what they would do if they were Palestinean.

Then it dawned on me. The presentation of this issue in the American media and throughout our society is so one-sided and imbalanced that any attempt at a balanced and reasoned analysis appears pro-Palestinean. So I sought out a book on the issue which went through all of the issues my friends had raised in support of Israel to see how they held up to a more informed scrutiny than my own. This book provided just what I was looking for.

The author, Michael Neumann, is a Jewish professor of philosophy at Trent University in Ontario, Canada. After a thoughtful and fair discussion of each side's positions, his ultimate verdict is that "Israel is the illegitiate child of ethnic nationalism. The inhabitants of Palestine had every reason to oppose its establishment by any means necessary. No one is required to submit to a sovereignty from which they are excluded, much less a sovereignty arrogated to one ethnic group and excluding all others. Given the life-or-death powers of the proposed state and the intentions of its proponents to maintain ethnic supremacy within its borders, the Palestineans were justified in taking the project as a mortal threat, and, therefore, to resist by any means necessary.***It is admirable to fight those who come to dispossess or dominate you rather than flee."

Neumann's point is not to argue that Israel has no right to exist, but that the Palestineans can fairly be said to have given up something if they agree to recognize Israel at its pre-1967 borders, and that Israel could be said to have succeeded even if it permits all of Gaza and the West Bank to become a sovereign nation ruled by the Palestineans without Israeli interference. And that under such a mutually satisfactory approach, peace is possible. Assuming both sides agree that peace is the goal. And this book showed me that I am pro-Israel, but anti-Zionist.

Don't be put off by the supposedly unbiased and apparently reasonable reviews that tell you not to bother reading this book, get it and make up your own mind. It is such a shame that it's next to impossible to find in book stores. Despite being a proven fraud "The Case for Israel" can be found everywhere (I saw it last weekend in the "New Releases" section of a major US chain of bookstores, nearly two and a half years after it's release!!) yet Neumann's book has been suppressed, my girlfriend was given a really hard time in some stores when she asked for it, one staff member even asked her disgustedly "What do you want that for?".
Anyway do yourself a favour and read "The Case Against Israel", I only wish more people would.

This is a very well referenced review of this emotional subject. The arguments are measured and compelling. Those who did not like it have succumbed to the knee-jerk reaction of somebody who was stung by a truth they prefer to ignore. It should be required reading for any open minded and honest person.

I can happily say I didn't waste my money on this book, I read a friend's copy. He has since relinquished this boko to its deserving place, file 13.

It contains nothing new. nothing relevatory. It does contain the author's assertions devoid of facts. the author's opinions disregarding such niceties as what the law says and the historical evidence. It reads as just another standard regurgitation of the anti-Israel propaganda that has become so popular. do yourself a favour and spend your money on something else.

Critique of Neumann: The Case Against Israel


On page 6 of the introduction, the author states " . . I do not discuss legal issues . . some times the law is wrong. For similar reasons I say nothing about UN resolutions . . like laws they may be wrong." Since the State of Israel was founded based on the UN Partition Resolution of 1947, there was no need to write the remaining 188 pages to "prove" that Israel is not a legitimate state since, in the gratuitous opinion of the author, UN resolutions have no relevance nor applicability, because "resolutions might enjoin what is right or what is wrong." What the author claims he will "prove," he thus axiomatically states at the outset. I have a Ph.D. in philosophy, and I can assure you that does not constitute acceptable methodology.
From this negation of the binding nature of UN resolutions it follows, in the opinion of the author, that the state of Israel is illegitimate and its establishment presented a mortal threat to the Arabs of the region - again, this is a gratuitous assertion without proof or evidence - and excuses all violence and atrocities as "self-defense" on the part of the Arabs of the region.
Today it is easy to convince one's readership that UN resolutions don't mean much; today's UN is largely discredited because of incompetent leadership and its many failures to reach its lofty goals. But in 1947 - two years ofter its founding - the UN was the noblest and best hope of humanity to resolve issues between peoples through reasoning rather than by making war. Thus, it might have been more profitable to probe whether the human race has yet reached the requisite level of civilisation to f ulfill this hope and, if not, why not?
More importantly, perhaps, to explore the possibilities for the Palestinian people, had they taken the first opportunity in history to establish a state of their own, and worked constructively at building a workable society. One might have asked - if one wanted to approach this problem from a moral point of view, as the author claims - by what authority their leaders advised the people against that constructive course of action and instead, instigating fear and war and hatred, wasted - so far - three generations of their people?
In my opinion, THAT is an inexcusable crime.
In the same overbearing vein, the author derisively dismisses the excellent work of Joan Peters "Since Time Immemorial," which in examplary fashion gives original sources for every factional statement, in stark contrast to the present author who deals primarily in opinion, not facts, and whose 95% of already scant source material is contained in the work of others who are not exactly recognized authorities on the subject.

Anytime I read an article or a book by Michale Neumann, I know it is biased towards his views of being anti Semitic, anti Israel, and anti Capitalism. While he spews out his love for fellow man, he destroys any hope for dialogue in the future with his radical Marxist theories. This book is filled with lies, false facts, and is great to support the ememy. Don't buy it , as Mr. Neumann will profit, something he abhors.

In fairness I haven't read the book nor would I waste my valuable time doing so. Also, I refuse to fill my mind with Satanically inspired garbage such as is found in the pages of this and the author's other books. The author comes across as an insame Jew hater. If my insane brother had not sent me a copy of the man's newsletter, I would never have heard of him. Haleluejah!!

My Savior Jesus loved us, the Jewish and Arab people included, so much he died on the cross to pay for our sin. What the multitant Moslems have done in declaring holy war on Israel and killing countless innocent Jewish civillians bears the signiture of the one inspiring these crazy men in their actions: Satan! Then the Jews get criticized for defending themselves. How would you like someone to kill your innocent child and your friend's child also? Then a short time later kill some other people. Maybe another friend or relative or one of their children? How would you like this to go on indefinately? Would you just stand by and do nothing? Only if you were insane!!

This book has exceeded all expectations of fairness and holds an unbiased view of the impact that Zionism (specifically the European Zionist origins) has had on the Middle East, paying particular attention to Zionism itself as the root cause of violence in the region.

Since this book is written by Michael Neumann, son of German Jewish immigrants and self-proclaimed proponent of Israel and the Jewish people, some may be concerned that the author could lean heavily (as others have done so many times before) in the direction of Israel, often making excuses for military, political, and social ills committed against the Palestinians in the name of "defending a Jewish homeland." What I found totally refreshing was the author's ability to set aside personal feelings and judge the Zionist impact purely on logic and analysis. Neumann is a philosopher and addresses only those issues that warrant a logical discussion. For example, the Zionist reference to a "biblical right" to Palestinian land is given only brief mention since it is a matter of faith, and its acceptance is wholly dependant on belief in the Judeo-Christian view of creation (my opinion-Even amongst religious scholars there is debate as to whether or not God ordained a Jewish homeland, and furthermore whether or not the area currently occupied by Israel is the land God intended).

The author places responsibility for the region's turmoil on the presence of the Zionist mandate but does not advocate expelling Israel and its citizens as that would be a completely unpractical solution. Instead, he seems to advocate returning to pre 1967 borders and allowing Palestinian right of return to areas currently inhabited by Jewish settlers, scaling back on Jewish settlements, and providing an economic boost to promote Palestinian sovereignty. The author believes these solutions will ensure a peaceful coexistence between Israel and Palestine, and promote peace throughout the Middle East.

In the end, "The Case Against Israel" really isn't. It is a case for Israeli/Palestinian peace and a case for the future of the region. This is a must read for anyone interested in gaining a balanced perspective of the conflict, topped off with valid arguments for creating a new paradigm and understanding of Israeli/Palestinian relations.

Astonishing to see Amazon promoting this anti-Israel, anti-semitic book, from an organisation that prides itself on just those prejudices. This book skews history, totally ignoring the 8, yes 8 times when the Arabs could have got themselves another Palestinian state, ignoring the fact that Jordan already occupies 2/3rds of the original area of Mandate Palestine allocated for a Jewish Homeland by the League of Nations in 1920.

This one's easy. The lies start showing up even in the book description.

"The Zionists established a sovereign Jewish state in 1948. Had they been content with that, peace might have followed the 1967 war, when Israel could have backed the creation of a Palestinian state in the occupied territories."

Actually the Zionists were willing to accept the tiny country that was initially Israel, but the surrounding Arab nations attackeed immediately. After the 1967 war, Israel offered virtually all the so-called West Bank, but without East Jerusalem, back to Jordan. They offered Gaza back to Egypt. They did not offer the Golan Heights back to Syria, because they no longer wanted to be sitting ducks for Syria's artillery. Israel's offer of the West Bank and Gaza back to Jordan and Egypt was offered at a price: recognition, peace and negotiation. At the 1967 Arab summit in Kartoum, the Arabs responded to Israel's offer with No, No and No. Israel had every right at this point to annex the territories won in a defensive war, but under pressure from the U.S. and elsewhere, Israel did not.

After the war, in 1967, there was no talk of a Palestinian state in the territories. For 19 years Jordan occupied the West Bank, and there was no Arab or Palestinian clamor for a Palestinian state. For 19 years Egypt occupied Gaza, and there was similar silence. There was no reason for Israel to talk about yet another Arab state when even the Arabs hadn't talked about it.

The whole idea of a Palestinian state was a concept invented by the surrounding Arab nations to make war against Israel by a new method: public relations. If they could make the world believe that Israel was an occupier of lands not theirs, they hoped world opinion could defeat Israel where Arab armies could not. Nevertheless, in 1973 the Arab nations tried yet again, but were trounced, and the war by public relations started to ramp up.

In my opinion, Neuman's solution, "The only solution is for Israel to withdraw, unilaterally, to its 1948 borders.", shows real impoverishment of thought. For almost 60 years the Middle East's Arab and Muslim nations have been trying, unsuccessfully, to destroy a nation that was recognized by the United Nations and which was purchased totally and legitimately from recognized landowners, but it is Israel which must surrender? At the time of Israel's creation, Arabs who were residents and who had not decided to flee (at the request of the attacking Arab nations) were to be given full political rights, unlike, for example, Jordan (Transjordan at the time), in which Jews were not allowed to live. In fact, although there is racism on the part of individuals in Israel, Israel itself is not a racist state. It is the surrounding Muslim and Arab nations who are the racists.

In my opinion, Neumann's book, even if you consider only its Book Description, is trash in the spirit of the anti-Semitc Czarist forgery, Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

A very clear and open minded view on the matter,
the Israel - Palestine conflict, without religious or political prejudices. A must for everyone interested and/or involved in the conflict.

For 54 years there was no seperation fence or 'apartheid wall' built by Israel to stop the human assaults of suicide bombers. But this is the cover of this book and points to what is really going on here. The argument is simple, had Zionism not existed there would be no Arab-Israeli conflict. Had Israel created a Palestinian state, that he Jordanians refused to from 1948-1967, there would have been peace. The entire onus for any conflict in the middle east rests with Israel.

This is an interesting argument. Israel is unique in being one of the few states created by an ideology, rather than an ideology rising out of a nation(rather Zionism rose out of the Jewish nation, but not in its present borders). However it is not the only example. The Risorgimento in Italy is responsible for odern Italy and in a number of other pleace latent ideologies have done the same, creating nations out of loose federations. After all modern Moldova has little historical merit and neither does Kosovo. for that matter most of the borders of the Arab states also arise out of modern ideology, especially the borders of modern Turkey.

Only apparently in Israel is this a problem. The reason is remarkably simple, only in Israel did the creation of the new state result in 50 yeas of warfare. Other 'old' conflicts like that over Kashmir are likely a result of the same. But we do not readily argue that the existence of India is responsible for the Kashmir conflict.

It would be hard to imagine the title of an book about another nation being 'the case against ..' for instance 'the case against Germany'. Therein lis the illogic of this book. A case cannot be made against the existence of a state. There can be no 'case against Japan'.

Even if all the arguments are correct, the solution, the disappearence of Israel as a state, is not only genocidal in its intentions but illogical in its premise.

Seth J. Frantzan

Whatever your view of the middle east and the state of Israel you will find this a compelling and interesting read. Neumann's style is a delight to read and his process is articulate and concise as you would expect from such an insightful person. This book is a must read to anyone trully interested in the Palestine/Israel conflict.

"The Case Against Israel," not surprisingly, seeks to demonstrate that Israel is generally in the wrong in its conflict with Palestine - despite the author's claim of being pro-Israel. His factual assumptions, he says, are supported by respectable historians, mostly Jewish.

Zionism assumes that the Jews have a right to a homeland and state in the Land of Zion (Palestine). No people have such a right; it's racist, besides. Thus, the illegitimacy of the Zionist project is a major cause of all the terror and warfare that have ensued. It began with the use of Jewish funds to buy up land form absentee Ottoman landlords.

After creating the Israeli state in 1948 (Neumann does not explain how this was done - eg. the reader is left with no sense of how fair it was). It then expanded through settlements, which according to the author, were totally illegal. Arab lands were expropriated, their trees uprooted, water towers toppled, and remaining residents humiliated and harassed in acts of terrorism aimed at driving them away. In addition, roads were built to connect the settlements - taking additional Arab land (they were neither paid for the land nor allowed to use the roads), and making travel between Arab cities much more difficult.

Good material on an emotional topic!

If you are an anti-semite and are looking for more "ammunition" against the Jews and Israel, this is the book for you.

If, on the other hand, you like to read facts and real historical data, don't waste your time with this book.

In many respects Michael Neuman presents the most powerful and concise arguments against Israel's domination of the Palestinian people in print. He deftly shows that although Zionism was a minority movement at its inception--as it is today (most of the world's Jews do not want to reside in Israel)--the bulk of Zionist planning and thinking was always intent on establishing a Jewish state in Palestine, one that either "transferred" Palestinians from the area or repressed their ability to achieve political parity, much less control, in the nation that would be named Israel.

Neuman is at his best on examining Israel's expropriation of the west Bank and Gaza and on how acquiring those territories provided Israel with the opportunity to settle the question of a Palestinian state once and for all. Israel could have unilaterally decided that the occupied territories would become a Palestinian state by working with Palestinian groups amenable to such a plan. (Israel could make the same decision today.) But Israel acceded to the wishes mostly of religious fanatics who settled in the occupied territories by the tens of thousands. Neuman cuts through all the nonsense about how Israel required the occupied territories as a security buffer to protect itself. If that is so, why would Israel allow its citizens to settle in area that it considered its first line of defense? Israel's occupation of the occupied territories (indisputably contrary to international law) can be summed up in two words: land grab.

Neuman correctly realizes that Israel is able to occupy the territories, colonize them, and deny the Palestinian people their fundamental human rights only because the of the United States' support, both financial and diplomatic. Neuman believes that the best way to sever that support is by showing that the USA/Israel alliance was born entirely out of the Cold War and continues merely out of habit. The USA, he argues, isn't thinking clearly. It no longer possesses a valid strategic reason for its support of Israel and, in fact, might be jeopardizing its strategic interests by continuing the support. I believe that Neuman's analysis goes off the rails on this point.

In a debate he is carrying on now with Norman Finkeltein, Finkelstein correctly points out that Israel represents for the USA a "stable and secure base for projecting U.S. power in this region." Neuman incorrectly believes that such a base must involve the actual deployment of US troops in Israel (although Israel always presents that possibility for the USA). Israel can act as a proxy force in the area and, more powerfully, as a well-armed threat of a proxy force for USA interests.

I suspect that Neuman believes the USA will never be convinced to sever its support for Israel's dominance of the occupied territories for reasons of justice, but only for reasons of strategic interest. He could be correct, but it places him in the position of making arguments that are not very convincing.

This book offers a great insight into the mind of someone determined to twist and churn pseudo-facts into a fabricated reality in order to support one's underlying agenda. It is rubbish if you actually care about the substance. It is perfect if you wish to learn how to craft a strong argument out of extremely weak facts. You are much better off reading other writings that aren't as one-sided, or if you do want a partisan view, go for something academically rigorous and vetted like Dershowitz's "The Case for Israel." His book is much better written any way. There are other non-partisan books about the history of the region that arevery informative too-
"A History of Israel" is a good starting point. Overall, I would not recommend this book to anyone who cares about truth, accuracy and the underlying subject matter.

The title of Michael Neumanns briliants exposure of the moral,political and historical foundations making up the bulk of Zionist theory and practice, is ofcourse an allusion to Alan Dershowizes much discussed, praised and ultimately ridiculed and exposed (think Finkelstein)book "The Case for Israel".Neumann dissects the very roots of the Zionist enterprise,showing it to be nothing but a quest for ethnic domination and exposing it as a one way street to hell, speak ethnic warfare, leaving a corned and brutalized people, the Palestinians, with barely an option except for armed resistance.Neumanns critique of Zionism is unique in the way that it argues, largely leaving history and legal issues, ofcourse vital to understanding the conflict, aside. However, since Neumann deals straightforwardly with the issue of Zionism and its inescapable tragedy, footnotes packed with facts and resolutions would only slow down his argument.

There are several points, well familiar to the interested reader, that Zionists and their defenders put forward in order to present a justification for the creation of Israel, the neighbouring wars that followed and most importantly the ongoing occupation of the Westbank, Gaza, East Jerusalem and the Syrian Golan Heights. The argument most often put forward is that a Jewish State is the last refuge for Jews from a world bend on eternal anti-semitism. Israel is presented as the last and safest refuge and the Holocaust is given as the ultimate proove for the hatred simmering in Gentiles, threatening all Jewish relations with non Jews.Ironically, following the end of the second world war there was no place on earth were Jews were as threatened and there is still no place today were Jews are so in danger as in Israel.Not only is Israel presented a neccesary refuge, but the moral right of an "ethnic" state belonging to Jews remains even today largely unquestioned. Especially frail, but nonetheless also largely unquestioned is the so called Jewish historical right to Palestine, a claim based on nothing but whim and fancy and a claim that can in no way be called unique to Jews, but which for obvious reasons is left untouched by other nations having once lived in or occupied a country.

The Jews are often falsely described as a People and treated as if they share common interests and goals, goals confidently declared by a self styled minority.Neumann cleary demonstrates this to be utterly wrong. The Jews are no more a people then the "Arabs" are a people, neither sharing a common ethnicity nor a common culture.Prior to the founding of Israel and till today,the Jews living in their respective country speak its language and share its culture. Another baseless accusation is the denial of a Palestinian identity, often labeling them only with a contemptous "Arabs". That there is no historical,ethnic or cultural basis to such a spiteful claim seems to be of little concern to eager supporters of Israel.Neumann demonstrates that the creation of Israel was not a desperate act of refugees, but a well planned, organized attempts at establishing a Jewish majority and ultimately Jewish rule. Most important to Neumann is dealing with the supposed right of an ethnic group to a statehood, statehood established on nationalism and ethnic interest,neccesarily resulting in the complete domination over another group. According to Neumann the supposedly inherent right to ethnic self rule seems only to be a romantic fancy, covering its dark ambitions of dominion and belying the oppression it creates. Palestinians, seeing themselves with very little options to oppose the looming danger reacted predictably. Altough Israel is morally an illegitimate country, sharing its history and treatment of the indigenous population with nations like South Africa and the United States, it logically also share the same right to exist as the aforementioned countries. At no point does Neumann drift into the usual sentimentality when describing this fact, pointing out that it is ironically the inherent right to self defence, nomatter how abused, that gives Israel its "legitimacy". This right however, has nothing to do with the brutalization and occupation of a defenceless people. Neumann clearly demonstrates that it is not the much cited Palestinian "hatred" nor the so called concerns for security,but Israels constant violation of its established borders and building of illegal settlements on Palestinian land that make every attempt at peace impossible.

With brilliance, courage and intelligence Michael Neumann tears away at the last foundations of what Zionist and their eager supporters have declared holy. With much relief we witness the slow but steady crumbling of the wall that agenda busy and unscrupulous people have built around the issue that is Israel. Breaking semi religous tabous built around issues such as justice, ethnicity and religion has always been the mission of the just and Michael Neumann can surely consider himself in their ranks. Not only does he point out the rotten core of Zionism, but in his brilliant attempts to define the heated word of terrorism he bravely hands a mirror to the American public, not afraight to diagnose the moral dubiousness of his own country and culture. Neumanns "The Case against Israel" is not a merely a logical and intellectual treatise dealing with the issue of Zionism, but also an attempt to do his part in clearing his name as a Jew and subsequently that of the "Jewish people", many of them maligning their reputation by willfully or silently aiding a colossal injustice.

I loved this book - Neumann's discussion of what happened and what is happening are right on... but I take exception to his suggestions on the way forward out of this morass. Nevertheless I'm giving this book five stars as it is necessary reading for anyone who wants to understand the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and who wants to get beyond the misinformation and propaganda served up by the American (and Israeli) media.

Michael Neumann did a courageous job documenting and ruthlessly analyzing the actions of Zionists in 1948 and now the actions of Israel today. His honest analysis is doubly remarkable considering he is a Jew, and Jews are rarely so clear-eyed when viewing this conflict, and if they do see and report it accurately, they suffer acutely as they are castigated as self-hating. Thank you Michael Neumann for speaking up so forcibly and honestly.

As one who has studied this conflict extensively over the past several years, and who has studied carefully the work of the Israeli "new historians" - whose interpretation of the events of 1948 is now widely accepted by Israeli mainstream, left- and right-wing historians alike - I can vouch that this book is an accurate portrayal of what went on in 1948. And as one who has traveled extensively and frequently through the West Bank and Gaza over the past several years, I can also vouch that this book is an accurate portrayal of what is going on today. It's a grim picture. Of course, it's a two-way street - Jews and Palestinians are both at fault - but it is a multi-lane highway in one direction, and a cart path in the other.

Binationalism.
Now my disagreements on the way forward. Neumann paints a picture of a unitary binational state and implies that it would be na?ve to suggest that such a solution would work. He assumed that the power-sharing arrangement in such a state would have the two sides as equals, and so there would need to be a powerful, independent third party to act as a tie-breaker... no such thing is possible... and so this binational concept would not work. So far I agree.

But then Neumann loses it. He assumes, by extension, that all binational solutions are so arranged and so damned. But his power-sharing arrangement is not the only possible one. There are other much better possibilities and one that would work is for the two sides to take turns at being in charge. Such an arrangement would allow progress while moderating action as the other side could undo any egregious policies when it comes to power. Neumann built a strawman, knocked it down, and then implied that all formulations of the unitary binational state would be so afflicted. Not so. Of course achieving a unitary binational state is a whole other subject.

The unilaterally-imposed two-state solution.
Having dismissed the unitary binational state, what many think is the only possibility for genuine peace now left, Neumann then suggests that the way forward is for Israel to unilaterally withdraw from the occupied territories, help Palestine become an independent state with genuine sovereignty, and then negotiate peaceful relations between the two states. He says that one can hardly take seriously the idea that the settlements in the West Bank are too extensive and important to uproot - his proof is that the Palestinians were successfully evicted from their land - and he seems to think that the settlers are going to go, almost willingly, as they will be doing so in comparative comfort and peace.

Neumann also seems to think that Israel will behave as it never has before, that it is going to grant the Palestinians genuine sovereignty and will not behave as it did post-Oslo, damning the development of a viable Palestinian economy or civil society. He offers no reason to believe that this cat will change its spots.

He also seems to think that the Palestinians will accept this new arrangement, even though no justice for their dispossession in 1948 or for the decades of oppression are a part of his scheme, and even though the Palestinians have good reason to be skeptical that the Israelis will be transformed into a peace-loving, help-the-Palestinians people.

Let's be frank: there is no way that Israel would allow such an independent Palestinian state genuine sovereignty or prosperity. For its own security, Israel will demand that such a state be an abject failure and hence impotent, exacerbating the alienation.

Back to front process.
Neumann realizes that a binationalist solution - if it is the starting rather than ending point of the peace process - "presupposes the problem has already been solved". He does not seem to realize that that is the problem with his unilateral solution. Neumann suggests that Israel's leaving the occupied territories will end the conflict. No way. Neumann's unilateral approach is damned by the lack of reconciliation between the parties, and reconciliation must precede any such reconfiguration of the political realities if peace is to be the end result.

The big challenge facing peacemakers is to propose and implement a transformation in Israeli and the Jewish Diaspora's attitudes, otherwise is will be more of the same. Unilateral action by Israel, which Neumann points out quite clearly is a grasping and sadistic state, can hardly be expected to lay the basis for reconciliation and peace. Neumann's solution is a roadmap to a humanitarian disaster for the Palestinians, a road we are already well along.

Nevertheless... buy this book, read it, and weep. It's description of what happened and is happening are accurate and stark. Only with such understanding can we move on to thinking about how to achieve peace.

That goes a long way in helping shed light into the complex problem of Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

Some reviewers who give bad ratings to this exceptional piece of work, do us a dis-service by resorting to their typical character assissnation of Mr. Neuman.

Instead of talking about the valid points that the author makes, including the argument by Israel to a right to "self-defense" which it denies the Palestinians, some reviewers here castigate the author himself; which shows the shallowness of their arguments, i.e. they have none.

A good book for those wishing more intimate knowledge of the Mid-East and the history of Zionism.

A huge issue in our times and our world has been the injustice of an the Palestinians and Israelis. It is not an easy issue, either, in America, where there is a large Jewish population. Many Jewish radicals come from families who whole-heartily support Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and are used to being named as self-hating Jews. They are often torn between their own experience of growing up in a predominantly Christian nation as well as being apart of a people who have been persecuted mightily throughout the world, and that experience being used by Israel to justify their imperialist activities in the Middle East. Indeed, American Jews have been known to unquestionably support the actions of the Israeli government even more than Israelis themselves, who are more torn into different viewpoints. This is the experience this book, "The Case Against Israel", was written from, as the author, Michael Neumann, is a Jewish professor, who in the introduction states he has never been incredibly pro-Palestinian, teaching Philosophy at Trent University in Ontario, Canada (close enough to America.)
It is also a touchy subject, because one certainly does not want to be accused of anti-Semitism as a non-Jew. I am not Jewish, making it difficult for me to get involved in this discussion without being shut-down as simply "not understanding the plight of the Jews" as has been said to me. The book, however, is a step-by step logical and moral counter to the arguments of Zionism and the government of Israel. It proceeds in a very calm but very encompassing style. The charge of anti-semitism is covered early in the book, noting that Israel does not represent all Jews and therefore it is not anti-semitic to criticize Israel, especially since the largest population of Jews lives in the United States and not in Israel.
The book is divided into two sections. The first is the argument against the ideology of Zionism, which is grounded in the pre-1947 founding of Israel. Neumann makes the point of stating the incredibly colonialist and imperialist nature of settling European Jews in any land, and arguing that the Zionist leadership saw the people of Palestine as non-existant or undeserving of the land, since Jews had lived there millennium before them (which is countered by stating that no one is really native of anywhere, since people existed in Palestine before even the ancient Israelites did.) He also makes the point that the Zionist movement leadership manipulated many poor Jews to move in the stead of more wealthy Jews. Following the horrific holocaust by Nazi Germany, the Zionist leadership actually placed fleeing Jews in even more danger by having them go to Palestine, where war was brewing between Palestinian people losing their land and the incoming settlers and refugees.
The second part of the book recognizes that after the 1967 war, Israel was in no more danger of being "driven into the sea", and therefore the shift of the Zionist ideology came to be supporting Israeli drives to take more land in Palestine. Many will argue that Israel must maintain its occupation to protect itself against Arab attack, and that is easily countered by stating the fact that Israel has not faced a united Arab world, which is itself sort of a fantasy, in a very long time. Indeed, the utter destitution that the Palestinians face as being permanent refugees in their own land leaves them with little choice but to resist, since it is the natural human need to resist attempts at bodily destruction of one's self and close ones. Logically, one cannot morally support the Jewish settlements which are funded by Israel and US tax aid.
There are many more arguments used by Israel's defenders which are refuted in a systematic rational manner within this book. A quick and enjoyable read, it is mainly based in Philosophy and sound arguments, and the author refuses to become emotionally overdrawn in any argument. For anyone with an interest in the Israel-Palestine conflict, this book is an absolute must read, since it carries some essential basic concepts and arguments that are so simple they are powerful, impossible for anyone with any sense of moral justice to ignore.

Logic Says:
"In theory, it could be that Israelis have no right to live in the West Bank or anywhere else, and that the land they own is stolen. In practice this is not the case, but suppose it were. Well, given the good use that Israelis have put that land to, I would certainly not recommend that this land be taken from the Israelis, especially if the intent were to do so to misuse it. Instead, I'd make the Israelis pay for that land. The land is worth more to them than to others. Why not get full value for it and let those who really want to improve that land do just that?"

This is the logic used by a reviewer above. Forget about the Palestinians who lived there in 1948, forget about the UN Resolutions demanding Israel return to its pre- 1967 borders. Forget about the Wall that they (Israel) disingenuously insist is just a fence between neighbors, albeit 20 feet high, reinforced steel and concrete and divides the West Bank into disconnected Bantustans. Just forget about right and wrong, legal and illegal, because Israel is making good use of the land! The Palestinians were making good use of the land, they were living on it, they did not force anyone off the land so that they could claim ownership by virtue of possessing it, they were just there, living the way their ancestors had, for generations.

Using this logic, I could argue that Germany should be given back Poland, invaded in 1939, because they made better use of Poland than the Poles. Give Zimbabwe back to the white Rhodesians, they were doing a much better job than the Robert Mugabe, whose government is obviously incapable of feeding his people as well as the white farmers that he dispossessed. We could call this new theory of ownership the Best Use Doctrine. Politicians would love it. All they would have to do is invade a country they coveted, improve on it for 40 or 50 years, and it becomes theirs. If they say that they are making better use of it than the former residents, they get to keep it! No need for impartial observers to decide what "better use" means, the new tenants' claim is ample proof. There might be a few more wars as a result of this new doctrine, but politicians love wars as much as they love stealing land, and their wealthiest supporters and client states would already be in the weapons trade, so everyone would be smiling, except the former residents, who don't matter anyhow, because they clearly did not value their homeland enough to make better use of it. What a brave new world that would be!

This is the case that Michael Nuemann destroys in his book. He makes the legal case for the former residents of the land known as Palestine, and pretty much dismantles the rhetoric used by Zionist's such as Alan Dershowitz, who are short on legality and long on the "historical and religious title to Palestine by the children of Israel" argument that plays well at first glance but dissolves under the weight of international law.

Nuemann's book sets out the case for the Palestinians, that they were expelled from their land forcefully, with the stated objective of that action being the formation of the State Of Israel, a state for Jews, set up along Zionist principles. This is historical fact. Unfortunately for Palestinians, Zionists such as David Ben Gurion were not satisfied with the 1948 borders, they were after the Greater Israel, and that meant that the Palestinians had to be completely ousted from their land, by force, and by war, if necessary. This is the crime, and the result is the long struggle that has set the present day Arab and Muslim world on the road to violence in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, in Lebanon, Algeria, Afghanistan, and Chechnya. The fundamentalist suicide bombers, international terrorism, al Qaeda, and the millions of deaths over 90 years of Arab Muslims against Western Christianity are all symptoms of this core issue. The Palestinian issue is the crystallization of Arab suffering from Western invasions, from the Crusades of the Middle Ages to Iraq in 2003. I am NOT blaming Israel for the entire clash between Arabs and the West. What I AM saying is that the Palestinian struggle has kept this conflict between East and West in the public eye, always there, a constant struggle that gave Arabs looking for excuses for violence an easy target for jihad, a distraction from poverty, an issue for mullahs wanting influence and power, a way to get back at the West for past grievances. All of this is magnified by today's 24 hours-a-day cable news networks, and makes the issue of Palestinian rights a centerpiece for Arab anger, and it will remain there until political solution is found.

Logic Says:
"In theory, it could be that Israelis have no right to live in the West Bank or anywhere else, and that the land they own is stolen. In practice this is not the case, but suppose it were. Well, given the good use that Israelis have put that land to, I would certainly not recommend that this land be taken from the Israelis, especially if the intent were to do so to misuse it. Instead, I'd make the Israelis pay for that land. The land is worth more to them than to others. Why not get full value for it and let those who really want to improve that land do just that?"

This is the logic used by a reviewer above. Forget about the Palestinians who lived there in 1948, forget about the UN Resolutions demanding Israel return to its pre- 1967 borders. Forget about the Wall that they (Israel) disingenuously insist is just a fence between neighbors, albeit 20 feet high, reinforced steel and concrete and divides the West Bank into disconnected Bantustans. Just forget about right and wrong, legal and illegal, because Israel is making good use of the land! The Palestinians were making good use of the land, they were living on it, they did not force anyone off the land so that they could claim ownership by virtue of possessing it, they were just there, living the way their ancestors had, for generations.
Using "Logic", I could argue that Germany should be given back Poland, invaded in 1939, because they made better use of Poland than the Poles. Give Zimbabwe back to the white Rhodesians, they were doing a much better job than the Robert Mugabe, whose government is obviously incapable of feeding his people as well as the white farmers that he dispossessed. We could call this new theory of ownership the "Best Use Principle". Politicians would love it. All they would have to do is invade a country they coveted, improve on it for 40 or 50 years, and it becomes theirs. All they have to do is prove that they are making better use of it than the former residents did. There might be a few more wars as a result, but politicians like wars as much as they like stealing land, and their wealthiest supporters and client states would be in the weapons trade anyway, so everyone would be smiling, except the former residents, who don't matter anyhow, because they clearly did not value their homeland enough to make better use of it. What a brave new world that would be!

This is the case that Michael Nuemann destroys in his book. He makes the legal case for the former residents of the land known as Palestine, and pretty much dismantles the rhetoric used by Zionist's such as Alan Dershowitz, who are short on legality and long on the "historical and religious title to Palestine by the children of Israel" argument that plays well at first glance but dissolves under the weight of international law.

Nuemann's book sets out the case for the Palestinians, that they were expelled from their land forcefully, with the stated objective of that action being the formation of the State Of Israel, a state for Jews, set up along Zionist principles. This is historical fact. Unfortunately for Palestinians, Zionists such as David Ben Gurion were not satisfied with the 1948 borders, they were after the Greater Israel, and that meant that the Palestinians had to be completely ousted from their land, by force, and by war, if necessary. This is the crime, and the result is the long struggle that has set the present day Arab and Muslim world on the road to violence in the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, in Lebanon, Algeria, Afghanistan, and Chechnya. The fundamentalist suicide bombers, international terrorism, al Qaeda, and the millions of deaths over 90 years of Arab Muslims against Western Christianity are all symptoms of this core issue. The Palestinian issue is the crystallization of Arab suffering from Western invasions, from the Crusades of the Middle Ages to Iraq in 2003. I am NOT blaming Israel for the entire clash between Arabs and the West. What I AM saying is that the Palestinian struggle has kept this conflict between East and West in the public eye, always there, a constant struggle that gave Arabs looking for excuses for violence an easy target for jihad, a distraction from poverty, an issue for mullahs wanting influence and power, a way to get back at the West for past grievances. All of this is magnified by today's 24 hours-a-day cable news networks, and makes the issue of Palestinian rights a centerpiece for Arab anger, and it will remain there until political solution is found.

Dr. Neumann uses a logical argument to lead the reader to an unescapable conclusion:

1) Zionism meant the establishment of a Jewish controlled state in the territory known as Palestine

2) There was already a large non-Jewish people living in this territory

3) Therefore, logically, for there to be an Israel, the majority of the inhabitants of the land had to be removed by force.

4) Thus, conflict was a necessary outcome of the Israel project.

The negative arguments made by other reviewers below are amusing. One reviewer even makes the argument that Jewish people have the "right to life liberty and property too", as if this is something controversial! Of course they do. The difficulty comes in when one IMPOSES one's rights onto another ALREADY exercising the same rights.

Palestine was, unfortunately, not an empty slate to be filled and improved by settlers. There are people in Palestinian refugee camps who still have the keys to the houses they were evicted from in 1948. This book is an important aid to understanding this difficult topic.

I wasn't hoping my book would win me a Mr. Congeniality award, and I won't complain about the obviously hostile reviews. But I do complain about the reviewer who accuses me of inconsistency ('Inconsistent'). Because he seems reasonable and moderate, someone might actually believe his wild claims.

(...)I by no means adopt a fascist definition of the state; I adopt a definition from the decidedly unfascistic Lawrence Krader, Max Weber and Robert Nozick, one which is quite standard among political theorists.

It is entirely false that I claim for the Palestinians a right of self-determination; I merely claim for them a right of self-defense which I explicitly say is available to everyone, including Jews.

Do I "forcefully argue that Palestinians have a right to self determination because they are a separate people"? I say: "...before the Zionists came, there were a bunch of people who lived in the area. Whether they were called Palestinians, whether the area was called Palestine, whether the people in this area considered themselves a people, Palestinian or otherwise, are all questions without the slightest importance when assessing Zionism." And, 'many pages' on, when I 'argue against the Jordanian option for the Palestinians', I say "Nor does any of this have anything to do with whether the Palestinian