Shop now Shop now Shop All Amazon Fashion Summer Savings Up to 25% Off Shop now Cloud Drive Photos Learn More Shop now Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Oasis Learn more Shop now Learn more
Customer Review

66 of 97 people found the following review helpful
1.0 out of 5 stars Corollary to Peters, 17 Feb. 2004
This review is from: From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict Over Palestine (Paperback)
The vastly varying opinions already displayed by reviewers of this book lead me to believe that my considered opinion will do little to convince a prospective buyer either way. Rather I am writing simply to suggest the antidote for Peters' work, or at least inform people who found it convincing that there has been a good deal of work on the accuracy of Peter's data collection, methodology and conclusions. Foremost in this field is the work of Norman G. Finkelstein, who initially exposed the fraudulent nature of Peters' claims and whose intricate and biting commentary can be found in his collection - 'Image and Reality of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict'. So just read that too if you're gonna read this. Its only a chapter so you can get it out of the Library. Incidently Peters hasn't been heard from since the storm over her methods and conclusions erupted.
in peace
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

[Add comment]
Post a comment
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Amazon will display this name with all your submissions, including reviews and discussion posts. (Learn more)
Name:
Badge:
This badge will be assigned to you and will appear along with your name.
There was an error. Please try again.
Please see the full guidelines ">here.

Official Comment

As a representative of this product you can post one Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
The following name and badge will be shown with this comment:
 (edit name)
After clicking on the Post button you will be asked to create your public name, which will be shown with all your contributions.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.  Learn more
Otherwise, you can still post a regular comment on this review.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
 
System timed out

We were unable to verify whether you represent the product. Please try again later, or retry now. Otherwise you can post a regular comment.

Since you previously posted an Official Comment, this comment will appear in the comment section below. You also have the option to edit your Official Comment.   Learn more
The maximum number of Official Comments have been posted. This comment will appear in the comment section below.   Learn more
Prompts for sign-in
  [Cancel]

Comments

Track comments by e-mail
Tracked by 1 customer

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-7 of 7 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 28 Jun 2010 16:12:03 BDT
Emess Always says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 3 Aug 2010 21:34:40 BDT
Perhaps. But you offer no grounds to doubt Finkelstein. Just an assertion that citing him as a counter-point is a joke. His essay on 'From Time Immemorial' is careful and well-documented. If it is wrong, it will be very easy to write a refutation, or point out where the specific claims about Peters' work are incorrect. Shouting about LADIES and WOLVES will not answer those claims. The point about 'wasting one's energy' is to convince intelligent and reasonable people of your arguments. If Peters has no interest in doing that, then she has no interest in knowledge or truth.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Sep 2011 13:07:09 BDT
Terpsichore says:
To Emess Always

Your comment on another review of this book reveals that you hadn't read it at the time you expressed these opinions. Have you read it yet?

Posted on 30 Oct 2011 13:18:48 GMT
There is one Historical fact that is undeniable (though I do not know if it is mentioned by this author), and supported by documenation. This is that the Arab Muslim presence in the Holy land dates back to the 7th century when this land was invaded and conquered by them, along with most of the Middle East and North Africa. This invasion is a fact of History.

Posted on 26 Oct 2012 09:59:27 BDT
Its intersting that Peters just displays facts and documents, whcih so enrage Finkelstein that he went on a rampage of make believe

Thats the problem, Joan went as an anti-Israel left winger, learnt the truth and now beleives the opposite

She is the biggest problem the left and anti-zionists have, as she exposes the paucity of their arguments

I don't believe people who have written negative comments like this have ever read the book

In reply to an earlier post on 4 Nov 2013 10:39:06 GMT
Last edited by the author on 4 Nov 2013 10:41:42 GMT
Emess Always says:
To Pablo K. Yes, some people might be intelligent but reasonable, that I doubt. I would suggest you read "United in Hate" by Jamie Glazov. It's an absolute eye-opener!

Posted on 26 Feb 2016 11:33:31 GMT
Looked at this issue in some detail. I think one of the clues to those posting inaccurately (in terms of stats and other comments) is usually their use of emotive language... land theft... ethnic cleansing, etc. When we boil down and look at the UNSCOP stats and how and why they arrived at the decision they did, we see something else entirely:

Actually, whether or not Peters' book is entirely accurate (and I'm sure the Arab influx was a factor, but perhaps not as high as she suggests), it becomes an entirely moot point when we look at how the UNSCOP calculations for a partition plan were devised. Further, we see that these various 'Middle East scholars', have in fact been mainly from an archly pro-Palestinian camp and have been pushing a 93% Arab 7% Jewish ownership all along -- which is entirely false and proven to be so even by UNSCOP's calculations, who took several months with a large teams taking into account every available statistic and factor. So if these various 'Middle East scholars' can't get even a fundamental statistic right, then they're not really in a position to question Mrs Peters' stats. Where most of these statistical assumptions fall down is in not calculating the high proportion of state land, which stood at 70% through both the Ottoman and British Mandate period (and wasn't allocated to any private parties, Arab or Jewish); then in addition the fact that 500,000 Arabs (of the 1,200,000 resident originally 41.6% of the Arab population), actually stayed in Israel. So there was no land theft at all in their cases, and indeed the total of 60.3% is slightly more than the UNSCOP final calculations for the split.

This is all explained in detail in this final commentary note in foreign policy journal debate:

No, the land ownership stats were not reflected accurately in your claims. The 'Arab' land ownership was not the 93% remaining, it was 18%, including 7% from outside Arab parties. And 7% Jewish ownership. The balance was owned by the State. First Ottoman, then British (under their mandate). So at the final point of land transfer, it was actually British owned, not Arab.

Even if we were to follow your argument that the land owned by the state should automatically devolve to the people living and working the land, then according to UNSCOP the Jewish population was 32% of the total people there at the time of their 1947-48 census. So that would mean -- according to your very own rationale and argument -- that 32% would automatically devolve to the Jews and 68% to Arabs (since that was the population split at the time).

So either way that we bake this cake, there is a serious statistical flaw in the way that the 'Palestinian-case' figures have been developed; because by automatically listing all of the state-owned land as theirs - rather than it being up to the state how it was allocated, or at the very least allocated proportionately according to the population at the time - this then gives a very inaccurate representation.

And while Joan Peters' stats might be in question (even aside from her long research on the subject), and perhaps Arab immigration wasn't as high as she suggests -- when we see that those questioning her are guilty of a very serious fundamental flaw in deriving their own statistics, we begin to question their own validity in challenging Joan Peters' stats. Though actually where I derived my information was from the pdf linked document I sent you earlier.

When we also consider that 500,000 Arabs remained within Israel (of the total original 1.2 million) and now count themselves as Israeli citizens (often proudly, and that population has now grown to 1.7 million people), that constitutes 41.6 of the total Arab population at the time of partition. So if we add to the Jewish population of 32% an Arab contingent that represented 41.6% of the remaining 68%, which equals 28.3% - we get a total of 60.3%. This total is then slightly more than the 55% land allocation decided upon by UNSCOP in their calculation (and actually is not far from any final green-line division decided between Israel and Palestine). So from that we can then see their reasoning in reaching those figures (I'm sure they didn't just calculate the division arbitrarily or without reasonable and considered thought, as has been suggested).

So actually, rather than the 93% claimed by your statistics, we see a figure that is wholly different, because apart from you not allocating the state land proportionately between all those living and working the land (your words and suggestion, I might add), you have not taken into account at all the large Arab contingent who remained within Israel (by choice or default) -- which brings the representative land total allocation for Israelis (between Jews and Arabs finally residing there) to some 60.3%.

Which would actually mean that despite all your cries of dispossession, and land-theft and 'ethnic cleansing' on a massive scale, the final stats show something else entirely. That these were nothing like the proportions you claim. And while there might indeed have been large movements of people during this troublesome period (as there was in the partition of India-Pakistan), the massive land theft claims don't hold water at all -- since as we see the proportion ended up with by the Israeli contingent (Jews plus Arabs who later became Israeli citizens) is not far different to the geographical split that transpired after 1948 -- indeed is a figure 5% more than the total decided by UNSCOP.

And all of this even aside from the fact that much of the Israeli land, some 70%, comprised the Negev desert, which was infertile and required far more work and effort to cultivate. Given all of this, you could actually argue that the Israeli side did not fare that well in the UNSCOP plan.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›