1 of 3 people found the following review helpful
Fanatical delusionary addled ranting.,
This review is from: Terrorism and Hostage-Taking in the Middle East. (Hardcover)
The title may infer this book is a commentary of hostage taking in the Middle East in general, it is not. It is a one sided anti-Western, anti-Israeli, and in some cases I would propose outright anti-Semitic polemic. As stated on page 38, the aim "of this book [is to] clearly see how notably the U.S.A. and israel [sic] have picked up the British colonial spirit and methods." From thereon in, it descends into nothing more than an apologia for State Sponsored Terrorism of Arab Nations, and attack on the West and Wests alleged use, some of which cannot be correlated without wildly elaborate opinion which reads more like a conspiracy theory than a history. I am not against the anti-Western bias despite my own leanings towards the superiority of liberal ideals nurtured in the West (which the author rejects on page 43), but against the failure to implement proper academic balance, or language. Anti-Colonial in nature, it condemns strongly any Western intervention or role in the Middle East, specifically Israel, with strongly bias language, whilst underplaying and generally quickly flouncing over or outright ignoring the history of Arab colonialism both in geographic Palestine and Europe. The author is also a supporter of a one state solution, one in which Israel does not exist, perhaps furthered by every second reference to Israel preceded by "the so-called state of".
Whilst I am a Zionist and proud, I am happy to read the other side of the argument, but there is no argument, the author states page 46 vis-a-vis the U.N. Resolution 3379 denouncing Zionism as racism, "I agree totally with calling zionism a 'satanic religion'", of course 3379 was revoked in 1991 the year following publication. The author continuously switches, in the same page, paragraph, and sometimes sentence, the word 'Jews', 'Zionist', and 'Israel' when referencing one, identifying them all as one and the same, ergo also smears Jews under the harsh language employed.
It is also worth mentioning the author makes it clear through numerous references in his support for the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion as a factual and credible historical document, the documents of which have been proven fraudulently beyond question, the author states "'World Conquest Through World Goverment: Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion' is starting to come true".
Furthermore despite the author being Arab, there is also racism against fellow Arabs, the same type that can be heard which perpetuated Arab on Arab bloodshed across the Middle East, page 47, the 'Arab who has a different form of thinking, who still thinks with an agricultural mentality', really? This is just getting silly now, either fellow Arabs are incapable or outright unable to think for themselves in the eyes of the author.
Furthermore, the author, probably thinking himself smart in his employment of language, does so poorly and obviously, in an attempt to incriminate the West and Britain he provides a number of documents substantiating the 'hostage-taking' of a number of Christian and Muslim citizens in the Middle East during the Mandate, of course trying to redefine the term prisoner, with little or no reference to the reasons for imprisonment in the first place -- he probably feels the need to staunchly defend his father who was imprisoned by the British after he fought against Israel in the 'Arab zionist' war of 1948. This is somewhat baffling, the author has a love of quoting U.N. Resolutions throughout (believing argument ad populum establishes moral right), whilst admiring his father for attempting to defy the U.N. Resolution which legally established the State of Israel, after all, Israel accepted the Partition Plan, even if unfavorably after the previous splintering of Transjordan as an Arab State, the Arab States and his father, didn't.
This work is a joke, and a bad joke at that. It treats the West with contempt, treating it by its worst moments, whilst treating the Arab World by its highest. There is no balance, and dishonesty throughout. Redefinition and application of words to suit the authors poorly constructed arguments. It is nothing more than a heavily bias, paradoxical, fallacious, contradictory, historically weak, protracted diatribe based on altogether abstract grounds and conjecture.