What are you reading now - and then

[sukumvit boy]

"Stick" by Elmore Leonard
If your in the mood for some light fiction Summer reading that is fast-paced ,complex, humorous and enjoyable than you can't go wrong with any of Leonard's books.
I particularly like this one because it is set in Miami ,where I grew up, so I am familiar with all the settings and local references.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elmore_Leonard

[BlüeKarma]

[Stavros]

Rashid Khalidi, The Hundred Year's War on Palestine (Profile Books, 2020)

Rashid Khalidi has written a superb account of what he describes, and analyses as the six wars against the Palestinians. The first was the Balfour Declaration of 1917, the Second the UN Partition Pan of 1947, the third the UN Security Council Resolution 242, the Fourth Israel's invasion of Lebanon in 1982, the Fifth the Intifada of 1987 which culminated in the forlorn Oslo Accords and the Peace Treaty of 1993 -(Arafat's betrayal of the Palestinians)-; and the Sixth the Second Intifada of 2000, enabling Khalidi to conclude his analysis with Under-President Kushner's policies on Jerusalem, the 'Golan Heights' (Jabal al-Jawlan), and the still-born proposal to end the conflict with the Palestinians by throwing Gulf money at them.

At every stage, Khalidi argues, the Palestinians have been ignored, their rights dismissed, their objections met with ferocious violence. For, as these are wars, so Khalidi documents the casualties- real people, not just the truth. There are times when he concedes the mistakes the Palestinians have made, and continue to make, notably their complete failure to match the diplomatic skills of the Zionist movement/Israel from the campaign launched by Theodor Herzl in the 19th century, to the most recent absence of dialogue with Kushner. But also, at a more 'personal' level, through an appeal to the 'man in the street' many of whom, and in Khalidi's view unjustly, view the Palestinians as terrorists unwilling to negotiate.

This book is unashamedly biased, but such is Khalidi's acumen, he does not spare the villains on his own side, notably the USA, and Yassir Arafat and his Fateh movement, and in the latter stages of the book, Hamas. He appeals for a revival of the core aims of the Palestinian movment as they were in the years following the end of the Ottoman Empire, and an appeal for Israelis to understand who the Palestinians are and what they want, and for Palestinians to do the same, as he argues the aims of Zionism as a form of Israeli Nationalism are not so different from what Palestinians want, but with the crucial point that if both sides insist on an exclusive relationship to the land between 'the river and the sea', they condemn themselves to perpetual war and violence.

There are some errors and omissions in the book -
1) He documents the British betrayal of the Arabs with both the Balfour Declaration and the post-1918 settlement, but does not refer to the Cairo Conference of 1921 that Churchll used to formalize Britain's divisions of the spoils of war, confirm the Hashemites i Power in Iraq and TransJordan, while depriving the Palestinians of their right to govern themselves.

2) He shows no interest in the transformation of Israel from being a Socialist state under Labour in 1948 when this phase ended in 1977 with the Likud's election victory, yet the Ben-Gurion version of Israel was welcomed with enthusiasm by most of the European left and thus an important source of support for Israel and against Palestinian rights. Basically, all Israeli Governments are collapsed into the 'enemy' and their war against the Palestinians of one common source and expression.

3) He admits the PLO bear a heavy responsibility for the civil war in Lebanon (his documentation of the price they paid makes for grim reading, not least because he lived in Beirut at the time).

4) He makes only passing mention of the misery the PLO inflicted on the residents of Jabal Amman in the Jordanian capital, one reason why so many Palestinians as well as Jordanians welcomed the expulsion of the PLO in 1970-71, but could have offered more detail.

5) He makes barely a mention of the Assassinations, the Bombings and the Aircraft Hi-Jackings of the late 1960s-1970s, and the Munich Olympic massacres, which is a major error, not least because at the time it seemed as if 'they' were waging war on 'us'. He even seems to imply these were part of a justified armed struggle without really assessing the usefulness of it, though he does attack Hamas for using the same nihilistic violence in the Second Infitada in particular, and notes how it undermined support for the Palestinian cause across the world, and particularly in the USA, which is seen as an unshakeable ally to the extent that the two States act as if they were one.

6) He is critical of the PLO and Arafat's support for Saddam Hussein in 1990, but does not refer to Arafat's trip to Tehran in 1979 to congratulate Ayatollah Khomeini, and is thus also not much concerned with the growth of a violent Islamism in the PLO, at least not until the chapter on the Second Intifada where the focus is oon HAMAS.

7) Lastly, he claims (on p231) that the USA has never promoted democracy in the Middle East, favouring Israel and the Arab autocracies, yet regime change in Iraq in 2003 was in its origins, an attempt to create a democracy in Iraq that would spread across the region.

Perhaps the most remarkable account, given that a lot of this book is based on Khalidi's personal story, his work for the PLO, his prominent family's library and archive, is the exchange of correspondence between a 19th century relative Yusuf al-Khalidi- a multi-lingual intellectual educated in Jerusalem, Istanbul, Malta and Vienna- and Theodor Herzl. Yusuf al-Khalidi was fully aware of what was happening in Europe, but also the publication of Theodor Herzl's 'The Jewish State', the one publication that may be cited to have created the modern, political Zionism that charts a course to the creation of Israel (though Herzl only visited Palestine once).

Writing a letter, in French, to a Rabbi he knew would pass it on to Herzl, Yusuf praises Herzl's intellect and his passion for his cause, but points out that "Palestine is an integral part of the Ottoman Empire, and more gravely, it is inhabited by others" (p5). He also warned Herzl that Zionism would sow division between Jews, Christians and Muslims, and concluded "In the name of God, let Palestine be left alone!".
It is Herzl's reply that, Khalidi argues, established the source of the violent conflict that seems to have no end: claiming his Zionism would be an economic benefit to all, he neverthess ignores the question of what the existing people in the Ottoman provinces want, because he had no interest in tem, and in the 1901 Charter made it clear that the ideal solution would be for the existing population be removed elsewhere in the Empire (p7).

From this complete disregard for the people living in the Provinces claimed, and with the Arabs (Muslim and Christian) a clear majority, the war against Palestine may be said to have begun, characterized by a lack of respect for the Arabs, a dismissal of their Rights, and the clearly stated intention to use violence to impose upon them, an idea created in Europe that proposed a solution in the Middle East. The tragic irony being that a form of colonial settlement that began in the 1880s, by the 1940s was expanding in Israel/Palestine at the same time Colonial settlement was ending in the rest of the world.

So this is a passionate, biased, but thoroughly well researched and written book, and I hope people will read it to discover what an alternative history reads like, when it is not concocted by ideologically motivated supporters of Zionist Nationalism.

[Stavros]

Margaret MacMillan, The Uses and Abuses of History (Profile Books, 2008 )

A fascinating view of what history is, full of expertly chosen examples, the sort of book that is an easy read on a complex subject. I dont have much complaint, other than to query her description of 9/11 as a terrorist act, given that al-Qaeda declared war on the USA in 1998. The book originated as a series of lectures in Canada, where MacMillan was born, and does not go into much depth, being mostly thematic, but as it can be read at a sitting I recommed it to all with an interest in the subject.

[sukumvit boy]

Reading about the peopling of the Pacific Islands in light of the newest genetic research findings , as noted in my "In search of a stone age Odysseus" thread which indicate that ancient Pacific Islanders made contact with the people of South America and returned home to the South Pacific with South American genes as well as the sweet potato.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1137001631...v_ov_lig_dp_it
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/05...?ie=UTF8&psc=1

[Stavros]

Anne Applebaum, The Twiight of Democracy. The Future of Poltiics and the Parting of Friends (Allen Lane: The Penguin Press, 2020).

Anne Applebaum, who in recent years has published compelling books on the Cold War in Russia, the Ukraine and Eastern Europe, has written a very personal book in which she explains how the friends who attended a party at her home in Poland on New Years Eve 1999, now ignore her, and in some cases, refer to her -and her Polish politician husband- as 'the enemy''.

In doing so, she tries to explain how she believes she has remained faithful to the politics views she holds dear- she is a liberal Republican- while friends have abandoned the 'centre ground' for an extremist politics characterised by its Nationalism and its crude bigotry. In Poland and Hungary, friends who suffered under the dictatorship of the Communist Party in their youth, motivated by a bogus claim their countries are threatened by Muslim immigrants, even the EU to which they belong, have been happy to see the Rule of Law and Democracy, which once they cherished, set aside in order to rescue the country from a fate worse than death.

She thus writes chapters on Poland and Hungary, and an entertaining chapter on her time in London writing for the Conservative monthly paper The Spectator -where she got to know Boris Johnson, Fraser Nelson and Simon Heffer, all three regular contributors to the Telegraph newspaper -and quotes Boris Johnson at an evening meal in 2014-

"Nobody serious wants to leave the EU", he said. "Business doesn't want it. The City" (London's financial district) "doesn't want it. It won't happen" (p70).

There are chapters on Spain, a concluding chapter that uses the Dreyfus Affair to show that the current situation is not unique, with a preceding chapter on the US called 'Prairie Fire', arguing this term and some terminology of the Weather Underground is more or less the same as that used by the man who claims to be the 45th President of the USA. Arguing that from its inception, the Founders were anxious that their experiment might not last, Applebaum argues that it has stood up to every major challenge, but that the crisis engendered by the election in 2016 of a man who does not regard the Constitution as important -he knows little about it other than it restricts the freedom of the Preident to do whatever he wants- could be a fatal crisis.

Throughout the book she argues that when democracies fail, it is often due to internal weakness rather than external attack, and that it is when lawmakers and opinion makers abandon a consensus that holds the system together, that it weakens. She raises issues of Nationalism in relation to legal and illegal immigration, and suggests that a crude Nationalism has appealed to the voters who secured the 2016 victory, tenuous though that was given the majorty voted for Hillary Clinton.

So though her arguments are powerful and supported by evidence, much of it from the opinion makers she once knew as friends, she has not widened her scope to look at long term trends such as de-industrialization, the changing nature of capitalism since the 1980s and Globalization, with an odd absence of the impact on American politics of Barrack Obama's election victories and the problem of Race.

In spite of these flaws, this is a riveting book that helps to explain how people who should know better are prepared to ditch their 'sacred' principles to support a more narrow interest, even if it means supporting the kind of political leaders they once would have shunned and condemnd. I am reminded of Christopher Hitchens, an urbane, literate and liberal man, who was shocked by 9/11 and never the same after it. Had he spent more time in the Mid- East than he did in Mid-town Manhattan, he might not have been shocked. One wonders, in 2020 how many more shocks we must experience before life returns to normal -Applebaum yearns for it, even as she suspects it will never happen.

[sukumvit boy]

Anne Applebaum, The Twiight of Democracy. The Future of Poltiics and the Parting of Friends (Allen Lane: The Penguin Press, 2020).

Anne Applebaum, who in recent years has published compelling books on the Cold War in Russia, the Ukraine and Eastern Europe, has written a very personal book in which she explains how the friends who attended a party at her home in Poland on New Years Eve 1999, now ignore her, and in some cases, refer to her -and her Polish politician husband- as 'the enemy''.

In doing so, she tries to explain how she believes she has remained faithful to the politics views she holds dear- she is a liberal Republican- while friends have abandoned the 'centre ground' for an extremist politics characterised by its Nationalism and its crude bigotry. In Poland and Hungary, friends who suffered under the dictatorship of the Communist Party in their youth, motivated by a bogus claim their countries are threatened by Muslim immigrants, even the EU to which they belong, have been happy to see the Rule of Law and Democracy, which once they cherished, set aside in order to rescue the country from a fate worse than death.

She thus writes chapters on Poland and Hungary, and an entertaining chapter on her time in London writing for the Conservative monthly paper The Spectator -where she got to know Boris Johnson, Fraser Nelson and Simon Heffer, all three regular contributors to the Telegraph newspaper -and quotes Boris Johnson at an evening meal in 2014-

"Nobody serious wants to leave the EU", he said. "Business doesn't want it. The City" (London's financial district) "doesn't want it. It won't happen" (p70).

There are chapters on Spain, a concluding chapter that uses the Dreyfus Affair to show that the current situation is not unique, with a preceding chapter on the US called 'Prairie Fire', arguing this term and some terminology of the Weather Underground is more or less the same as that used by the man who claims to be the 45th President of the USA. Arguing that from its inception, the Founders were anxious that their experiment might not last, Applebaum argues that it has stood up to every major challenge, but that the crisis engendered by the election in 2016 of a man who does not regard the Constitution as important -he knows little about it other than it restricts the freedom of the Preident to do whatever he wants- could be a fatal crisis.

Throughout the book she argues that when democracies fail, it is often due to internal weakness rather than external attack, and that it is when lawmakers and opinion makers abandon a consensus that holds the system together, that it weakens. She raises issues of Nationalism in relation to legal and illegal immigration, and suggests that a crude Nationalism has appealed to the voters who secured the 2016 victory, tenuous though that was given the majorty voted for Hillary Clinton.

So though her arguments are powerful and supported by evidence, much of it from the opinion makers she once knew as friends, she has not widened her scope to look at long term trends such as de-industrialization, the changing nature of capitalism since the 1980s and Globalization, with an odd absence of the impact on American politics of Barrack Obama's election victories and the problem of Race.

In spite of these flaws, this is a riveting book that helps to explain how people who should know better are prepared to ditch their 'sacred' principles to support a more narrow interest, even if it means supporting the kind of political leaders they once would have shunned and condemnd. I am reminded of Christopher Hitchens, an urbane, literate and liberal man, who was shocked by 9/11 and never the same after it. Had he spent more time in the Mid- East than he did in Mid-town Manhattan, he might not have been shocked. One wonders, in 2020 how many more shocks we must experience before life returns to normal -Applebaum yearns for it, even as she suspects it will never happen.

This looks very interesting , I would also like to read her "Gulag:A History"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Applebaum

[Stavros]

This looks very interesting , I would also like to read her "Gulag:A History"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Applebaum

I have her study Iron Curtain: the Crushing of Easter Europe (2012) but I haven't read it yet, and it might be a useful companion to Archie Brown's The Rise and Fall of Communism (2009).

[Stavros]

H.G. Wells The Invisible Man (1897)

I decided to read this before seeing the recent film, and because, though I have read Wells before, I had not read this one. Wells was a hugely popular writer in his day, perhaps because his books are concerned with content rather than form. His writing style compared to contemporaries like Henry James is simple and plain, where Conrad, Woolf and Joyce are modernists whose style is more creative and ambitious than anything Wells wanted to write. And yet he writes about the modern world, and in particular what we might call the diemma, 'When science goes wrong', The Invisible Man being in this regard similar to The Island of Dr Moreau, though hardly original given the status of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein.

If there are some unusual aspects to this story, it is that the Griffin, the invisible man at the heart of the book, is not a nice man, and neither are any of the other characters, as they are either as violent and deceptive as Griffin, or, in the case of Kemp. hostile and unreliable. There is little humour in the book, and I doubt the science of invisibility as described makes sense, any more than Griffin's ultimate reversion to human form. And, while it might seem a great idea to be invisible, it is not, but what motivates Griffin? The ability to move unseen seems to spring from his self-loathing as an Albino, so that he goes from being an outsider in the society that can see him, to being an outsider in the one that can not. He has no place in this world, and his resentment feeds his violence. There is a nihilism at the heart of this book, as Wells offers no alternative comfort to the world of science gone wrong. There is no religion, there are no secular humanist values, and no sympathy for the invisible man - merely a matter of fact view that Griffin deserved his fate.

Yes, there may be a message here about the perils of scientific experimentation on humans -these days we can see how it may work to our benefit rather than be a curse-but I don't think Wells has written a story that says anything profound. In the end, I didn't care what happened. I have no idea what the film with Elizabeth Moss will be like, as there are no significant women characters in the book.

[sukumvit boy]

I have her study Iron Curtain: the Crushing of Easter Europe (2012) but I haven't read it yet, and it might be a useful companion to Archie Brown's The Rise and Fall of Communism (2009).

Yes, those look good as well. I have purchased a copy of "Twilight of Democracy " but am saving it for my upcoming vacation in mid October .