Politics Government Books

Alan Dowty really tries to be objective in this book. But I think that to be objective, one needs to be honest rather than "balanced." When one tells the truth, there will indeed be ugly facts about everyone. But that is all right. The problem comes in trying to achieve "balance" by inserting a few popular but malicious lies. These lies then can serve as a litmus test for some readers, who then consider you and your work to be discredited.

In this book, there is one question I wish the author would have asked more often when considering the Arab position. Namely, had the Jews done nothing offensive in any respect, what would the Arabs have done about it? In some cases, Dowty does admit that Arab "responses" would have been the same had there been no "provocation" at all.

The author begins with five points, none of which I entirely agree with:

1) This is not an age-old conflict.

Although the present violence seems to have started only in the past 130 years, the battle against Jewish rights in the Middle East has lasted for many centuries.

2) This conflict is not caused by ethnic hatreds.

To me, Arabic-speakers and Hebrew-speakers seem to be of different ethnicities.

3) This conflict is not rooted in a clash of religions.

Maybe so, but Islam is often invoked in the battle against Jewish rights.

4) This conflict is solvable.

Obviously it is solvable, but I'm not so sure it can be solved by giving land to land-rich Arabs and by making arbitrary rules against Jewish rights in the region.

5) The core of this conflict is two claims to the same land.

I doubt this. After all, even if the Arabs got every single inch of Israel and the West Bank, I suspect that few of them would be satisfied were Israel merely to move to Jordan or the Sinai (or, worse, Kuwait). I think the core of this conflict is whether Jews ought to have human rights.

To his credit, Dowty does note that the early Modern Zionists saw no problem with the fact that Arabs and others (including Jews) lived in the Levant. After all, the Zionists wanted human rights and justice for everyone. And he shows that one reason why Jews were a minority in the Levant (although they were a majority in Jerusalem by 1880) was that the Ottoman Empire had laws against them moving there, buying land, and building on land. I think those who look on these laws proudly and then claim the land for the Arabs on the grounds that Jews didn't move there are being dishonest, not just hypocritical.

The author does discuss the issue of whether there was a Levantine Arab people 100 years ago. But I think this issue is bogus: the Arabs have fought Jewish rights as Arabs, not as Levantine Arabs. And there is an argument that Arabs ought not allow Jews to "steal" any of their land. But that is bogus too: it would make the whole world off-limits to legitimate purchase of any land by minorities.

There is a mention of Deir Yassin. The Arabs did not like the Jewish victory at Deir Yassin. What is not said is that the Jewish attack on Deir Yassin was close to the very first attack on any town, anywhere, by Jews, as Jews, in well over 900 years. I think many Arabs would have screamed bloody murder about it even had no Arab been scratched, let alone seriously wounded or killed. For this reason, I tend to be somewhat suspicious of Arab claims of great Jewish wrongdoing here. I see the Jewish victory here as part of a triumph over tyranny, much like the Allied victory in 1942 at Stalingrad, albeit on a smaller scale.

The description of the 1967 Six-Day War is reasonable. But it fails to put Arab claims of merely defending themselves in perspective. One could equally well call the German invasion of Poland in 1939 "defensive."

Dowty says that in 1988, Arafat "renounced terrorism." That's untrue. At most, he pretended to say he renounced it. Dowty does point out that the Oslo Declaration of Principles, in 1993, was completely ambiguous. I agree with his implication that this was not very clever and was in fact a fatal flaw in them. The author mentions the 1996 Arab riots over the opening of a door to the Herodian tunnel, but fails to expose these as totally unprovoked by Israel. And while he does admit that the Arabs were the aggressors against Israel in 2000, he gives too much credence to their ridiculous claims that they merely wanted justice!

The author discusses the "demographic problem" in the region as if 5 million Jews are simply too few to dominate 8000 square miles (let alone 11,000) in peacetime. I think that in peacetime, the Jews and Levantine Arabs would each buy at least twice this much land.

The author concludes by asking if this conflict is a tragedy of Right against Right. This leaves me aghast. Would he say that the conflict between the Blacks and the Ku Klux Klan is one of Right against Right? Jewish rights do not preclude Arab rights, and Arab rights do not preclude Jewish rights. In my opinion, if the Arabs are willing to abide Jewish rights, the conflict will be over. There may indeed eventually be more (or other) Arab states. There may even be more than one Jewish state. But I see no need for any of this, and no need at all for a state whose only purpose is to terrorize some other state.

This is an interesting book, but it has some serious flaws.

If you are looking for a concise overview of the entire Arab-Israeli conflict, this is the book. If you are looking for a book that identifies the essential information needed to understand the conflict, this is the book. And if you are looking for a book that gives both sides of the conflict equal time, this is the book. Professor Alan Dowty has done an amazing job explaining this complicated conflict and helping the reader understand the most likely solutions to the complex issues of the conflict.

Israel/Palestine is simply a great text.Against the backdrop of the plethora of highly polemic and biased works,which approach the Israeli-Palestinian predicament in a highly-charged and partisan manner,Professor Dowty's book is an immensely valuable contribution.The book is balanced,thoughtful and insightful.It is based upon a most scrupulous and comprehensive research.The author manages to beautifully and compellingly combine facts and analysis into a very coherent whole, and the outcome is an integrative,clear and concise interpretation of the origins and evolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.The book avoids any sweeping generalizations and wholesale accusations of any of the parties.It is nuanced and sophisticated,seeking to elucidate the core and dynamics of the conflict,which originated in certain incompatible ideologies,legacies and cultural experiences rather than in conspiracies or imperialistic schemes.It consistently juxtaposes these perspectives,and the outcome is a most analytical,well-written and powerful text,which is permeated with empathy for both sides and is based upon a most profound understanding of historical processes.It is a must book for anyone interested in the conflict.

Alan Dowty's Israel/Palestine is simply the best, most coherent, concise, up to date, and balanced introduction to the tortured relations between Israel and the Palestinians available. It is scrupulously fair and even handed without sacrificing analytical rigor. It provides the historical background and dispels conventional myths; that it is an age-old conflict based on ethnic hatred rooted in religion and insoluble because of endless violence. He accurately and concisely defines the conflict as "the claim of two peoples for the same piece of land" (p.4). Dowty fairly relates both the Jewish and Arab narratives, the emergence of Israel, the "re-emergence" of the Palestinians as active players after the 1967 war up to the first Intifada to contextualize his insightful analysis of the failure of the Oslo peace process and its implications. He devotes a complete chapter to an examination of the core issues; territory and settlements, Jerusalem, security issues, and refugees which he concludes with a general prognosis. I quote just one of Dowty's many profound insights: "The lack of attention to one's own impact on the politics, society, and public attitudes of the other side seems to be a fixed attribute of Middle East conflicts. Perhaps the `winner' in the Arab-Israeli conflicted will be the first party to realize how much power it has to influence the internal dynamics of the other side and to use this power effectively" (200).The concluding chapter, "The Perfect Conflict" examines tragic aspects of the clash of right with right and the mutual sense of victimhood. Dowty critically examines the option of a binational state and rejects it as unpractical and supports the two-state solution as the only practical solution. He analyzes the role of the extremists on both sides and the policy of unilateral disengagement in his concluding analysis. I have used this book as a required text in an advanced undergraduate seminar in political science and my students are very enthusiastic about it. It is so well written without resort to professional jargon that it is appropriate for nonprofessionals interested in the subject. I highly recommend it.
Professor M.J. Aronoff (Rutgers University)

This is a truly excellent book on one of the most difficult conflicts in today's world, the dispute between Israelis and Palestinians over what Professor Dowty calls, thoughtfully, "Israel/Palestine". This small volume is as great an introduction to the conflict as I have read in a long time.

The book has many strong points. The most important among them:

1. It is genuinely balanced, giving a fair description, analysis and even prescription to a conflict on which almost anything said is considered biased by one party or the other (and often both!). Dowty achieves a measure of "objectivity" (assuming that true objectivity is beyond reach) by letting each party speak in its own voice. You will not find in this book straw men or cartoonish descriptions of what the conflicting parties allegedly believe. This fairness is as refreshing as it is unusual.

2. The book is very well written, as accessible as poissible, and clearly organized. Other books on the Arab-Israeli conflict run 800-900 pages; Dowty does it in 240 pages. While more details are, of course, possible--this small volume ought to be looked upon as an introduction, an invitation to learn more.

3. Professor Dowty identifies correctly the cause of the conflict as "the claim of 2 peoples to the same piece of land" (p. 4) and demolishes convincingly alternative explanations (myths that tend to perpetuate the conflict).

4. Although this is a brief book, I find it highly sophisticated. For example, the author offers a good, rational discussion of solutions to the conflict (pp. 77-79 and in other places)

5. Despite the space limitations that must have been imposed on the author, he makes good use of maps (without which one cannot understand the analysis) and, in general, his use of sources reflects his expertise.

This is a very useful book for college courses, the attentive public and intelligent readers interested in comprehending this highly complicated dispute. It supplies the historical background without which no fruitful discussion of the contemporary dilemmas can take place. If you are interested in UNDERSTADING the conflict rather than in propaganda (on either side), this volume should be on your shelf.

According to John G. Geer, a textbook account of a representative democracy is that representatives attempt to translate the public's view into governmental action. Legislators are supposed to represent and act on the interests of the electorate. Gere cites Edmund Burke's distinction between `trustee' democracy, in which politicians lead public opinion, and `delegate' democracy, in which politicians follow the public's will. Jean-Jacaques Rousseau believed that, ''the deputies of the people are not representatives; they are merely its agents". He expressed extreme cynicism regarding the British system of representation: "The English people believes itself to be free. It is greatly mistaken; it is free only during the election of the members of parliament, Once they are elected, the populace is enslaved; it is nothing." To the extent that Arnold's theory of Congressional behavior suggests that it is more necessary for legislators to identify issues that could make them vulnerable to challengers and to find the safe margin of decision making than for them to strictly adhere to the constituency opinion in roll-call voting, the US representative system seems to fall under `trustee' democracy, and is antidemocratic in the Rousseauian sense.

Imagine that you are the next president and you want to make a major address about oil. You have all your advisors give you briefing papers and suggestions. That is the way "Freedom From Oil" reads. It has lots of good information, but it does get a bit repetitive at times. Overall, I found it very useful.

First off, if the US implemented an energy plan EXACTLY as described in this book, I think we'd be 1000% (yes, a thousand percent) better off than we are today in 10-20 years. If we'd implemented something like this 10 years ago, I hate to think how many fewer problems we'd have regarding oil consumption and the need to import foreign oil, "defending" the oil supply in the Middle East, etc.

NOTE -- I'd add global warming to the list, but after reading the book "The Chilling Stars" (recommended reading) I'm willing to take it out of the equation for now, though CO2 does far more harm than just warm the planet.

My only issue with the book is that it doesn't go far enough, suggests specific incentives to the big 3 auto companies that strike me as a bailout (rather than providing incentives for ANY company building cars of the future), and misses entirely in some areas (there's no suggestion of helping fund development of biodiesel from algae, as one example).

ALL THESE BOOKS ON OIL AND GAS ARE SAME STORY TOLD OVER AND OVER AGAIN. GOOD TO TALK ABOUT IT I GUESS. BUT...

FIRST, THE USA IS, ERR, COMMITTED TO THE DEFENSE OF ISRAEL. THE OIL IS THERE OR RIGHT NEXT DOOR. THE OWNERS OF THE OIL AND GAS DON'T LIKE JEWS.

SECOND, MOST OF THE OIL AND GAS DEPOSITS ON EARTH ARE CONTROLLED BY GOOFY RELIGIONS AND PEOPLE LIKE HUGO CHAVEZ.

THIRD, TO GET FREE OF OIL AND GAS YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE CHANGE THE WAY YOU LIVE. A LOT.

FOURTH, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO RE-DESIGN YOUR CITIES SO THEY ARE NOT CAR AND TRUCK DEPENDENT.

FIFTH, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO KICK THE OIL AND GAS INTERESTS OUT OF YOUR GOVERNMENT. THEY RUN THE CIRCUS...

SIXTH, TO DO ALL THESE THINGS YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO FIGHT FOR YOUR LIFE. LITERALLY. NONE THESE THINGS WILL CHANGE OR GO AWAY VOLUNTARILY.

SEVENTH, YOU HAVE TO START TODAY. YOU ARE ALREADY VERY VERY LATE...

I tend to steer clear and far away from any type of political book. My disinterest stems from the obvious bias and propaganda that these types of political figures tend to bring into their views and writing. The viewpoint and rambling on and on bores my racing mind. "Freedom From Oil" was written from a completely different perspective and point of view that it took me by surprise. I was fully engrossed throughout the entire book and often referenced previous views and opinions as I read through Sandalow's ideas.

The format of this book was written as fairly short, but highly detailed documents written to the next President of the United States by the various Directors and Secretaries within the President's office. Each perspective detailed the pros and cons of how to eliminate the United States' addiction to oil. The forward thinking approach brings in thinking from all factors which would affect the people and corporations of the US.

These views facing the problem of oil addiction include memorandums from the President, his Counselor, the Secretary of Energy, the National Security Advisor, the Council on Environmental Quality, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Economic Council, with several articles profiling American viewpoints.

Solutions to the oil addition problems are presented by the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of Agriculture, the US Trade Representative, the Council of Economic Advisors, the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, and the Secretary of State. Additional viewpoints include profiles and ideas presented by American citizens. The range of solutions presented include Biofuels, Plug-in Cars, Fuel Efficiency, Coal, Hydrogen, Smart Growth, Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and Diplomatic Strategy.

Finally, a compilation of all the problems, solutions and discussion is provided via a press release and "The President's Speech to the Nation." The format presented in this book not only held my attention but strengthened my belief that all Americans should work toward finding solutions to our current energy crisis and work toward using cleaner fuels and be willing to sacrifice convenience for what is best for not only the United States, but also the world.

In the heat of the 2008 Presidential campaign, voters in the United States think they are experts on what it takes to make a president. Though we voters may be deluded enough to assume that we know what we are doing, author David Sandalow has actually produced a book that seeks to address the issues various and sundry that pertain to oil.

In "Freedom From Oil: How The Next President Can End The United States' Oil Addiction" [McGraw Hill, 2008, 272pgs], Sandalow presents a series of actual policy papers, as if they were going to be handed directly to the next president.

The non-fiction book is broken into three parts in which he sets up the problem, outlines solutions and supports the final decisions. Then, he provides provides policy papers, memoranda to the president, frequently interspersed with profile pieces that illustrate aspects of the issue of oil and its place in our world.

It is a given that oil will eventually run out. It's more likely, though, that climate change will stop us from using oil before it runs out. Sandalow's recapitulation of the problem we face is suitably foreboding. The various solutions he raises, analyzes and sets into their places--in proportion to their ability to help us solve our energy problems--was sobering.

Sandalow shows how cars that are plugged-in are a great idea. They use energy at night when power plants face low demand. Sandalow presents the ideas of biofuels, ethanol, switchgrass and shows how these are not a panacea because of greenhouse gases. He describes the abomination of using liquefied coal--in which a huge amount of green house gases are released just to liquefy it. He reveals the shocking inadequacy of the hydrogen car. (Sandalow doesn't say hydrogen is hopeless but obviously from the book it won't be practical.) Throughout, Sandalow presents these presidential briefing, policy position and memorandum papers in a neutral professional tone, as if they really were about to be handed to a president.

As all of us watch the presidential primary season of 2008 and wait for the left-handed candidates--Barack Obama and John McCain--to be nominated, we are keenly aware of what is required to be a president. Therefore, we actually are quite qualified as garden variety voters [assuming you listen to NPR or watch some news] to assess these briefing papers. We know the issues and I must say it's refreshing getting some new facts to make my personal arguments keener.

To a reader used to a contiguous narrative, the rather disjointed table of contents and the early chapters comprised of policy papers was confusing.

This book is recommended because of the vast amount of digested information it presents in regard to the consumption of oil, our future energy situation and what to do about it.

As we fritter away time waiting for the next president, Greenland is sending rivers of melt from ancient snowfall down underneath the Greenland ice sheet, speeding it to the Atlantic. As we debate raising CAFE standards or bicker about gas taxes, Antarctica is cracking huge icebergs into the ocean.

[ Tom Hunter is a Manhattan-based writer ]

Kraft explains the history of the environmental policies of the US federal government, going up to late 2005. It is a detailed analysis, with copious footnotes pointing to original sources.

The narrative describes a constant tension between the US electorate wanting a cleaner environment and the unwillingness to accept higher taxes or other costs to achieve this. In some ways, it summarises aptly the various federal Acts, in how they were formulated, and the amount of enforcement that went into them.

Other tensions are shown to exist in such agencies as the Bureau for Land Management. Which has often tended towards allowing extensive resource use of its land, in contrast with the Forest Service. The book's characterisation of the BLM may be a little ironic. As it has come under constant criticism from ranchers and miners for what they see as overly restrictive policies.

If you're looking for a basic environmental policy book, this isn't bad. It's got good charts, etc. However, as far as clarity goes, the Rosenbaum book by the same (or a similar) title is better. It has fewer graphs and charts but makes the points better.

A lot of people consider this book a classic on social movements, but it provides no new research, offers no concepts original to McAdam, and sets up strawman opponents. Why is it still in print?

We first used this book in Dr. Skocpol's class in Chicago, & it has become an invaluable resource on how to study social movements. I often refer to it in class--along with other now-classic analyses--and a colleague is using it as required reading this coming Spring.

If one is interested in the dynamics of the civil rights movement, then this book is a must read. Also a must read for anyone doing research in the field of social movements and especially if interested in the processes of content coding using annual indices.

How to Stay in Public OfficeI purchased this book a few years ago because I was running for a city council seat. I was running with no political background or any previous political experience and I was up against an incumbent who had won reelection twice by very good margins. I followed the advice in this book, especially the advice about `Good Voters' and to everybody's surprise, I won! I didn't win by a landslide but the fact that I won on my first try was nothing short of a miracle considering what I was up against. I'm running for reelection this year and will use the advice from this book again. As a matter-of-fact, I'm so sure I'll win, I've recently bought this author's other political book titled `How to Stay in Public Office.'

All I have to say is that I used this book on two large campaigns and won both. It is great!

How To Run would most likely help an aspiring politician and I may yet reference it for a friend's campaign however, the format makes it very difficult to read and the layout is confusing. The author also repeats himself quite a bit. The book is not very interesting nor is it easy to read but, if you want a book the you can reference occasionally this will suit you just fine.

I checked out a lot of reviews of other books before I bought this one, and I'm not disappointed. What's particularly great is that it really zeroes in on the local election with very specific ideas and tasks.

As I've worked on local elections for others, I can say that Thomas clearly knows what he's talking about, and he's taught me many things I didn't know. When it comes time to throw my hat in the ring myself, this book will be my bible.

Robert J. Thomas is not a great writer in the conventional sense, but perhaps miraculously, this humble and unassuming 128 page mini-tome is the best book on running for office that I've ever read. Mr. Thomas gives you the information that you need to know without a lot of filler, and he gears the book to the most likely potential readership - the first-time campaigner without a lot of money, connections, or experience. No fluff, no filler, no frills. When I ran for office in 2004, I purchased five how-to-run-a-campaign books (see my other reviews), and this was the best of the bunch. Thank you, Robert J. Thomas! I only got 1.33% of the vote (Green Party candidate in five-way race), but the tips and techniques offered herein probably saved me from an even more humiliating defeat.

The opening chapters do give a reasonable introduction to the subject of International relations and there is a fairly objective account of the Vietnam War in Chapter 3, however as the book moves on to present day issues such as global terrorism and the emergence of economic blocs in the pacific and Europe you cannot help but notice an overwhelming pro-American bias. I agree with a previous reviewers comment that the subject of international relations depends on an impartial and evenhanded approach and I feel that this book fails in this respect.

Perhaps the 7th edition addresses some of the more overt opinions stated in the book, I personally would not recommend it to any teacher or student thinking of using it to teach political science or International relations.

Got this for a required college course. Found it superbly readable. The authors don't write like textbook authors. They write like reporters who like to dig deep.

If you're a news junky, get this book. If you're assigned it for college, be happy.

I bought this book for my JHU:CTY International Politics class. The teacher warned that it had a bit of a conservative, pro-American bias, and he most defiantly was right. However, while slightly glossed over for the sake of brevity, the book's facts are good. In terms of the political slant, it is less a mater of manipulating facts and more a case of the authors injecting their own viewpoints into the text. As long as you read the authors' conclusions with a slight grain of salt, the book remains quite useful. And towards the other reviewer: The--at least implied--assertion that if you do not agree with this book you "hate America"(which I somewhat resent), along with the concept that you will like this book if you are a conservative-leaning centrist, is quite unfounded. It really is a matter of personal preference. In my class people from all sides of the political spectrum all had varying feelings about the book, more or less independent of political affiliation.

The New World of International Relations is a good introductory book to the field of Political Science and International Relations. It presents information in a general and an understandably American way. It's not overbiased, but is written by Americans for American political views, general knowledge and understanding of current events, etc. It provides a good start for those who are looking for a good start into the ever-expanding knowledge base of Political Science

What I like about this book is that it is short, it is readable, and it introduces the unitiated reader quickly and broadly to various thinkers and models of IR and does so in historical context.

I agree with the others that it definitely has some phrases which are unusual for a textbook. Random opinion, or generally unacademic phrases here and there. This is defintely a detractor, but also makes the book a bit fun.

About the perspective of the author. I personally am conservative and so I was looking for a book which would help me grasp the subject from a more conservative viewpoint than the average fare. However, I would not call it conservative, I would call the book fairly centrist. This book does viewing the world from an overtly American perspective and it also does not ignore conservative ideas such Huntington's "Clash of Civilizations" model of geopolitics, but it is centrist because a true conservative for example, would give pre-eminence to Reagan's place in the cold war, this one does not.

I am not suggesting at all that if you do not like this book you "hate america" as the review below claims. There are other reasons not to like the book. However, if you do happen to be against American foreign policy, pro-UN, etc, this book will definitely upset you, as it did others below.