[Read] ♭ A Concise History of the Middle East ♤ Opel-rallye.de

Not a fan. Arab PropagandaWhile the authors don t lie about the facts, they take every opportunity to shade their comments to paint Muslims in general and Arabs in particular as victims with valid grievances This is most glaring in their coverage of the Arab Israeli conflict but also extends to other Arab enemies of the West They are without exception given positive coverage and their behavior is always excused.Bin Ladin s description makes a point of mentioning that he personally participated in fighting against the Soviets in Afghanistan, so that we can appreciate that he had courage and thus admire him When discussing Saddam s invasion of Kuwait, a lengthy list of grievances he had against Kuwait is listed so that a reader can almost believe that invading Kuwait was the reasonable thing to do On the other hand, Saddam s poison gassing the Kurds in the 80 s is mentioned in a passing in a single sentence, Meanwhile,Saddam s regime was condemned by the Americans and some Europeans as a military dictatorship that invaded its neighbors, murdered politic dissidents by the thousands, killed some of its Kurdish citizens with poison gas, and hoped to retain or to develop weapons of mass destruction The authors seem to imply that his atrocities were not really facts but only rumors spread by his American enemies.On the other hand, Israel and its leaders, if they are commented upon, are given negative press Ben Gurion, Israel s first leader, is described as having a combative manner, called amoral and quoted If I were an Arab leader, I would never make terms with Israel Amoral is used nowhere else in the book, which perforce describes numerous Arab dictators and terrorists, who, as it turns out, were much moral than Ben Gurion When discussing the Six Day War, the authors find somebody on the Israeli side to quote to the effect that Israel didn t really have proof that Egypt and Syria were going to attack it when it launched its preemptive strike On the other hand, when discussing Yom Kippur War, the book makes excuses for the Arabs sneak attacked Israel on the holiest day of the year for Jews We are told that they didn t really mean to attack on that day and, anyway, it only helped Israel, because it made it easier to call up reservists These kind of excuses might be laughable when trotted out by a child in trouble for getting into a fight, but are infuriating when read in a textbook American leaders and diplomats are mentioned neutrally and in passing until we get to Bush and the neo cons, who we are told were spreading American influence and dominance, which they called freedom and democracy The book uncritically reports the exaggerated claims of a million civilian victims of Bush s Iraq war, and even claims that Clinton s blockade of Iraq also caused a million deaths The authors don t even try to hide their biases.The choice of material included in the book also clearly shows that its intended as pro Arab pro Muslim propaganda This history of the Middle East starts with the prophet Muhammad, briefly reviews everything that happened until around the 19th century, and only starts going into detail once the dominant theme of the events becomes Muslim struggle against Western civilization The Muslim countries from Egypt eastward up to Iran are then covered extensively through the last century and a half, with one obvious exception Israel is only mentioned when it acts as an enemy of the Arabs Whatever Israelis were doing when not fighting their enemies, their culture, their politics, their technological achievements are apparently not worthy of mention The authors see Israel strictly through the Arab perspective of Jew equals boogeyman.What is most ironic is that, judging by their names, the book is written by two Jews I guess the best Arab propagandist is a guilt ridden Jew. [Read] ♹ A Concise History of the Middle East ☣ An Introduction To The History Of This Turbulent Region From The Beginnings Of Islam To The Present Day, This Widely Acclaimed Text By Arthur Goldschmidt Jr Is Distinguished By Its Clear Style, Broad Scope, And Balanced Treatment This Book Explores The Evolution Of Islamic Institutions And Culture, The Influence Of The West, The Modernization Efforts Of Middle Eastern Governments, The Struggle Of Various Peoples For Political Independence, The Arab Israeli Conflict, The Reassertion Of Islamic Values And Power, The Issues Surrounding The Palestinian Question, And The Post Middle EastThe Eleventh Edition Has Been Fully Revised To Reflect The Most Recent Events In, And Concerns Of, The Region, Including An Expanded And Nuanced Discussion Of The War On Terrorism And The Arab Uprisings, Coverage Of The Rise Of ISIS, And A New Chapter On The Growing Environmental Problems Of The Region In Addition, The Authors Have Incorporated New Scholarship On The Early History To Provide A Fuller Picture Of The Political Shifts And Socioeconomic Concerns Of That Time With Updated Bibliographical Sketches, Chronology And Glossary, A Concise History Of The Middle East Remains An Essential Text For Students Of Middle East History It is a brilliant book It starts from the very beginning and goes all the way up to 2009 I think anyone who likes to discuss the people, countries and the problems of Middle East should read this history first This book is very brave and quite honest It is a good comprehensive overview At times I found this book quite distressing, but that is because my personal distaste for any kind of war conflict I am amazed how much bias, unfairness, greed and also stupidity exist in our world And how ignorant we are of these things.Only one thing about the book bothered me a bit which is that the authors left out a big chunk of information of 1400 1700 s times They did cover a lot of wars during this time but I think there was some other information that should have been added And I think that was left out on purpose.The second half of the book was the most fascinating part The final analysis is absolutely clear and daring Their definition of terrorism is something I totally agree with The authors encourage readers to think critically about the historical narrative the book presents Hope many people will first learn about the history before they point fingers at anyone. I was assigned this as a textbook for my Introduction to Middle Eastern Culture course Without going on too long, it s a really great read The writing is accessible and doesn t get bogged down in its own academic language, even at times dipping into a very casual tone which I love in this kind of book I would have liked some illustrations or relevant images to help clarify some concepts, but it serves well The beginning chapters which give some background on Islam and Muhammad s life were particularly fascinating, considering my exposure to Islam here in the post 9 11 US has been skewed, at best Great starting point for people wanting to broaden their worldview a bit. Painfully boring and very condescending towards the reader Could it be cultural The book was basically a description of the battles fought and which ruling family oppressed who I wish the authors would add an explanation about the current group fighting, ISIS I am depressed about peace in the Middle East having read this book.The positives I got out of this read was the permission the authors gave me to not focus on names and dates, but to focus on the whys. I was only able to read about 1 3 of this book before I had to return it to the library It s a very concise history, structured like a textbook, stripped of much of the detail that makes history interesting Nevertheless, you get a good overview of the basics, like the difference between Sunni, Shiite, and Karijite muslims, and the nature of Sharia law and the different types, etc. First 3 4 of the book are only interesting if you like the history of Islam or medieval history Best part was it s coverage of 19th and 20th century history in the region Unfortunately did not cover the Arab Spring of 2011. I was very dissappointed in this book It is billed as the best history of the middle east, but in fact it is the typical liberal politically correct history of the middle east What is sad is that this is apparently the most used book on college campuses which shows why so many college students have no clue of reality The only reason I gave it two stars instead of just one is that it s only redeeming factor is it does give a great timeline of all the events in the region, but the authors are not even handed when dealing with all sides of the picture, especially against Christians and Jews. Having not read any other full Middle Eastern histories, it s hard for me to compare this book to others from a content perspective It s clear that, while the author laments the focus of history on wars and conflicts, it is still an extremely traditional text The people that matter to the author are the world leaders and their actions, especially their actions in expanding their territory and consolidating their reign It would be interesting to go from beginning to end of the book and count the of names mentioned who were not political or military leaders aside from a few poets and a rare religious leader who didn t also lead a political movement, the total numbers would be few indeed And even leaders, if they didn t lead a national government or independent political movement, tend to get shafted I don t remember if a single Kurd or Awasi persecuted Iraqi people is mentioned by name in the entire book Sudan and Afghanistan are mentioned, but not any Sudanese or Afghanis that I can remember Nor a single Copt, not even a Coptic pope or, amazingly, UN Secretary General Boutrous Boutrous Ghali On the positive side, the book is very readable It attempts to give a fair hearing to the major events within all regions of the Middle East from the time shortly before Islam until the book s publication in the mid 1990s Getting to simultaneously see how the extremely different spheres of influence of Egypt, Persia Iran, the Ottoman Empire Turkey, Syria Palestine Israel, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia each grew and exerted different types of influence in their own unique situations at different times was helpful But it was not just a juggling of regions the intertwined nation as the different regions profoundly influenced each other was striking as well, especially as often as non Egyptians ruled Egypt, non Persians ruled Persia, non Turks ruled Turkey, and so on The author stated from the beginning that he wanted to produce a non biased account, by which I assume he meant a non Western biased account I don t feel he was particularly successful He takes enormous, sometimes ridiculous pains to justify actions that are difficult to justify While these justifications are usually at the service of religiously Muslim rulers, it s almost counterproductive, for the stretching he does to justify traditional religious rule is so pained that it only emphasizes its shortcomings It is very true that Westerners fail to see the other side and are often hypocritical in attacking other cultural practices simply for being different than their own, or attacking other military practices which are not even different from their own, but simply practiced in the same way by a different side However, I felt the author was a bit incompetent in getting this message across well if you already felt that way before the book you probably still will, and if you didn t, you ll probably be further entrenched.I have to admit that I learned a lot from the book But if I was writing it, there would be a lot of changes, most of all to limit the over editorializing of morality, and to place far emphasis on the actions and lives of people beyond the political leaders and life beyond the wars and political intrigue.