jiujensu's reviews
439 reviews

The book interestingly began simply as Baconi's own effort to understand Israel's 2014 assault and the "moral stain on our collective conscience," as he says in the acknowledgements. It turned into a book from there. I believe he's Palestinian but doesn't live there - I'm not sure - but it's a more honest discussion than most can manage on this subject, so with a look. 

In a way, there's nothing new here, if you've been reading about Palestine long, since it moves through major agreements and historical phases of what people call the Palestinian Israeli peace process, but by the end, I still feel moved to recommend it.

It's free of the propaganda of the US or Israel describing the peace process or Hamas as terrorists, archiving all sorts of incorrect motives, so I think this is one of the more informative and descriptive presentations out there. 

You'll learn about Hamas's rise to power, what it is exactly, governance vs revolution, Islamism vs democracy (are they at odds as the US tries to say), as well as abundant legitimate criticism of their trajectory and governance. To understand any of that sufficiently, you have to read something like this that isn't a memoir, doesn't have the US government or media bias, though the former is great and the latter is most prevalent and hard to avoid.

TW for rape. 
This book is about that, yes, but is so much more. In the search for and discussion of justice, so much ground is covered - tribal sovereignty and jurisdiction, native traditions and culture, coming of age, extended family, friendship, and it treats Catholicism almost like Derry Girls, which is great stuff. I especially like how the main character's fate is sprinkled throughout the telling of the story rather than tacked on the end in an epilogue. I'll be sad to let these characters go.

I'm not wild about the genre of the likes of Pinker and Harari where they misinterpret and cherry pick scientific data to fit their philosophical ideas. Bregman seems to be doing this from the left, which I appreciate because this is how I see the world and because it offers pushback to their sort of pessimistic view of human nature as selfish and how systems operate as something we can't change and shouldn't try. So while I don't know that he's any more correct than any of the others, I certainly think Bregman offers more hope and should be added to any list of this sciencey philosophy genre. 

A note of mine from reading the first few pages: He quotes Emma Goldman and is coming at this seeing the good in humanity from a more leftist POV, reminds me of the Jane Goodall book some. I think it'll be uplifting...and help me mitigate my inner cynic? 

I really enjoyed all his debunkings of Lord of the Flies, Stanford Prison Experiment, Easter Island, Robbers Cave Experiment and several more. I believe those were his examples to counter the humans are selfish by nature argument. In some, we learned the wrong lesson or didn't listen to the corrections that came out. It was nice to revisit these things. 

On contact theory near the end, I think he misses some key bits. His examples are conflict zones but he doesn't really address inequality, so it's rather simplistic. Though in general, he's right, contact theory isn't not a horrible concept. We need to get out of our bubbles. He doesn't mention, as Jamil Zaki does in War for Kindness, studies on how the oppressed group vs the priveliged group were affected - IF there is a power imbalance. If all things are equal, sure, contact is all that's needed and each group can learn more about the other and be better for it. Zaki mentions the fact that often the oppressed group will be worse off because having had to get by in the priveliged folks' world, they know those facts already, and it just grinds them down more to hear it explained again by someone else without having their inequality or whatever issue acknowledged or injustice or imbalance addressed - while the priveliged group generally learn a bit and feels better. 

I do like how he points out that compassion is maybe better than empathy and how reason makes us human and understanding at a rational level is a skill you can learn. All good stuff. 

There is a list at the end. I do love a list. It's not a terrible one. 

But I'm going to have to disagree on the don't punch a Nazi point. I think nonviolence is important but often cannot be the only prong of attack against injustice. They can be large and popular and that's great. Slavery, colonial rule, apartheid, racial injustice - those types of things aren't ended by nonviolence alone (historically speaking), though there have been some very large and helpful nonviolent actions and movements. 

His tenth point is be realistic - change the definition of realism from cynical to more trusting/generous. So in the end, I do like the premise even if I take issue with some things. 

These Chains Will Be Broken is small, but a real gut punch. It is simply the stories of individual Palestinian prisoners. Men, women, children. Some arbitrary, some sentenced to 600 years, some arrested for resisting occupation, unlucky enough to break down in front of a checkpoint. All are stories of horrific Israeli cruelty and extraordinary Palestinian patience and resilience. 

The prisoner issue is often left out of the conversation, though freeing these thousands of people is the reason Israeli hostages get taken. There is great info at the end on international law and whether or not it is useful by Richard Falk

This is definitely an accessible angle into understanding a slice of what people have come to call "the conflict." (Ethnic cleansing, occupation, apartheid, genocide are more accurate descriptions.) I highly recommend it.

I've heard this book praised by a wide swathe of readers and literary greats. I found it a bit slow to start and had less of the historical setting than I was hoping. As I read, both things improved and I think I'll read the next book to see what happens to thre family. There is, however a lot of misogyny - maybe historically accurate, maybe to comment on it - but be warned, there is sexual assault. 

It touches on the interior lives we lead - like how much are you willing to risk in a revolution - I just read an article about beginning activism and some of the decisions were in there too. The family and gender roles weren't radically questioned but maybe there were hints of change? At the end of Palace Walk, I'd say it makes a lot of sense to find he was influenced by Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, Proust, etc. I thought of Anna Karenina while reading. I don't know if it lives up to the hype, but I'd put it in the same classics category as the Russian greats.

An article I read suggested reading his later, nationalistic work or these instead: Ahmed Naji, Iman Mersal, Mohamed Salmawy, Mansoura Ez-Eldin, Youssef Rakha.

If you've ever heard any iteration of Rosa Parks' bus seat story, you're going to need this volume - it gives details from the inside of the bus boycott of planning, cooperation, faith, organization, consequences, beginning, and results. There's so much I didn't know. 

It's an inspiring story, especially now in trying to mobilize against genocide. Segregation and genocide are depressingly popular things. But there's proof humanity and good can win. But you have to organize. And be a little unruly.

This was a suggestion from the Twitterverse!
If you've enjoyed Julia Child or Anthony Bourdain, you've got to add this collection of seven women who changed American tastes despite all odds (and sometimes disability) and the very white food establishment.

So I'm waiting on Naomi Klein's Doppleganger (audio) from the library, so I got No Is Not Enough - it was written when Trump was elected. Some is old news - but in many ways, we're repeating it! So you should read it, lol. She's one of a few pubic figures I agree with on most things - a rare stress free listen/read. I love how she connects anti-capitalism, anti-war, healthcare, human rights, feminism, racial justice, environmentalism where many liberals will put several of these in competition. She reassures us that we CAN have nice things! (At the end) 

Check this out, though. This quote describes exactly what we're seeing with how Democrats are treating Palestinians. Democrats, both voters and officials, believe they are entitled to the Palestinian and Arab vote, despite US funding genocide and doubling down on discrimination (free speech/assembly/employment). Democrats are preemptively blaming Palestinians for Trump. Go to Mars, i say!

I like the way Michelle Alexander (via Klein) puts it here. 
~~~~~~~~~~
"Michelle Alexander, author of The New Jim Crow, came out strongly against Clinton during the primaries, arguing that her track record on criminal justice and welfare meant she did not deserve the Black vote. But she also chose not to publicly endorse Sanders. The most urgent message of the 2016 election, she told me, is: "If progressives think they can win in the long run without engaging meaningfully with Black folks and taking racial history more seriously, they better get Elon Musk on speed dial and start planning their future home on Mars, because this planet will be going up in smoke." 

It's a message we need to learn fast. Because if Left populist candidates keep missing the mark, and Democrats keep putting up establishment candidates in their place, there is every reason to expect an increasingly belligerent Right to keep on winning."
~~~~~~~~~~

That last bit is perfect. Trump and his ilk will keep winning if the Dems keep offering up crap centrist candidates with no substance. It won't be black people's fault. It won't be Palestinians' fault. It won't be the fault of idealistic, self-important, performative, uppity leftists like me (or so I've been called) who oppose genocide, apartheid and occupation. The blame rests with the Democratic Party. 

In the quote: ~engage meaningfully~ with Palestinians - treat them as equals, oppose genocide, oppose occupation, oppose apartheid, boycott/sanction/embargo Israel until it complies, learn why the two state solution is dead, learn about the one secular democratic state option. 

Examine those biases - why don't you accept any Palestinian or Arab news sources as objective or legitimate as CNN, NPR, NYT or even JPost? Why does it take one Israeli death, but 10,000 - 40,000 Palestinian deaths to warrant national attention? Why do you say Israeli self-defense and Palestinian terrorism? Why does Israel 'have a right to exist' but Palestine and Palestinians do not? How can you call it a war when it's against the population you occupy? Why do you share Israeli sources who don't fact check their government propaganda (40 beheaded babies, babies in ovens, most moral army, they don't bomb hospitals, etc) and refuse to share Palestinian journalists on the ground? Why are Israelis hostages, but Palestinians are prisoners? Why do you only start the clock when a rocket lands in Israel (and not at 1918 or 1948 when it began)? Why do you believe Israel is the perpetual victim responding despite the fact that it can turn the electricity and water off at the drop of a hat? Why do you allow Israel self-defense from the people it OCCUPIES, but Palestinians aren't allowed to resist occupation? Why do you demand Palestinians (and the world) recognize Israel as a Jewish only apartheid ethnostate, but do not require everyone to recognize a basic level of humanity or self-determination for Palestinians? Why is Palestinians basic humanity perpetually on trial - we *may* think about talks that will lead to other talks about a possible state IF they do x, y, and z (usually - give up Palestinians right to resist, accept Palestinian administered/funded occupation, and celebrate Israeli generosity when you can have a few disconnected bits of land, no right of return, no control of borders, and of course no real authority).

***Anyway, I know some of you don't think this way (I appreciate you!) - I'm reacting to infuriating to annoying conversations I've had when I was less judicious with my time and social media connections as well as the US media environment generally. What  🗑.

Most will remember the DC Sniper case as a terrorism case - because that's how courts, tabloids and other publications wanted to sell it. But we were so wrong.

It was a domestic violence case where the authorities neglected/failed at their jobs. She is likely still living today because of a whole lot of luck and a strong support system between her family and mosque. The authorities didn't bother entering Mildred Muhammad's children's kidnapping, restraining order against her husband, etc until after he murdered people and they finally decided they wanted to arrest John. It's mind blowing that in neglecting her safety/not bothering to protect her, they ended up putting the ENTIRE city in danger. Two thirds of the mass shootings in the US are related to domestic violence. If authorities cared enough to protect victims, we'd ALL be safer. 

We don't seem to have learned too much since this was published in 2009. Though Mildred has done all she can to help - she set up an organization and has resources at the end of the book. She's a force of nature.

I wouldn't have taken another look at this or known about the book if it weren't for the You're Wrong About podcast. I highly recommend both.