yikes! will somebody please post a non-snarky review on the amazon page for this book?

I actually saw that book on the shelf at my local Barnes & Noble during one my random trips to/thru the store. The "blurb" on the cover jacket makes it sound interesting, but I'm wondering if the book itself lives up to the promise.

Sol,
You forgot the first Review put up by Publishers Weekly?

Editorial Reviews From Publishers Weekly It's not surprising for an ex-spy to have an uncomplicated, us-them worldview. Accordingly, Ross, former member of the Israeli spy agency, Mossad, allows for little nuance in this memoir, which maintains a nearly colonialist view of the Muslim world, positing Israel as a microcosm of the civilized world's struggle against a murderous ideology and drawing unsupported parallels between Palestinian nationalist Islamism and al-Qaeda's world-spanning nihilism. Canadian-born Ross is clearly proud of his service to his adopted homeland and accepts Israel's view of its place in the Middle East. He discusses Arab torture without mention of its Israeli (or Western) counterpart and claims Israel has given the Palestinians a state, though Israel's occupation of Palestinian lands remains intact. When describing his operations, Ross's tone is engaging, and details of spycraft remind readers that real spies don't live in movies—everyone, for instance, talks when tortured. Readers looking for such tales will be better served than those looking for a cogent analysis of the region. (Sept.) Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1) Who said this book's purpose was to put forth a fully balanced "cogent analysis of the region"... and its history?

The book seems to be an exciting biography about 1 man's life experiences... But since his life concerns fighting terrorism and seems to be complementary of Israel than it's "colonialist"?

Would you like to compare this guy describing his life to the fantasy play about Rachel Corrie's life and death?
Was that an Islamist or Pan Arabist viewpoint?

2) Did you notice how the write subtly but condescendingly talks about how "Canadian born... but now proud and accepting of of his adopted country"

3) I would like Charles or someone to find out who wrote or from where (IP Address etc...) that review came from? Is Publisher's Weekly a far left outfit or does it have random writers like Wikipedia write their reviews?

I'd be interested as to which B&N you saw the book as my publisher is only launching the book in the U.S. on September 1st. From what I understand, it is not yet available in stores? Perhaps I'm wrong?

Publisher's Weekly have independent reviewers (much like newspapers employ so as to avoid a conflict of interest or perceived bias). There is no doubt that the reviewer is not exactly pro-Israel and these personal views should not have "tainted" the review in such an obvious fashion. My publishers - who have read more than a few reviews from PW - were even quite surprised by the patronizing tone and obvious anti-Israel bias.

You're correct in saying that my book is a personal story based on first-hand experiences. It's not some dry tome written from the safety of a think-tank cubicle and any reviewer who reads it as such has missed the point completely.

Mike,

I also read the review, on Amazon. I don't think that Publisher's Weekly is even remotely left-wing. And nothing like Wikipedia! It's a highly respected newspaper serving the book publishing industry. We have to avoid the temptation to dismiss so many people and institutions as "left-wing" or "far-left-wing" because that dumbs down the debate. We have to acknowledge the sad fact that many ideas (especially about Israel) we'd like to consider marginal have actually become pretty mainstream.

I found the review depressing, in spite of (or because of) the fact that the reviewer's very anti-Israel opinions are couched in such normal, sober language.

Regarding the language, I must say that the phrase "nearly colonialist view of the Muslim world" really tread the line. That phrase pushes all the right buttons in liberal readers like me. But what does it really mean? The reviewer then explains his point by saying that the occupation continues, but he doesn't hint at why. Nor does he consider what has happened in areas where the occupation has ceased.

You highlighted that phrase, and all the others that set red lights blinking for me, as well. For instance, there's this gem: "...accepts Israel's view of its place in the Middle East." What does that mean exactly? Israel's role in the Middle East? Frankly, I read the phrase to really mean: "...accepts Israel's view of its right to exist in the Middle East."

I'm sure the book is not "polically correct" in that it probably exudes unapologetic affection for Israel, with no focus on its bad policies toward the Palestinians. For many people, that is the only thing worth talking about when it comes to Israel...never mind the bad things Palestinians do to Palestinians.

I'm also sure that the book is politically naive, like another autobiography, Lonely Soldier, about a young American guy serving in the Israeli army.

http://www.amazon.com/Lonely-Soldier-Memoir-AmericanIsraeli/dp/0891418741/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-7291919-4355338?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1187630235&sr=1-1

And as you rightly pointed out, however, The Volunteer is not meant to be a cogent analysis of Middle East politics, but rather an account of the feelings and experiences of one person. I'm sure that if there were a similar book about a North American of Palestinian descent joining up with Fatah, the reviewer wouldn't have mentioned that the author accepts the Palestians' view of their place in the Middle East--because the reviewer likely agrees with that view.

Actually, the comparison with Rachel Corrie is a good one. Not an autobiography, but that's not important. Your point was well taken. Few people on the left have made objections to the one-sidedness there.

As I said, this review disturbs me. It does so because it's in such a venerable publication, and it's couched in the normal tones of a well-educated, well-balanced professional. This just goes to show how far anti-Zionism has penetrated into the mainstream.

Just to be clear, my comment was addressed to Mike Nargizian, not Michael Ross.

To the latter, I'm sorry if I sounded patronizing when I said that the book might be "politically naive." Maybe I should've said "politically unfashionable."

In any case, I've already pre-ordered the book from Amazon, and I'm looking forward to reading it.

I'm a left-wing liberal, but I'm pro-Zionist, although very concerned about Israel's policies. Hence, my mixed message.

Michael Ross -

Thanks for poppin in man, I'll definitely buy the book now.
On a side note I wonder if you have a definitive opinion on Spielberg's portrayal of Munich and the Mossad in that movie? If so would you email me and just let me know here that you would consider doing so? THANKS...

Joanne -

As I said, this review disturbs me. It does so because it's in such a venerable publication, and it's couched in the normal tones of a well-educated, well-balanced professional. This just goes to show how far anti-Zionism has penetrated into the mainstream.

Joanne, you even state yourself "you're sure its not a balanced account"... you haven't even read it yet fur cris sake.... lol...

Mike N

For Mike Nargizian,

Yes, the anti-Israel bias was visible, but the review was far from a rant. The tone is far more sedate than what I've seen elsewhere.

Also, it's true that I haven't read the book. How could I? The book isn't out yet. So I thought that was clear. In my comment I say "I'm sure" and "probably" quite a bit, to show that I was expressing what I expect the book to be like, not what I know the book to be like. I thought that was clear from the context.

I really don't know that the reviewer is an unprofessional zealot based on those few lines that he (she?) wrote. Now that's jumping to a conclusion. That's over the top. The author is biased, and so didn't take Ross' book totally seriously. Let's leave it at that.

Mike: I don't have a lot to say about "Munich" other than I know the author of the book that it was based on i.e. "Vengeance" by the very erudite George Jonas. He stated that it was essentailly a story about fighting terrorism and Spielberg & Co., turned it into a commentary on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Surprise, surprise. When Spielberg brought in Dennis Ross to consult on the project, it was kind of obvious to me in which direction the script would go. The modern world is so obsessed with moral relevance and always offering a balanced view on things that are anything but balanced. It is something that I'll never fully understand.

Technically, the story is very flawed and as a matter of fact, I met some of the old timers from that period who are now retired from the Mossad. The Mossad deployed more than one team during this era and they operated through HQ intermediaries who in turn supplied the intelligence and tasking details. To think that an "all-powerful" French underworld figure would direct these teams to their targets is nothing short of absurd cinematic poetic licence.

Joanne: I've had all kinds of reviews and most are pretty complimentary about the book and understand it for what it is; a personal memoir. The PW review was the first politically-biased one that I have seen and approached the book like it was written as a historical narrative on the Middle East. I also do a fair amount of public speaking and to the credit of my audience, I never really receive questions about my politics. I admit that my views aren't very nuanced when I discuss Islamic terrorists and rogue states because I've seen their activities from up close and quite frankly, they are undeserving of anything but the kind of language our parents and grand-parents used in the 1930's and 1940's. For nuanced opinion, I write for the National Post here in Canada and my articles are very different from what I have written in the book because I examine broader issues that don't normally have to do with body parts being blown to scatteration. You'd be interested to know that the majority of both the Mossad and Israel Security Agency's (Shin-Bet) personnel are quite politically liberal and in favour of compromise. Being a left-wing liberal and Zionist are not as strange a concept in Israel as they are in this part of the world! I really do lament the hijacking of the left by Islamic extremists groups. The moral gymnastics of "human rights activists" defending the Taliban against "western imperialist aggression" are beyond me.

I suppose with the book's launch in the U.S. in 9 days, 12 hours and 7 minutes and 28 seconds (but whose counting?), I'll be inundated with all kinds of opinions from all quarters. I can only hope so!

To Mike Ross,

I wish you a lot of luck with the book. As I said, I pre-ordered it and am looking forward to reading it.

It is a shame that the left has turned so anti-Israel, to the point where it's become so fatuous about the Islamists. I've felt like a political orphan for many years because I am pro-Zionist to the marrow (though of the peacenik sort) but I have a left-of-center worldview. I'm caught in a sort of no-man's land in between left and right.

It's interesting to learn that Mossad people are mainly liberal and for compromise. Funny, I heard the same about people who work for the CIA.

Although it wasn't I who raised the issue of the movie Munich, I must say that I found the film to be very manipulative. It gave all the best lines to the PLO guy explaining his point of view and put the weaker arguments in the mouths of the Israelis. Even I realized that Mossad wouldn't have a toymaker as part of a an espionage team, or depend on a lone French anarchist as their point man.

I heard that Mossad did really make one mistake, when it sent to Norway a hastily assembled and undertrained team that killed the wrong man. But the team shown in the movie seemed beyond belief.

Also, only the Israelis were called upon to keep questioning their violence, never the other side. And each Palestinian killed by Israeli team in the movie was portrayed as a gentlemen and a scholar. And the ending--when the team head played by Eric Bana decides to turn his back on Israel and move to Brooklyn--says it all.

Steven Spielberg said something to the effect that it wasn't an anti-Israel film, it was an anti-violence or anti-war film. But look at whom he hired to write the screenplay: Tony Kushner. Could Spielberg have been that naive?

Mihcael Ross -

Thanks for your feedback. I never read the book that Munich is based on but now maybe I will to see how different the book is from the movie etc..

I thought the writer of the book was criticized within Israel as being controversial etc.., and that several members of the Mossad teams back then had criticized and somewhat discredited the book?

Do you consider Hezbollah and Hamas akin to Al Queda as far as their intent and brutality 'off camera' so to speak?

Joanne -

Yes, the clincher for me was the end of the movie where he turns away from the Mossad higher up and moves to Brooklyn, that had Kushner written all over it... its ironic how savagely the Arab world criticized the movie though, lol....
Yes, Spielberg was trying to spoon feed good things for the Arab world and be more critical of Israel etc... though my dad thought in the whole it showed Israel as the moral country and the Arabs as celebrating murder etc... the Golda Meir scenes were almost too shmaltzy for me to take...

Mike