The fact that he is so strongly pushing the Sachar book while denigrating other authors (like Segev) is a strike against Sachar. I looked at Amazon and on the back it is praised by the usual suspects, including COMMENTARY magazine–can anyone imagine COMMENTARY praising a book which treated Israeli crimes with the harshness they deserved? I used the search inside feature and read the portion about Sharon’s massacre at Kibya (or Qibya)–Sachar takes for granted that the Israelis didn’t know there were women and children hiding inside the houses that were blown up. I don’t know what they knew, but a little skepticism seems in order. Wouldn’t people concerned about killing civilians check the houses first?

We’ve all seen how Witty reacts towards reports and writers who make him feel uncomfortable–it is not to Sachar’s credit that Witty is so enthusiastic about him. The book is probably worth reading–I don’t deny that–but it obviously doesn’t challenge Witty’s ideas to any great extent or he wouldn’t be praising it so much.

I’m reading a longer and more relevant text “A History of Israel” by Sacher (second time), which I’ve recommended to Phil and to others here.

Dan Fleshler recommended it to me. (I had read it already.)

On Goldstone, I stated that his work was not authoritative but informative.

The Congressional statement implies that it is neither. Israel should conduct an investigation, but it should not be the basis of referral to any binding international court, by Goldstone’s own inference.