Cheap Commentary - Ny (Magazine) Price

Related Products

Customer Reviews of Commentary - Ny

Rave.
This is one of the greatest publications ever created on the planet. No educated person should be without it. If more Jews read it, as they should, they would both appreciate their heritage and stop voting for, and contributing vast sums of money to, a political party (the Democrats) which has chosen increasingly to espouse the views of the overtly - socialist, and increasingly - blatantly anti - Semantic "intellectuals", who style themselves "progressives," of Europe and of the Middle East Studies departments of American universities.

---

A very useful magazine
Commentary is an interesting political magazine. It takes a clear political stand: it's conservative. And I'm liberal. But there are a few things that Commentary does well which I feel I need to mention. <
> <
>First of all, Commentary devotes quite a bit of time to the Arab war against Israel. Given that it is a political magazine, it is far from neutral on this issue. But it supplies its readers with some very interesting material. In addition, given the stunning number of lies we see from many anti-Zionists, Commentary stands out for, of all things, its honesty. <
> <
>Is it tough for Commentary to display such honesty on such an issue? Actually, I think it isn't all that difficult. Given the astonishing amount of nonsense generated by others on this topic, all Commentary needs to do is (in effect) claim that the Earth is round while many others insist that it is flat. Still, given how politically incorrect it is to speak the truth about Israel, I'm sure it takes some courage, maybe even considerable courage, for Commentary and its authors to do this. <
> <
>Perhaps Commentary was at its best when it discussed the dubiously named Oslo "peace process." Many of us (including me) thought that the outcome of this set of negotiations would be some signed agreements. I was suspicious about whether these agreements would actually lead to peace, but I figured there was a chance for some progress. Commentary, on the other hand, was always there to remind us that Arafat and his gang were a bunch of thugs whose intent was simply to incite and sacrifice other Arabs. Commentary's articles showed how the goals of Arafat's gang were always to destroy Israel, reduce or obliterate human rights for Jews, and rewrite and fabricate Arab and Jewish history. And how Arafat's main demand seemed to be for the enshrinement of his right to perform all these misdeeds with worldwide blessing, approval, and applause. <
> <
>Not only did Commentary's writers tell us all the truth about the "peace process," they also tended to be accurate in predicting the outcome of all this. Given the huge number of "experts" who were way off, this is no small feat. And it indicates to me that many of those who write for Commentary are no dummies. My conclusion is that those who want to know about the Levant simply have to read Commentary and take what it says seriously. <
> <
>One other interesting aspect of Commentary is its excellent "letters to the editor" department. We see all sorts of well written material here, as controversial issues get plenty of coverage from all sides. On the whole, Commentary has good articles on a wide assortment of topics. <
> <
>Still, there is a problem with Commentary that precludes me from giving it five stars. I've decided to award it four stars, but even that is generous of me. The problem is that Commentary does not always back up its excellence in its coverage of Jewish topics with good articles in other fields. I was flabbergasted to see some of the essays against Darwinian evolution by David Berlinski which appeared in this magazine. It wasn't just the errors in these articles that floored me, it was the anti-scholarly attitude and outright contempt for facts and logic. While Commentary did give plenty of space (which was used quite well) for rebuttals to Berlinksi, I think it is a horrible black mark on this magazine that it published such stuff in the first place. Commentary's reputation (as far as I am concerned) was founded mostly on its factual accuracy, and these sorts of articles simply smash such a reputation. I think it would have been easy to let some of the many biologists who read Commentary review such articles and refuse to publish them, but Commentary did not do that. I have to wonder what else Commentary does not do. <
> <
>In spite of all this, I recommend Commentary. Those who are interested in Israel will find an enormous amount of useful information and ideas in it that are often unavailable elsewhere. <
>

---

Very important
I'm not sure why there are two different publishers listed for Commentary magazine, but the magazine is important, no matter where one subscribes. <
> <
>I have been reading Commentary on and off for years, and find it extremely important in balancing an otherwise biased press. <
> <
>The current (July/August 2006) issue, for example, contains a very important article by Michael I. Krauss and J. Peter Pham, on why Israel is free, under international law, to set its own borders. Neither the mainstream press, nor most Jewish and Israeli publications, ever discuss the actual facts and legal precedents as regards this case. <
> <
>International leaders and former U.S. presidents decry Israel's stated plans, in the absence of a serious negotiating partner in the Palestinian Authority, to establish a border unilaterally. But as this article notes, the first document of any international legal consequence to the matter dates to the 1920 San Remo Conference at which allied powers assigned a League of Nations mandate for Palestine to Britain. This established the "historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine," as well as "the national grounds for constituting their national home in that country." Article 6 even "encouraged close settlement by Jews on the land," which included both Gaza and the historical areas of Judea and Samaria, the so-called West Bank. <
> <
>While the League of Nations ceased to exist after World War II, Krauss and Pham note, the "established right of Jews to live in the territories of Palestine remained in force." This, of course, included current-day Jordan, an international law which Britain violated when it carved trans-Jordan from Palestine in 1922. <
> <
>The 1946 creation of the United Nations specifically preserved the existing mandates of the League of Nations, including the 1920 mandate for Palestine. The 1947 U.N. resolution 181 to partition Palestine lacked legislative authority, and thus failed to vest territorial rights to Arabs or Jews. <
> <
>But Israel's 1948 creation was followed by an aggressive war by Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, against Israel, in which Jordan forcibly obtained the West Bank, thus directly contravening the UN partition resolution and the UN charter, which prohibits aggressive wars. <
> <
>Furthermore, Israel's actions in 1967, which resulted in its possession of the disputed lands in Gaza and the West Bank, were entirely defensive in nature, and therefore legal under international law. On May 15, 1967, Egypt's Gamal Abdel Nasser massed troops in the Sinai near Israel's southern border and a week later closed the Straits of Tiran, blockading Israel's Eilat port. Jordan signed a pact with Egypt, while Algeria, Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia sent arms to the Arab war machine. <
> <
>Syria's defense minister, Hafaz al Assad said his forces were prepared to "explode the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland." Nasser said, "our basic objective is the destruction of Israel." And Iraq's president declared "our goal is clear--to wipe Israel off the map." <
> <
>Shortly after the 1967 war, the UN Security Counsel drafted and unanimously passed Resolution 242, which contrary to common media misinformation, did not require Israel's withdrawal to the 1949 truce lines that preceded the war. Rather, the resolution "stipulates withdrawal from occupied territories, without defining the extent of the withdrawal." Moreover, of equal eight in that resolution is the stipulation that any peace settlement could encompass less than a complete Israeli withdrawal, so as to establish "secure and recognized boundaries." <
> <
>The key is the word "secure." The fact that Israel acquired the disputed land during war is of no importance under international law, in this case, since the war was defensive in nature, and was fought to preserve Israel's existence. In other words, Israel is not "the aggressive occupier of the West Bank, but its sovereign." In addition, before 1967, there was no recognized "High Contracting Party," or state, with recognized rights to the disputed land. Therefore, the Fourth Geneva Convention, established in 1949 to protect civilians in wartime, does not apply. <
> <
>But even if the Fourth Geneva Convention did apply, Krauss and Pham write, Jewish communities in the disputed land would not be forbidden unless Israel had forcibly transferred Arabs from these areas and the transfers had also "impair[ed] the economic situation or racial integrity of the native population." But in fact, since 1967, the Arab populations of these areas have grown far faster than the population in Israel, while Israel built roads, schools, hospitals, and otherwise provided economic development to the areas, allowing local Arabs to prosper far more than others in the Arab world. <
> <
>Based on the events in Gaza subsequent to Israel's withdrawal last year, I don't approve of Prime Minister Olmert's current plans for the West Bank. But it is entirely within its rights to do so. <
> <
>Also in the current issue is an excellent review of Lebanese writer Elias Khoury's Gate of the Sun, by Algis Valiunas. Although published in Beirut in 1998, it has only become available in English this year. Apparently, readers will be disappointed, because far from being compassionate and discerning, as claimed by many critics, its "moral ledger, written in blood, feeds a self-righteous, undying enmity." Valiunas finds Khoury, a Christian, quite immoderate, and his novel explanatory of "the factors, psychological, political, and religious, that have gone into the political ascendancy of Hamas and enhanced the prospects of endless war." <
> <
>Magazines like Commentary, willing to remind readers of historical facts and pertinent international laws, are very important. <
> <
>--Alyssa A. Lappen