What do you think?
Rate this book
The Case For Democracy: The Power Of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny And Terror
Natan Sharansky believes that the truest expression of democracy is the ability to stand in the middle of a town square and express one's views without fear of imprisonment. He should know. A dissident in the USSR, Sharansky was jailed for nine years for challenging Soviet policies. During that time he reinforced his moral conviction that democracy is essential to both protecting human rights and maintaining global peace and security.
Sharansky was catapulted onto the Israeli political stage in 1996. In the last eight years, he has served as a minister in four different Israeli cabinets, including a stint as Deputy Prime Minister, playing a key role in government decision making from the peace negotiations at Wye to the war against Palestinian terror. In his views, he has been as consistent as he has been Tyranny, whether in the Soviet Union or the Middle East, must always be made to bow before democracy.
Drawing on a lifetime of experience of democracy and its absence, Sharansky believes that only democracy can safeguard the well-being of societies. For Sharansky, when it comes to democracy, politics is not a matter of left and right, but right and wrong.
This is a passionately argued book from a man who carries supreme moral authority to make the case he does that the spread of democracy everywhere is not only possible, but also essential to the survival of our civilization. His argument is sure to stir controversy on all sides; this is arguably the great issue of our times.
Sharansky was catapulted onto the Israeli political stage in 1996. In the last eight years, he has served as a minister in four different Israeli cabinets, including a stint as Deputy Prime Minister, playing a key role in government decision making from the peace negotiations at Wye to the war against Palestinian terror. In his views, he has been as consistent as he has been Tyranny, whether in the Soviet Union or the Middle East, must always be made to bow before democracy.
Drawing on a lifetime of experience of democracy and its absence, Sharansky believes that only democracy can safeguard the well-being of societies. For Sharansky, when it comes to democracy, politics is not a matter of left and right, but right and wrong.
This is a passionately argued book from a man who carries supreme moral authority to make the case he does that the spread of democracy everywhere is not only possible, but also essential to the survival of our civilization. His argument is sure to stir controversy on all sides; this is arguably the great issue of our times.
352 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2004
43 people are currently reading
931 people want to read
About the author
Natan Sharansky
17 books45 followersAnatoly Borisovich Shcharansky (later Natan Sharanky) was born in Stalino, Soviet Union on January 20, 1948 to a Jewish family. He graduated with a degree in applied mathematics from Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology. As a child, he was a chess prodigy. He performed in simultaneous and blindfold displays, usually against adults. At the age of 15, he won the championship in his native Donetsk. When incarcerated in solitary confinement, he claims to have played chess against himself in his mind. Sharansky beat the world chess champion Garry Kasparov in a simultaneous exhibition in Israel in 1996.
Natan Sharansky is married to Avital Sharansky, with whom he has two daughters, Rachel and Hannah. In the Soviet Union, his marriage application to Avital was denied by the authorities.[citation needed] They were married in a Moscow synagogue in a ceremony not recognized by the government. Sharansky lives in Jerusalem. (from Wikipedia)
Natan Sharansky is married to Avital Sharansky, with whom he has two daughters, Rachel and Hannah. In the Soviet Union, his marriage application to Avital was denied by the authorities.[citation needed] They were married in a Moscow synagogue in a ceremony not recognized by the government. Sharansky lives in Jerusalem. (from Wikipedia)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 75 reviews
July 30, 2007
Pros
1. Sharansky is an engaging writer. He has a considerable amount of passion for the subject, which helps carry the book along (and which is also one of the cons).
2. Sharansky does a good job of providing a history of one aspect of the Cold War, the dissident movement in the East Bloc and its importance in the final denouement of that conflict.
3. Sharansky provides an in-depth narrative of Israeli/Palestinian politics during the 1990s.
4. Sharansky's basic points - that democratic societies are better to live in than repressive societies, that their is nothing inherent in any person mandating they have to live in an authoritarian regime, that a world in which people have broad freedoms, rights and responsibilities is better than a world in which people are pawns in the games of autocrats - are hard to argue with.
Cons
1. The problem with Sharansky's thesis is that he is never convincing in his assertion that every culture is amenable to democracy and the rule of the individual. Some cultures lend themselves to rule by an authoritarian government, whether it is secular or religiously based. That is not to say that democracy and the rule of the individual can't change a given culture so that they become reconciled. Rather, this change would mean a radical shift in that culture.
2. The history of the Israel/Palestinian conflict is interesting, but a 70 page tangent. It does little to support his thesis.
3. His thesis about the outcome of the Cold War, while accurate as far as it goes, is woefully incomplete. One could certainly look at the inherent economic flaws in the Soviet communist system, the sclerotic leadership class, the over reliance on military force for holding the Soviet Empire together, the failure of the neo-Marxist liberation movements in the post-colonial world to deliver anything except for a new set of oppressors, etc, for the way the Cold War ended.
4. His argument that democracies are more peaceful is weak, given that the age of what we would recognize as modern democracies (a broad franchise, a robust legislature, a focus on the individual as the basic unit of society) is fairly new. The farthest back you can push this is the early 20th century. One could argue that it actually came later, with the end of segregation in America and the end of the European empires. Either period is distorted by the global wars of the first half of the 20th century - in which democracy seemed to be in retreat - or the Cold War - in which the Free World had an external threat that set limits on just how much they would clash. Even then, there were periods of tension within the Western Alliance (e.g., Suez 56, the lack of FW support in Vietnam). While there was never a serious threat of war amongst the Western democracies, this was in part due to the existential threat of the USSR. So, while free society democracies - societies in which people have an unfettered voice in some key aspect of the policy decision process, whether direct (voting on a given policy) or indirect (electing representatives) and in which their is a free political voice (both personal - me on a soapbox - or public - me writing in a newspaper) - may be more peaceful, the period we are looking at has features that make that conclusion problematic. In earlier, proto-democratic eras (the lead up to World War One) combatants (some, not all) on both sides were along a spectrum of limited democracies with free presses and the citizenry went enthusiastically off to war. Further, democracies have not proven themselves to be more peaceful than other forms of government. Our own history is full of wars and military operations, few of which were forced on us. I'm not arguing against democracy, just that the democracy=peace meme is flawed.
5. Finally, while he is passionate and engaging, there are times when this passion leads to either assertions or to tangents that do support his basic thesis.
1. Sharansky is an engaging writer. He has a considerable amount of passion for the subject, which helps carry the book along (and which is also one of the cons).
2. Sharansky does a good job of providing a history of one aspect of the Cold War, the dissident movement in the East Bloc and its importance in the final denouement of that conflict.
3. Sharansky provides an in-depth narrative of Israeli/Palestinian politics during the 1990s.
4. Sharansky's basic points - that democratic societies are better to live in than repressive societies, that their is nothing inherent in any person mandating they have to live in an authoritarian regime, that a world in which people have broad freedoms, rights and responsibilities is better than a world in which people are pawns in the games of autocrats - are hard to argue with.
Cons
1. The problem with Sharansky's thesis is that he is never convincing in his assertion that every culture is amenable to democracy and the rule of the individual. Some cultures lend themselves to rule by an authoritarian government, whether it is secular or religiously based. That is not to say that democracy and the rule of the individual can't change a given culture so that they become reconciled. Rather, this change would mean a radical shift in that culture.
2. The history of the Israel/Palestinian conflict is interesting, but a 70 page tangent. It does little to support his thesis.
3. His thesis about the outcome of the Cold War, while accurate as far as it goes, is woefully incomplete. One could certainly look at the inherent economic flaws in the Soviet communist system, the sclerotic leadership class, the over reliance on military force for holding the Soviet Empire together, the failure of the neo-Marxist liberation movements in the post-colonial world to deliver anything except for a new set of oppressors, etc, for the way the Cold War ended.
4. His argument that democracies are more peaceful is weak, given that the age of what we would recognize as modern democracies (a broad franchise, a robust legislature, a focus on the individual as the basic unit of society) is fairly new. The farthest back you can push this is the early 20th century. One could argue that it actually came later, with the end of segregation in America and the end of the European empires. Either period is distorted by the global wars of the first half of the 20th century - in which democracy seemed to be in retreat - or the Cold War - in which the Free World had an external threat that set limits on just how much they would clash. Even then, there were periods of tension within the Western Alliance (e.g., Suez 56, the lack of FW support in Vietnam). While there was never a serious threat of war amongst the Western democracies, this was in part due to the existential threat of the USSR. So, while free society democracies - societies in which people have an unfettered voice in some key aspect of the policy decision process, whether direct (voting on a given policy) or indirect (electing representatives) and in which their is a free political voice (both personal - me on a soapbox - or public - me writing in a newspaper) - may be more peaceful, the period we are looking at has features that make that conclusion problematic. In earlier, proto-democratic eras (the lead up to World War One) combatants (some, not all) on both sides were along a spectrum of limited democracies with free presses and the citizenry went enthusiastically off to war. Further, democracies have not proven themselves to be more peaceful than other forms of government. Our own history is full of wars and military operations, few of which were forced on us. I'm not arguing against democracy, just that the democracy=peace meme is flawed.
5. Finally, while he is passionate and engaging, there are times when this passion leads to either assertions or to tangents that do support his basic thesis.
January 22, 2014
Natan Sharansky knows more about resisting tyranny than most, having been incarcerated in a prison of one of history's greatest tyrannies-the Soviet Union, as he illustrated in his incredible memoirs Fear No Evil: The Classic Memoir of One Man's Triumph over a Police State
In this book he puts under the microscope the totalitarian states of the world, dissecting the inner workings of fear societies.
Sharansky contrasts fear societies with free societies. The profound moral difference between a free society and a fear society, as Sharansky shows us, is that people in free societies can publicly express their own ideas and persuade people to accept these ideas as well.
Sharansky points out that "moral clarity provides us with a place to stand, a reference point from where to leverage our talents, energies and ideas to create a better world. Without moral clarity, without a referewnce point, those same talents, ideas and energies are just as likely to do harm as good...A world without moral clarity is a world in which dictators speak of human rights even as they kill thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions, tens of millions, even hundreds of millions of people. It is a world in which the only democracy in the Middle East is percieved as the greatest violator of human rights in the world. It is a world in which a human rights conference against racism, such as the one that took place in Durban, South Africa a few years ago, can be turned into a carnival of hate".
Sharansky reminds us that there has never been a war between two democracies. He attacks those who believe that democracy cannot work in certain countries, pointing out that the same was said about Germany and Japan during and just after the Second World War. Today Germany and Japan are among the world's strongest democracies and human rights societies in the world.
Sharansky also condemmns the distortions by the world media, painting the masses in tyrannies such as that of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and the Taleban in Afghanistan, as being contented. He compares this to leftist intellectuals in the West who praised the Soviet Union as a paradise on earth at a time when Stalin was killing tens of millions of men, women and children.
While Sharansky is hopeful for an eventual peace settlement betwen Israel and the Palestinian Arabs, he is adamant that this must be tied to improvements in human rights and basic freedoms in Palestinian society. He condemmns the Oslo Process for strengthening and attempting to appease the mass murderer and tyrant Yasser Arafat and his ruthless terror network.
He points out how the human rights principles that once guided him in the Soviet Union remain the cornerstone of his approach to the peace process, that a neighbour who tramples the rights of his own people will eventually threaten the rights of the author's people, and that the only way to create Arab-Israeli reconciliation is to press the Arab world to protect human rights.
Sharansky reminds us that those who hoped for a quick fix to the conflict should not have been surprised when the Oslo process collapsed and Arafat began his war of terror against the Israeli people. For seven years Arafat had been doing what all dictators do, using his power not to promote peace and better the lot of the Palestinian Arabs but rather to turn the Palestinian Arabs into a battering ram against the Jewish State. Money allocated to improve the Palestinian Arab's living standards was diverted to support a vast network of terror.
"By allowing and often encouraging Arafat to create a fear society, a peace process that should have been steadily reducing a century old animus had instead exacerbated it".
Sharansky stresses that he is not opposed to legitimate criticism of Israel's policies. However to distinguish legitimate criticism from anti-Semitism he has come up with what he calls the 3 D Test. If the criticism of Israel contains demonization of the Jewish State, double standards against the Jewish State, or delegitimization of the Jewish State, then it certainly can be termed anti-Semitic.
Sharansky believes that bthe war between the Jews and the Arabs is not a tribal war but a part of the first world war of the 21st century between the world of democracy and the world of terror.
Leftwing extremists who support tyranny ands terror and who do not want people to be free, will of course try to rubbish the book.
But for true lovers of freedom and human rights, this is an essential guide to understanding the great struggle we are faced with at the beginning of the 21st century.
In this book he puts under the microscope the totalitarian states of the world, dissecting the inner workings of fear societies.
Sharansky contrasts fear societies with free societies. The profound moral difference between a free society and a fear society, as Sharansky shows us, is that people in free societies can publicly express their own ideas and persuade people to accept these ideas as well.
Sharansky points out that "moral clarity provides us with a place to stand, a reference point from where to leverage our talents, energies and ideas to create a better world. Without moral clarity, without a referewnce point, those same talents, ideas and energies are just as likely to do harm as good...A world without moral clarity is a world in which dictators speak of human rights even as they kill thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions, tens of millions, even hundreds of millions of people. It is a world in which the only democracy in the Middle East is percieved as the greatest violator of human rights in the world. It is a world in which a human rights conference against racism, such as the one that took place in Durban, South Africa a few years ago, can be turned into a carnival of hate".
Sharansky reminds us that there has never been a war between two democracies. He attacks those who believe that democracy cannot work in certain countries, pointing out that the same was said about Germany and Japan during and just after the Second World War. Today Germany and Japan are among the world's strongest democracies and human rights societies in the world.
Sharansky also condemmns the distortions by the world media, painting the masses in tyrannies such as that of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and the Taleban in Afghanistan, as being contented. He compares this to leftist intellectuals in the West who praised the Soviet Union as a paradise on earth at a time when Stalin was killing tens of millions of men, women and children.
While Sharansky is hopeful for an eventual peace settlement betwen Israel and the Palestinian Arabs, he is adamant that this must be tied to improvements in human rights and basic freedoms in Palestinian society. He condemmns the Oslo Process for strengthening and attempting to appease the mass murderer and tyrant Yasser Arafat and his ruthless terror network.
He points out how the human rights principles that once guided him in the Soviet Union remain the cornerstone of his approach to the peace process, that a neighbour who tramples the rights of his own people will eventually threaten the rights of the author's people, and that the only way to create Arab-Israeli reconciliation is to press the Arab world to protect human rights.
Sharansky reminds us that those who hoped for a quick fix to the conflict should not have been surprised when the Oslo process collapsed and Arafat began his war of terror against the Israeli people. For seven years Arafat had been doing what all dictators do, using his power not to promote peace and better the lot of the Palestinian Arabs but rather to turn the Palestinian Arabs into a battering ram against the Jewish State. Money allocated to improve the Palestinian Arab's living standards was diverted to support a vast network of terror.
"By allowing and often encouraging Arafat to create a fear society, a peace process that should have been steadily reducing a century old animus had instead exacerbated it".
Sharansky stresses that he is not opposed to legitimate criticism of Israel's policies. However to distinguish legitimate criticism from anti-Semitism he has come up with what he calls the 3 D Test. If the criticism of Israel contains demonization of the Jewish State, double standards against the Jewish State, or delegitimization of the Jewish State, then it certainly can be termed anti-Semitic.
Sharansky believes that bthe war between the Jews and the Arabs is not a tribal war but a part of the first world war of the 21st century between the world of democracy and the world of terror.
Leftwing extremists who support tyranny ands terror and who do not want people to be free, will of course try to rubbish the book.
But for true lovers of freedom and human rights, this is an essential guide to understanding the great struggle we are faced with at the beginning of the 21st century.
May 5, 2022
2
Though I sympathise with some of the sentiments of this book like the belief In bringing global freedom, I found the evidence outdated and many of the assumptions to be geopolically niaeve.
I found the authors discussion of his time as a political prisoners in the soviet union very moving and thought that it was the strongest part of the book. Unfortunately that is where for the most part the strength of the book is isolated.
The evidential examples used to back up the authors arguments and beliefs have aged extremely badly for example the use of the examples of Russia and Turkey as democratising states has aged particularly terribly as both of these countries are now one party dictatorships. Also there were many factual errors in the book which really discounted the legitimacy of the arguments such as when the author said that the Soviets invented the concentration camp and that it was from the Soviets that the nazis got the idea unfortunately though the Soviets did use camps they were far from being the inventors or even the inspiration for the nazis, the true inventors were the British who used them to imprison the Boers in the Boer war before the soviet union even existed. It is unfortunate that the evidence is so poor in this book as I agree with the point that toleration of authoritarian regimes is much too common among so called 'democratic regimes'.
Which brings me to my next point when it comes to the view of the democratic regimes of the west the author seems to have complete tunnel vision, ignoring the complexity of the west and its anarchic power structure. Overall the references to international relations are too small picture for a big picture problem. Also his criticism of Realism is not fully justified and often discounted through his own use of a realist attitude when it comes to Palestine, in fact contradictions of his own points is a common failure within this book sometimes not even far apart which only further discredits his points.
In the second half of the book Israel and Palestine were brought up in what I initially believed would be another case study but instead the author went into a pure tangent in which he at times abandoned the 'case for democracy' and instead the book becomes the 'case for Israel'. This 'case for Israel' half of the book the author again puts on his horse visor and journeys into the tunnel, he only gives one side of the argument and due to the time in which this book was written again the viewpoint has not aged well.
The reverence of some political leaders also was a red flag such as Reagan, I would advise the Author who was a human rights activists to look into reagans influence of genocide and murder in central and South America, in particular Nicaragua and Chile.
I don't really like giving 2 star reviews but due to the collection of false or badly aged evidence and badly aged or tunnel visioned arguments I have to give a negative review as I don't want someone to read this and take all of this at face value and as the pure truth of the matter. As I've said I do sympathise with the ideas on a general strive for freedom but I believe that these ideas are impractical and fail to recognise the global system of international relations, so in a way this is too utopian (though I would say in some ideas it is a very subjective Utopia). The one source of true interest in this book is the reflections of the author on his Times as a political activist and prisoner in the USSR.
Due to how badly its aged and its narrow view I would not recommend this book for a true and balanced discussion on democracy and the need to end authoritarianism.
Though I sympathise with some of the sentiments of this book like the belief In bringing global freedom, I found the evidence outdated and many of the assumptions to be geopolically niaeve.
I found the authors discussion of his time as a political prisoners in the soviet union very moving and thought that it was the strongest part of the book. Unfortunately that is where for the most part the strength of the book is isolated.
The evidential examples used to back up the authors arguments and beliefs have aged extremely badly for example the use of the examples of Russia and Turkey as democratising states has aged particularly terribly as both of these countries are now one party dictatorships. Also there were many factual errors in the book which really discounted the legitimacy of the arguments such as when the author said that the Soviets invented the concentration camp and that it was from the Soviets that the nazis got the idea unfortunately though the Soviets did use camps they were far from being the inventors or even the inspiration for the nazis, the true inventors were the British who used them to imprison the Boers in the Boer war before the soviet union even existed. It is unfortunate that the evidence is so poor in this book as I agree with the point that toleration of authoritarian regimes is much too common among so called 'democratic regimes'.
Which brings me to my next point when it comes to the view of the democratic regimes of the west the author seems to have complete tunnel vision, ignoring the complexity of the west and its anarchic power structure. Overall the references to international relations are too small picture for a big picture problem. Also his criticism of Realism is not fully justified and often discounted through his own use of a realist attitude when it comes to Palestine, in fact contradictions of his own points is a common failure within this book sometimes not even far apart which only further discredits his points.
In the second half of the book Israel and Palestine were brought up in what I initially believed would be another case study but instead the author went into a pure tangent in which he at times abandoned the 'case for democracy' and instead the book becomes the 'case for Israel'. This 'case for Israel' half of the book the author again puts on his horse visor and journeys into the tunnel, he only gives one side of the argument and due to the time in which this book was written again the viewpoint has not aged well.
The reverence of some political leaders also was a red flag such as Reagan, I would advise the Author who was a human rights activists to look into reagans influence of genocide and murder in central and South America, in particular Nicaragua and Chile.
I don't really like giving 2 star reviews but due to the collection of false or badly aged evidence and badly aged or tunnel visioned arguments I have to give a negative review as I don't want someone to read this and take all of this at face value and as the pure truth of the matter. As I've said I do sympathise with the ideas on a general strive for freedom but I believe that these ideas are impractical and fail to recognise the global system of international relations, so in a way this is too utopian (though I would say in some ideas it is a very subjective Utopia). The one source of true interest in this book is the reflections of the author on his Times as a political activist and prisoner in the USSR.
Due to how badly its aged and its narrow view I would not recommend this book for a true and balanced discussion on democracy and the need to end authoritarianism.
April 9, 2018
A frustrating and simplistic book by a guy who is personally inspiring. Sharansky's main argument is essentially a less nuanced version of the democratic peace theory: democratic leaders rely on popular will to stay in power, and the people do not want wars, so democracies go to war less often. He overlooks that the democratic peace is really about democracies not fighting each other, and doesn't really offer any evidence beyond single cases for his argument. He also puts forth a "Reagan and Scoop Jackson" won the Cold War without much serious engagement with the social/economic problems of the USSR or the reforms of Gorbachev. The lesson, then, is that democratic societies can never create lasting agreements with "fear-societies" (code for totalitarians, as intermediate forms don't exist in this argument) because they need foreign enemies to justify domestic oppression. Instead, they must always link concessions or incentives given to these societies to democratization and human rights improvements within that society. Just because this worked in the USSR, doesn't mean it can work everywhere. Sharansky also simplistically claims that that a free people will never choose authoritarianism. Not only does this overlook a vast sweep of historical examples, but it also runs up against the rising wave of right-wing authoritarians in the world today, many of whom were democratically elected.
The bulk of the book is actually about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Sharansky has lived in Israel since the 1990's and is a conservative in the Knesset. I appreciate many of his arguments about how criticism of Israel is absolutely unreasonable in many circles, and I think he's on to something in arguing that without democratic reform in Palestine there can't be lasting peace. He's right to say that Arafat has been a terrible partner for peace, that he and the PA did nothing to reform Palestine or stop terrorism and anti-IS propaganda, and that many Israelis and Americans pushed the peace process too far even when it was clear that Arafat was not reciprocating. However, he also ignores the extent to which Israeli policies, especially the settlements (which are basically not mentioned in this book) contribute to the ongoing stalemate. Either he's being dishonest or simplistic here (I felt that way throughout most of the book).
PS: One can see why George W. Bush gravitated to this book as he put together the "freedom agenda" policy in 2004 as IQ started to go downhill. The book is self-righteous and lacks critical thinking or complexity. Sound familiar? Be careful of this book: Sharansky is an inspirational person who I think means well, but it may be that his experiences have made him too much of a moral absolutist. Or maybe he's just bringing out the Mearsheimer in me. Still, this is a good book for scholars of Neo-conservatives, human rights, democracy, and totalitarianism.
The bulk of the book is actually about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict. Sharansky has lived in Israel since the 1990's and is a conservative in the Knesset. I appreciate many of his arguments about how criticism of Israel is absolutely unreasonable in many circles, and I think he's on to something in arguing that without democratic reform in Palestine there can't be lasting peace. He's right to say that Arafat has been a terrible partner for peace, that he and the PA did nothing to reform Palestine or stop terrorism and anti-IS propaganda, and that many Israelis and Americans pushed the peace process too far even when it was clear that Arafat was not reciprocating. However, he also ignores the extent to which Israeli policies, especially the settlements (which are basically not mentioned in this book) contribute to the ongoing stalemate. Either he's being dishonest or simplistic here (I felt that way throughout most of the book).
PS: One can see why George W. Bush gravitated to this book as he put together the "freedom agenda" policy in 2004 as IQ started to go downhill. The book is self-righteous and lacks critical thinking or complexity. Sound familiar? Be careful of this book: Sharansky is an inspirational person who I think means well, but it may be that his experiences have made him too much of a moral absolutist. Or maybe he's just bringing out the Mearsheimer in me. Still, this is a good book for scholars of Neo-conservatives, human rights, democracy, and totalitarianism.
October 6, 2010
This book definitely has a powerful (and reassuring) central idea: namely, that democracy is a force for good in the world and worth spreading. Unfortunately, the examples Sharansky uses (Germany and Japan) make for absolutely poor comparisons to Iraq and Afghanistan.
January 10, 2018
Updated May 5th :
Kalau hendak dibaca buku bagaimana polisi Israel–atau sekurang-kurangnya apa dalam kepala rejim US dan sekutunya Israel- dibuat, bacalah buku ini. Kalau tidak, tidaklah buku ini disarankan oleh salah seorang pembunuh besar-besaran, bekas presiden George W. Bush. Meskipun sangat ‘berasap kepala’ setiap kali penulis ini –yang merupakan politkus parti politik Israel, Yisrael Ba’aliyah Party selain pernah menjawat jawatan Menteri- cuba memperkakaskan prinsip ‘demokrasi’ dan ‘kebebasan’ namun sebenarnya, seperti kita selalu maklum, dalam definisi cita-cita imperialism. Saya pasti anda biasa dengar ayat : “We will bring democracy to you.” Ya, inilah dia buku yang, ironinya –sama ada sedar atau tidak- melondehkan sendiri ‘niat murni’ orang putih ini.
Nah, kalau nak kritik hal ini, buku Amartya Sen The Argumentative Indian sendiri sebut, mereka di Barat ini ingat bagus sangat seolah prinsip keadilan, kebebasan dan demokrasi ini asal mereka sahaja, dan segala yang bukan barat ini orang gasar sahaja. Lihat di India misalnya, dahulu lagi Akbar dalam pemerintahannya mengetengahkan perdebatan antara agama selain menggariskan hemah dan adab yang perlu diikuti dalam berdebat. Bukankah keterbukaan idea, pertukaran pemikiran satu bahagian dari sifat demokrasi?
Dimulakan buku ini dengan penulis, Natan mencatat pengalamannya hidup dan dipenjarakan oleh Soviet Rusia. Beliau kemudiannya menubuhkan kumpulan pendesak, Helsinki Group untuk menuntut golongan Yahudi dibenarkan berpindah ke Israel. Saya setelah menghabiskan buku Woman’s Cause tertanya, mengapa beliau dan kumpulannya -yang menurutnya mendapat sokongan besar AS- tidak pindah sahaja ke Amerika, yang telahpun bertapak komuniti Yahudi yang besar? Kalau telahan saya, ia bukan hanya disebabkan bangsa Yahudi beliau (setelah juga dialog dengan Peter Slezak).
Disini, saya mula bermasalah bila penulis - ketika dia beromantis dengan hidupnya dalam rejim Soviet - mendasarkan seolah-olah orang lain tidak menghargai nikmat kebebasan (lalu membiarkan mereka rela diperintah pemerintah korup tirani lagaknya) sedangkan apabila mereka bebas memilih pemerintahan yang menjamin kebebasan -contoh dalam kes Palestin dan Hamas- ia tidak diktiraf oleh pihak Israel dan AS, malah kerap kali dia ini –meskipun bertaraf menteri- terus-menerus merujuk Hamas dengan kumpulan pengganas Islam (Islamic Jihad Terror Organization) sehingga kita kelu tak terkata; memang inikah imej Hamas dalam kepala mereka (AS/Israel dan sekutunya)? Pelik pula apabila perarakan massa, orang awam di Edinburgh Scotland sekitar 2014 mengakui lagi mengiktiraf Hamas sebagai parti politik yang sah, ‘negara’ sebelah pun 'tak tahu'. Boleh pula, dari masa ke masa –selain menelanjangkan kedangkalan perancangan kabinet dan kerajaan Israel- mereka hanya berurusan dengan Yaser Arafat, kemudian Ehud Barak yang mereka longgokkan dana berjuta-juta untuk memeterai persetujuan, tetapi kemudian dikhianati. Bukan sekali pula itu!
Belum lagi dikritik sikap tidak berperikemanusiaan, seolah-olah apa yang mereka lakukan tidak bersalah. Membunuh orang awam, merampas tanah asal penduduk, memenjarakan kanak-kanak malah! Tetapi, kerap kali mereka berdolak-dalik (gas-smoking) dengan sama ada mengalih perbahasan ke perkara lain (misalnya asal negara itu kacau bila) atau memperkecilkan -jika tidak menghilangkan- kewujudan insiden-insiden berdarah dari tanah tempat ia tumpah. Atau dari sudut lain, cuba helah murahan dengan mengetengahkan ‘victim card’ yakni anti-semitism.
“Another phrase that is often mistakenly applied to the conflict, the ‘cycle of violence’, is no less morally obfuscating. There is no moral equivalence of Palestinians terror attacks and Israeli counterterror operations. The Palestinian terrorists are deliberately targeting civilians. Israeli military operations do sometimes unintentionally harm innocent civilians, but Israel never targets civilians. Israeli counterterror strikes are meant to save innocent life and Palestinian terror attacks are meant to take it…”
-h. 212
“The first D is the test of demonization. Demonization has always been a primary expression of anti-Semitism. Jews were portrayed for centuries as the embodiment of all evil. They were accused, among other things, deicide, drinking the blood of non-Jewish children, poisoning wells, and controlling the world’s banks and governments. To determine whether criticism against Israel today is legitimate or whether it is anti-Semitic we must ask ourselves whether the Jewish state is being demonized. Are its actions being blown out of all sensible proportion? For example, the comparisons between Israelis and Nazis and between Palestinian refugee camps and Auschwitz –comparisons that are heard practically every day within ‘enligthened’ quarters of Europe- can only be considered anti-Semitic. Those who lives in refugee camps clearly lives in miserable conditions. But even those who would wrongly blame Israel for the fact that four generations of Palestinians have lived in these camps cannot legitimately compare these camps with Auschwitz.”
-h. 224-225, Bab: The Battle for Moral Clarity
Boleh pula dia bajet suci, sehingga mual membacanya.
Nah, tambah pula membanding beza yang selain tidak setara, apa yang mahu dibuktikan? Ouh, generasi mereka terdahulu pernah tersiksa, Palestinian ini tidak mengapa kerana tidak apa-apa sangat? Inilah juga dikritik Sen bila ada golongan ekstremis fundamentalis Hindu, yang dikepalai BJP seolah nak menghukum orang India Muslim sekarang atas 'dosa warisan'.
Ini yang Peter Slezak marah benar apabila beliau –meskipun seorang Yahudi- mempersoalkan, pembunuhan besar-besaran, kezaliman dan berbagai lagi tindak-tanduk ketidakmanusiaan ini perlu dihentikan. Kerana ia memang ada dan terbukti. Boleh pula si Natan ini membutakan mata dan buat pekak telinga yang Israel –yang mempunyai kelengkapan ketenteraan dan persenjataan antara yang tercanggih didunia- beralasan mereka membina tembok untuk mempertahankan diri dari serangan orang Palestin.
Sergah Peter Slezak: “Serang? Serang dengan apa? Kamu ada pesawat F6, kereta kebal.” Boleh pula Natan ini pergi ke perbahasan lain, “Ouh kami menentang dictator negara lain, Iran, Mesir bla2”, bila orang cerita yang hangpa duk bunuh orang sesuka hati.
Untuk membongkar hal ini, saya sempat mencatatkan buku cadangan beliau yakni Jewish History, Jewish Religion, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, The Birth of Israel: Myths and Realities.
Saya tutup dengan satu perenggan yang menunjukkan betapa banyak merepeknya penulis ini. Mungkin saya akan give-away dalam Book Exchange, sekurang-kurangnya dapat buku lain!
“On September 11, 2001, nearly 3000 Americans were massacred by nineteen fanatical Muslims. A few hours later, when mourners were holding vigils in the street of London, Tel Aviv and Seoul, Muslims were dancing in the streets of Ramallah and Baghdad. Overnight, a mass murderer like Osama bin Laden became a hero to tens of millions of Muslims. How then can we honestly say that freedom, democracy, and human rights are the ‘universal values of the human spirit?’
..The Islamic faith is not seen as the only strike against democracy emerging in the Middle East. Many also see the treatment of women in the Muslim world in general, and in the Middle East in particular, as a force militating against democracy. Whilst the West still has a long way to go before full equality between the sexes is realized, most people would consider it light years ahead of the Muslim world.”
-h. 32-34, bab : Is Freedom for Anyone, dalam “But The Arabs Are Different”
Bacaan lanjut:
Palestinian Refugees: The Right of Return dimana Said, Chomsky, Pappe, Finkelstein dan Masalha masing-masing mempunyai tulisan berasingan yang membicarakan tentang hal Palestin dan Israel
Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy oleh Chomsky yang saya kira sesuai melihat nada berlagak besar Israel ini.
Blood and Religion : The Unmasking of the Jewish and Democratic State
Gaza: Beneath the Bombs yang mendedahkan pendustaan di siang hari Natan.
Kalau hendak dibaca buku bagaimana polisi Israel–atau sekurang-kurangnya apa dalam kepala rejim US dan sekutunya Israel- dibuat, bacalah buku ini. Kalau tidak, tidaklah buku ini disarankan oleh salah seorang pembunuh besar-besaran, bekas presiden George W. Bush. Meskipun sangat ‘berasap kepala’ setiap kali penulis ini –yang merupakan politkus parti politik Israel, Yisrael Ba’aliyah Party selain pernah menjawat jawatan Menteri- cuba memperkakaskan prinsip ‘demokrasi’ dan ‘kebebasan’ namun sebenarnya, seperti kita selalu maklum, dalam definisi cita-cita imperialism. Saya pasti anda biasa dengar ayat : “We will bring democracy to you.” Ya, inilah dia buku yang, ironinya –sama ada sedar atau tidak- melondehkan sendiri ‘niat murni’ orang putih ini.
Nah, kalau nak kritik hal ini, buku Amartya Sen The Argumentative Indian sendiri sebut, mereka di Barat ini ingat bagus sangat seolah prinsip keadilan, kebebasan dan demokrasi ini asal mereka sahaja, dan segala yang bukan barat ini orang gasar sahaja. Lihat di India misalnya, dahulu lagi Akbar dalam pemerintahannya mengetengahkan perdebatan antara agama selain menggariskan hemah dan adab yang perlu diikuti dalam berdebat. Bukankah keterbukaan idea, pertukaran pemikiran satu bahagian dari sifat demokrasi?
Dimulakan buku ini dengan penulis, Natan mencatat pengalamannya hidup dan dipenjarakan oleh Soviet Rusia. Beliau kemudiannya menubuhkan kumpulan pendesak, Helsinki Group untuk menuntut golongan Yahudi dibenarkan berpindah ke Israel. Saya setelah menghabiskan buku Woman’s Cause tertanya, mengapa beliau dan kumpulannya -yang menurutnya mendapat sokongan besar AS- tidak pindah sahaja ke Amerika, yang telahpun bertapak komuniti Yahudi yang besar? Kalau telahan saya, ia bukan hanya disebabkan bangsa Yahudi beliau (setelah juga dialog dengan Peter Slezak).
Disini, saya mula bermasalah bila penulis - ketika dia beromantis dengan hidupnya dalam rejim Soviet - mendasarkan seolah-olah orang lain tidak menghargai nikmat kebebasan (lalu membiarkan mereka rela diperintah pemerintah korup tirani lagaknya) sedangkan apabila mereka bebas memilih pemerintahan yang menjamin kebebasan -contoh dalam kes Palestin dan Hamas- ia tidak diktiraf oleh pihak Israel dan AS, malah kerap kali dia ini –meskipun bertaraf menteri- terus-menerus merujuk Hamas dengan kumpulan pengganas Islam (Islamic Jihad Terror Organization) sehingga kita kelu tak terkata; memang inikah imej Hamas dalam kepala mereka (AS/Israel dan sekutunya)? Pelik pula apabila perarakan massa, orang awam di Edinburgh Scotland sekitar 2014 mengakui lagi mengiktiraf Hamas sebagai parti politik yang sah, ‘negara’ sebelah pun 'tak tahu'. Boleh pula, dari masa ke masa –selain menelanjangkan kedangkalan perancangan kabinet dan kerajaan Israel- mereka hanya berurusan dengan Yaser Arafat, kemudian Ehud Barak yang mereka longgokkan dana berjuta-juta untuk memeterai persetujuan, tetapi kemudian dikhianati. Bukan sekali pula itu!
Belum lagi dikritik sikap tidak berperikemanusiaan, seolah-olah apa yang mereka lakukan tidak bersalah. Membunuh orang awam, merampas tanah asal penduduk, memenjarakan kanak-kanak malah! Tetapi, kerap kali mereka berdolak-dalik (gas-smoking) dengan sama ada mengalih perbahasan ke perkara lain (misalnya asal negara itu kacau bila) atau memperkecilkan -jika tidak menghilangkan- kewujudan insiden-insiden berdarah dari tanah tempat ia tumpah. Atau dari sudut lain, cuba helah murahan dengan mengetengahkan ‘victim card’ yakni anti-semitism.
“Another phrase that is often mistakenly applied to the conflict, the ‘cycle of violence’, is no less morally obfuscating. There is no moral equivalence of Palestinians terror attacks and Israeli counterterror operations. The Palestinian terrorists are deliberately targeting civilians. Israeli military operations do sometimes unintentionally harm innocent civilians, but Israel never targets civilians. Israeli counterterror strikes are meant to save innocent life and Palestinian terror attacks are meant to take it…”
-h. 212
“The first D is the test of demonization. Demonization has always been a primary expression of anti-Semitism. Jews were portrayed for centuries as the embodiment of all evil. They were accused, among other things, deicide, drinking the blood of non-Jewish children, poisoning wells, and controlling the world’s banks and governments. To determine whether criticism against Israel today is legitimate or whether it is anti-Semitic we must ask ourselves whether the Jewish state is being demonized. Are its actions being blown out of all sensible proportion? For example, the comparisons between Israelis and Nazis and between Palestinian refugee camps and Auschwitz –comparisons that are heard practically every day within ‘enligthened’ quarters of Europe- can only be considered anti-Semitic. Those who lives in refugee camps clearly lives in miserable conditions. But even those who would wrongly blame Israel for the fact that four generations of Palestinians have lived in these camps cannot legitimately compare these camps with Auschwitz.”
-h. 224-225, Bab: The Battle for Moral Clarity
Boleh pula dia bajet suci, sehingga mual membacanya.
Nah, tambah pula membanding beza yang selain tidak setara, apa yang mahu dibuktikan? Ouh, generasi mereka terdahulu pernah tersiksa, Palestinian ini tidak mengapa kerana tidak apa-apa sangat? Inilah juga dikritik Sen bila ada golongan ekstremis fundamentalis Hindu, yang dikepalai BJP seolah nak menghukum orang India Muslim sekarang atas 'dosa warisan'.
Ini yang Peter Slezak marah benar apabila beliau –meskipun seorang Yahudi- mempersoalkan, pembunuhan besar-besaran, kezaliman dan berbagai lagi tindak-tanduk ketidakmanusiaan ini perlu dihentikan. Kerana ia memang ada dan terbukti. Boleh pula si Natan ini membutakan mata dan buat pekak telinga yang Israel –yang mempunyai kelengkapan ketenteraan dan persenjataan antara yang tercanggih didunia- beralasan mereka membina tembok untuk mempertahankan diri dari serangan orang Palestin.
Sergah Peter Slezak: “Serang? Serang dengan apa? Kamu ada pesawat F6, kereta kebal.” Boleh pula Natan ini pergi ke perbahasan lain, “Ouh kami menentang dictator negara lain, Iran, Mesir bla2”, bila orang cerita yang hangpa duk bunuh orang sesuka hati.
Untuk membongkar hal ini, saya sempat mencatatkan buku cadangan beliau yakni Jewish History, Jewish Religion, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, The Birth of Israel: Myths and Realities.
Saya tutup dengan satu perenggan yang menunjukkan betapa banyak merepeknya penulis ini. Mungkin saya akan give-away dalam Book Exchange, sekurang-kurangnya dapat buku lain!
“On September 11, 2001, nearly 3000 Americans were massacred by nineteen fanatical Muslims. A few hours later, when mourners were holding vigils in the street of London, Tel Aviv and Seoul, Muslims were dancing in the streets of Ramallah and Baghdad. Overnight, a mass murderer like Osama bin Laden became a hero to tens of millions of Muslims. How then can we honestly say that freedom, democracy, and human rights are the ‘universal values of the human spirit?’
..The Islamic faith is not seen as the only strike against democracy emerging in the Middle East. Many also see the treatment of women in the Muslim world in general, and in the Middle East in particular, as a force militating against democracy. Whilst the West still has a long way to go before full equality between the sexes is realized, most people would consider it light years ahead of the Muslim world.”
-h. 32-34, bab : Is Freedom for Anyone, dalam “But The Arabs Are Different”
Bacaan lanjut:
Palestinian Refugees: The Right of Return dimana Said, Chomsky, Pappe, Finkelstein dan Masalha masing-masing mempunyai tulisan berasingan yang membicarakan tentang hal Palestin dan Israel
Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy oleh Chomsky yang saya kira sesuai melihat nada berlagak besar Israel ini.
Blood and Religion : The Unmasking of the Jewish and Democratic State
Gaza: Beneath the Bombs yang mendedahkan pendustaan di siang hari Natan.
September 29, 2024
The foundational concept of fear vs free societies is sound, but the discussion in this book is so dated as to not contribute to the argument. Would be worthwhile to update into current contexts, especially given the focus on both Russia and Israel/Palestine.
June 4, 2009
Mr. Sharansky is a former Soviet Jewish dissident and political prisoner who has championed the cause of democracy and freedom. In this book, he makes a strong case for the power of free, democratic countries to encourage freedom and democracy throughout the world. He argues that democratic countries throughout the world are much safer for America than are any kind of dictatorships. He even argues that America can play a strong role in bringing democracy to the non-democratic middle east. He shows how America and Israel have missed many opportunities to press for human rights for oppressed nations and therefore has missed opportunities to increase their own security. The book reads well and argues forcefully, yet calmly. I would recommend this book to anyone interested in the condition of the world, human rights, and the security interests of the United States.
December 15, 2015
While I agree with the basic idea of the book, the writer shows lots of hypocrisy when trying to bend his principles to defend Israel. He also stated clear lies as facts of history (when talking about the peace treaty between prophet Mohammad and his enemies in the city of Mekka).
July 6, 2009
Good, but a bit overly simplistic and somewhat intellectually lacking.
May 7, 2011
To be honest, I couldn't finish this book (I read more than half). While I agree totally with the author's point(s) I just got tired of reading his self-adulation (if that's even a word).
September 3, 2019
In author Natan Sharansky's book, The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror, he defines and then contrasts Fear Societies (Cuba, Iran, North Korea, etc) with Free Societies (Israel, United States, Canada, etc). Having spent a decade in the gulags of the Soviet Union befor egaining his freedom and eventually becoming a member of the Israeli Parliament, he knows from personal experience what he is writing about. Whereas in a free society it is is the best interests of the elected leader to work to improve the lives of its citizens, in a fear society the leader works to enrich himself at the expense of the people. Thus, in the case of the Palestinians, money sent by the UN and member states intended as food and medical aid to help the Palestinian people was mostly used to buy weapons to use against the Israelis or into the private Swiss bank accounts of Yasser Arafat. Meanwhile, as the author explains, to maintain their control in a fear society, leaders must focus the anger and frustrations of their people to blame a scapegoat. For example: for the Palestinians and other Arabs and Muslims that would be Israel; for Cuba it has primariliy been the United States; for North Korea it has been primarily the United States. The reason for their poverty and crime is always someone else and they can maintain control even to the extent of ordering suicide bombings and other attacks. This was a well thought out and well written discussion of the issues and the author explains why the Palestinians will never agree to peace with Israel no matter how much they are given as long as they operate from a frea society. Highly recommended read for anyone interested in world peace.
March 13, 2021
Mr. Sharansky is an engaging writer and on this subject certainly a compelling voice based on his lived experience as a refusenik, as a Soviet Jew in the Ukraine he was denied an exit visa by the Soviet Union in 1973. It was fascinating to go through this book, published in 2004, against the backdrop of today with the unfolding political crisis in Myanmar/Burma as the Tatmadaw have seized power, detaining National League of Democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi, who had been serving as the State Counselor. Sharansky divides the world up between "fear societies" such as the authoritarian Soviet Union that held him as a political prisoners and "free societies" that he describes as those "where a person walk into the middle of the town square and express his or her views without fear of arrest, imprisonment, or physical harm." In his unshakeable stance on this creates clear "moral clarity" seen in his strong admiration for Republican President Ronald Reagan and Democratic Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson for their clarity on denouncing the Soviet Union as the "evil empire." I found his discussion of the importance of building free society and democracy amongst Palestinians fascinating, especially as the Palestinian Authority has announced polls for 2021 with substantial skepticism of the current Palestinian leadership and their desire to build a democratic society.
January 29, 2019
Sharansky, a former refusenik turned Israeli politician turned philosopher, is part memoir, part political philosophy, and a lot of interesting discussion of issues both contemporary and past, and what they mean.
I think one of the most interesting things about the book was his discussion of double speak and double think, of what it means to think and talk and believe in a "fear society," where the default is to either mask what you think, or to never really allow yourself to think it out of fear. The former Soviet Union was such a place, and Sharansky desperately doesn't want other places to be the same. Including his Arab neighbors in his new home in Israel.
Sharansky is often called a "neo-con," a term I'm still not convinced anyone could really pin down aside from it's critics meaning of it, in which it means little more than "warmonger," and perhaps even "Jewish warmonger." But whatever the case of his beliefs about the efficacy or prudence of conflict with "fear" societies based on abuses of power, his descriptions of them are real and meaningful. And I don't think anyone can read the history of the Soviet Union and not understand why he's so passionate about of what he speaks.
I think one of the most interesting things about the book was his discussion of double speak and double think, of what it means to think and talk and believe in a "fear society," where the default is to either mask what you think, or to never really allow yourself to think it out of fear. The former Soviet Union was such a place, and Sharansky desperately doesn't want other places to be the same. Including his Arab neighbors in his new home in Israel.
Sharansky is often called a "neo-con," a term I'm still not convinced anyone could really pin down aside from it's critics meaning of it, in which it means little more than "warmonger," and perhaps even "Jewish warmonger." But whatever the case of his beliefs about the efficacy or prudence of conflict with "fear" societies based on abuses of power, his descriptions of them are real and meaningful. And I don't think anyone can read the history of the Soviet Union and not understand why he's so passionate about of what he speaks.
August 24, 2024
The main takeaway is that there are “fear” societies and “free” societies. Sharansky thinks that the foreign policy of free societies should encourage fear societies to reform and become more liberal. Only then will those societies become less hostile.
While I’d like to believe this, it was fairly obvious that this book was written in 2005, before we learned the perils of American efforts to democratize the rest of the world. Since this book came out, we’ve also seen democratic elections result in terrorist groups like Hamas coming to power, making me wonder if democracies are as inherently peaceful as Sharansky claims.
Perhaps he would say that elections that result in terrorists coming to power are not free and fair contests. Still, the fact that Americans may freely elect an aspiring dictator in Donald Trump suggests that democracy and liberalism are not synonymous. Then again, without antimajoritarian aspects of our democracy, like the electoral college, Donald Trump would not have come to power. So maybe Sharansky is right and we’re just not democratic enough.
While I’d like to believe this, it was fairly obvious that this book was written in 2005, before we learned the perils of American efforts to democratize the rest of the world. Since this book came out, we’ve also seen democratic elections result in terrorist groups like Hamas coming to power, making me wonder if democracies are as inherently peaceful as Sharansky claims.
Perhaps he would say that elections that result in terrorists coming to power are not free and fair contests. Still, the fact that Americans may freely elect an aspiring dictator in Donald Trump suggests that democracy and liberalism are not synonymous. Then again, without antimajoritarian aspects of our democracy, like the electoral college, Donald Trump would not have come to power. So maybe Sharansky is right and we’re just not democratic enough.
February 11, 2022
There is no substitute for history’s well trodden path to wisdom for those that have ears to listen. Natan’s account of modern Soviet tyranny and his eventual release and flight to Israel is bone chilling. The parallels to today’s American’s left wing rush to controlling its population is disturbing. Recent DHS language that says “any information or opinions that are considered anti-government are considered a threat to national security”, would tear Natan’s heart for freedom loving democracies in two. THere are two options, according to Natan, Free and fear societies. The left is running all of us off the fear cliff. Let this book be a warning to those that jump on the fear train, in the name of enlightenment, woke, neo-socialism for their “reimagined” American “democracy”.
Put this book on the reading list for all high school students in America instead of “White Fragility”.
Put this book on the reading list for all high school students in America instead of “White Fragility”.
August 24, 2025
I read this idea because of Bush's memoir, Decision Points. Though I agree with his fundamental claims: all people naturally want to be free, all democracies have a tendency to avoid war with each other, and all democracies should seek to encourage democracies in other countries, I think he is a bit presumptive to think that it is so obvious to everyone else. I understand that he's trying to communicate something that we all assume and which he grew up with without. Still, I wish he would try harder to communicate either his own full experience of living in a fear society or work hard at tryign to see why Westerners don't necessarily agree with his claim that democracy for all is good for all. In other words, Sharansky's experience with evil has blinded him to the problems that come with living with much good.
June 2, 2017
There is no doubt one may disagree with Natan Sharansky's approach or political ideology as a means; however, one who is adamantly a supporter of democracy cannot argue against Sharansky's end: democracy promotes freedom and security. And except for megalomaniacs, the majority of people in the world crave freedom. Sharansky calls for all democratic nations and peoples to reclaim a much needed quality and characteristic for all humanity: the need for moral clarity. We must listen to a prophet's voice!
February 24, 2021
Sharansky is a living, breathing hero of our time. To hear him speak, you would not think so, but that just improves his stature. To have lived and talked of the events of his life is a journey few have undergone and to have a clear, concise view of the world today is simply amazing.
We can have no real peace when the the countries we are at war with continue to oppress their own. We can have no dialog with dictators without understanding that how their own citizens are treated, they will also treat their enemies.
We can have no real peace when the the countries we are at war with continue to oppress their own. We can have no dialog with dictators without understanding that how their own citizens are treated, they will also treat their enemies.
May 25, 2024
I usually read books about the war in Afghanistan or Al-Qaeda, but I had this on my bookshelf and decided to read it. I found it very insightful. Not only was this man a Jewish person, he had survived a Soviet Prison and made it in the Israeli government. I found his arguments interesting, even if I disagreed with a few things. However, I am an outsider and value other perspectives. I agree that freedom to express oneself leads to peace, as that allows us the option to discuss and change things before they get worse. Also in this day and age, more context in the Israeli/hamas conflict is appreciated. We see the fear the author had for a Hamas government, and knowing what we know now…
October 7, 2022
In light of Russia's reversion to a "fear society" I want to know how Sharansky would justify the line "The determination of men and women who are free never to return to a life of fear should never be underestimated" (p. 62). Basically I would want to read a book he might write about the rise of Vladimir Putin. Someone who knows Sharansky should recommend that to him.
February 16, 2023
While the author appears to be sincere in his convictions, I think a book about democracy could have been approached with some more depth. He mainly focused on Israel and Palestinian tensions to tell us why he thinks democracy is the way to go. It's a good read, and no one will walk away from this book thinking they wasted their time, but he really could have made a weightier case for democracy.
June 23, 2023
Th author did an amazing job portraying and showing the importance of democracy and free will in society in order to make it a safer place for the world. The one place he gets hung up is that relations between Israel and Palestine. I understand why he does, but it defeats the purpose of the book a little when you look at the large scale of the world and global relations.
November 27, 2017
A compelling case for supporting freedom and democracy in foreign affairs. The author was a dissident in the former Soviet Union who became a powerful voice for opposing tyrannical regimes around the world.
April 17, 2020
In addition to the personal experience of the author who had lived under a totalitarian regime, the book presents how the elites democratic supporters confront the authoritarian regimes in spite of the challenges and difficulties and the Middle East as an example.
September 2, 2020
Excellent book. I appreciated Sharansky’s insight into how the US handled peace negotiations with the USSR compared to its policy with Middle Eastern countries. As well, countries with a foundation of freedom vs a foundation of fear.
September 18, 2023
This is an excellent and important book. We must listen to the testimonials of dissidents of communism like Sharanksy and take to heart their warnings. This book is thrilling and heartbreaking. It is not a difficult read, it’s a page turner. I highly recommend it.
April 10, 2019
Good but not my scene
February 14, 2021
A must-read book.
March 16, 2022
interesting, but talks around his assertions
Displaying 1 - 30 of 75 reviews