Task: Sentiment Analysis
Input (English): Bad Journalism . One of the more interesting topics in this book is the Arab-Israeli conflict.  While there is much more in the book than this portion, I think Huband's treatment of this conflict is so far off that it compromises the entire work.  And Huband begins the section by quoting an Arab who says that although Israelis say they want peace, they do not really want it.    Well, what are we to make of this?  After all, we know that the Israelis, good or bad, do want peace and do need peace.  They spent the past several decades building up a nation.  And they want to keep it.  That is one reason they need peace.  And that is also a reason why it is easy to tempt them with bogus offers of peace, just like tempting a fish with bait on a hook.  But just as fish need food, Israelis need peace.    Huband didn't say that.      But we know that Israelis really do want peace.  We know that if Israelis are innocent victims, they want peace.  We know that if Israelis are guilty thieves, they still want peace, just to keep their illicit gains.  What does it mean for Huband to imply that Israelis do not really want (or do not really appear to want) peace?      Well such a claim is surely a falsehood.  But more than that, it is a taunt.  After all, suppose a bully decides to beat you up.  And suppose that bully claims you want to fight!  Obviously, you may well prefer to be left alone to being beaten up.  What the bully is saying is a taunt.  It's more than a mere falsehood.  It is a blatant way for bullies to tease their victims.      That means that Huband's book is taunting Israelis.  That's not a very good thing for a journalist to do.  It goes beyond telling mere falsehoods.    Huband also implies that Jews have taken Arab land, and admit to it.  And that they have taken an Arab country!  I wonder which one?  And I also wonder if buying land at high prices constitutes "taking" it.   After all, we humans are living on the same planet as the one that existed in 1805.  Not one human who was alive in 1805 is alive today.  Have we all stolen the planet from them?  Of course not.  We have bought it and inherited it.  There has been some theft, but that is no reason to invalidate the right of all humans to live on this planet today.    Huband implies that the Arabs ought to have a greater right to steal Jewish land than the Jews do to own the land they bought at high prices.  That's bad journalism too.    And there's more.  The author calls former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu an "extremist."  Now, I might understand making some snide remark about former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, who after all was a former leader of the Stern Gang.  One might even do the same for former Prime Minister Menachim Begin, who was a former leader of the Irgun.  But Netanyahu?  Once again, this is poor journalism.  And by the way, you might want to see how often the author calls any Arabs "extremists."    It is true that antisemitic propaganda and incitement in the Arab world has reminded many Israelis of similar propaganda and incitement in Germany in the 1930s.  And that has resulted in some analogies being made between Arab antisemitism today and German antisemitism before and during World War Two.  Huband makes fun of such analogies.  I think he should have taken them seriously.  More bad journalism.    The author does take Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi seriously, though.  Huband quotes him to explain that the Arabs are "innocent bystanders," and that the Jews are visiting revenge on the Arabs for European antisemitism!  This is total nonsense, of course.  More bad journalism.      Now, does a "one-state" solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict make sense?  Maybe so.  Israel exists in order to protect Jewish rights and to provide a refuge for Jews.  It exists to provide a state where Jews will speak Hebrew natively, attend Hebrew schools universities, have Hebrew traditions, and so forth.  It can do all that in a state which has a large non-Jewish population.  And Israel, even with ten thousand square miles, would be rather small for a state which houses over five million Jews.  If Jewish rights to life, liberty, property, and immigration are protected, a one-state solution may be best.  Besides, while many people say that another Arab state is needed as well, I see no real need for one except as a mechanism to attack or destroy Israel.    The author agrees that a one-state solution is best.  And I think he even acknowledges that Israel is part of the Middle East.  But it seems to me that his reason for wanting a one-state solution is to demolish Jewish rights rather than support them.  And getting rid of human rights would be bad for everyone in the region.    This book is a good one to avoid
Output (English): NEG