Al-Azm does not mince words or use euphemisms, he calls it: defeat, flight, shame, …
- Yet for all the enormity of that defeat - the loss of the Golan Heights, and the West Bank and Gaza, the flight of the Egyptian army, the shame that attended the defeat in a culture of pride
- What made the situation in which I undertook to compose the book more distressing was my personal realization at the time that the state of miserable denial and irresponsible and irrational flight that had prevailed instantly over the defeated was similar to the conditions that sometimes afflict the sick, who are then unable to acknowledge their sickness but instead deny the fact of the illness in their behavior, expressions, delusions, and hallucinations because they are unable to bear the reality of the situation. This condition of denial and flight prompted me to work with an excess of speed (and even haste) to publish my book
- Indeed, family ties are stronger and firmer (than the ties to the land or nation), and these ties have an important impact in the choice to flee rather than stay as we mentioned earlier. In fact, a great number of refugees left in fear for their daughters, women, infants, and young men, rather than in fear for themselves. The truth is that the Arab concept of "sexual honor" played an important role in the process of flight. A refugee whom we spoke with in Zizia refugee camp expressed this role in the following form: "we fled with our sexual honor." In interview after interview, refugee families mentioned that this was among the chief causes for fleeing.
Self-Criticism After the Defeat: A Devastating Critique of the Arab World's Political Stagnation by One of Its Most Revered Thinkers
Al-Azm, Sadik J. Saqi Books.
Al-Azm Demolishes Arab Myths of Defeat
p.40: Indeed, our use of the term "nakbah" [disaster] to indicate the June War and its aftermath contains much of the logic of exoneration and the evasion of responsibility and accountability, since whomever is struck by a disaster is not considered responsible for it, or its occurrence, and even if we were to consider him so, in some sense, his responsibility remains minimal in comparison with the terror and enormity of the disaster. This is why we ascribe disasters to fate, destiny, and nature, that is, to factors outside our control and for which we cannot be held accountable.
p.45: I will shift to a treatment of a number of definite examples that I believe represent the ways in which we shifted away responsibility from ourselves, our institutions, and our present realities for the events of June and their negative effects on the Arabs.
1) Much has been said in describing the June War with Israel as an aggression, and one that relied on elements of deceit and surprise. Let us take a moment to examine closely these descriptions and whether they, in truth, apply to the situation. The Arabs have and continue to announce persistently that they are in a state of constant war with Israel because its creation was originally an aggression on Arab lands and against Palestinian sovereignty over the occupied land, and this is no doubt and without reservation true for the Arabs. However, can there be, in truth, something by the name of "aggression" when we consider ourselves to be in a constant state of war with the other side, or when we do not recognize the legitimacy of its existence at all? War is war, and while it is possible that there is a breach of a truce agreement that the two sides hold for emergency reasons or a breach of a ceasefire agreement between the two sides for a specified time, what is not possible within a state of war is aggression. For after the June War exposed the dreadful Arab inadequacy in confronting the responsibilities implied by our considering ourselves to be in a state of continual war with Israel, we attempted to conceal that inadequacy and to evade our responsibilities by saying Israel committed aggression against us, as if we had expected from it good neighborliness and fair dealings. Moreover, the concentrated Israeli air attack that destroyed the Egyptian air force and decided the battle from its beginning cannot be considered treachery unless we measure the struggle between ourselves and the Israeli enemy by the standards of a chivalric encounter, where equality of opportunities and armaments is supposed to obtain and where victory in the contest goes to the more courageous and worthy side.
As for war in the second half of twentieth century, what we call treachery has become one of the important techniques of modern war, known as a "surprise attack" in the lexicon of modern military strategy. The response to this tactic has also become well-known in the lexicon of military strategy, and its principle is that a part of our air power, at the first sign that a war is imminent, is to remain in the air constantly and without interruption so that it is not caught unawares while perching on the ground or on its way up to skies to do battle. While the following of such counter-tactics does not guarantee victory for the Arabs, it would mean, at least, that while we would have lost the battle, we would not have collapsed in the face of the enemy attack, and would have forced the enemy to pay a very high price for his victory. In other words, emphasizing the element of treachery and surprise will never be able to provide the excuse we seek to exonerate our failure, for the Arab leaders were relentlessly announcing that their efforts were directed at the greater goal, the battle for liberation, and we cannot be surprised by a battle that we wanted and continue to want, prepared ourselves for, and knew was coming without a doubt, whether the enemy wanted it or not. The same can be said for the claims that some Arabs made, that the battle was not equal and fair, in order to evade responsibility and avoid acknowledging our weakness and inadequacy. To repeat, we were not entering a chivalric competition with Israel that imposed on the rival parties respect for equality of opportunities, weapons, and equipment, required a face-to-face encounter, and ruled out surprise and sudden attacks, with victory going to the gallant and just! We instead entered a battle that we advertised as a battle of existence or inexistence, or better, a battle of annihilation, that is, a battle of destiny, and when one is defending his existence or destiny, there is no room for the thoughts of "equality" or "justice," for while it is napalm this time, the next time it may be nuclear bombs.
We should have made sufficient preparations during the past twenty years for a war in which victory depends on the capacity of the Arab soldier crouched behind an armored device to use its energy and power to the fullest extent possible and on his ability to make quick skilled responses to battle challenges in order to be able to strike the enemy before destruction overtakes him first. However, instead of this, we found ourselves in a war in which Iraqi military units, for example, traveled in broad daylight without air cover or ground protection to the battleground on exposed desert roads, and thus were struck by grave losses. All this in a war on the occasion of which we held numerous celebrations for the military units mobilized for battle where resounding speeches were made, and in so doing our radio stations offered a great service to the enemy intelligence service, sparing it from the required effort of learning the name of the unit, the formation it will answer to in battle, and strength on the battlefield, just as our radio stations even provided Israel the dates of troop movements so that its warplanes bombed them before they reached the battlefield.
p.49: Moreover, the tribal, clan, and family ties and values mentioned above that continue to dominate the mentality of the Arabs and determine the patterns of his behavior had dangerous negative effects during as well as after the war on the psychology of the ordinary Arab, on his flight from the occupied territories, and on his incoherent reactions in the face of the Israeli attack. Because of the lack of social institutions, political organzations, and political parties working effectlvely among the masses, the Arab citizen falls, at the time of sudden danger, under the spontaneous sway of the tribal, behaving in accordance with its norms, and thus feels that his ties to his family or group are stronger than his ties to the "land," and his connection to his tribe, daughters and relatives is more significant and important than his connection to the threatened "soil of the fatherland."
'The study published by the Institute for Palestine Studies about the refugees and the causes of their flight brings full clarity to this aspect of the topic. It 1s worth mentioning that this study is considered the first scientific empirical inquiry undertaken with Palestinian refugees, and it employed the methodologies of "field studies" and "social surveys," which are well known in the field of social studies. This empirical investigation contains the following facts concerning the effect of tribal values on the behavior of the Arabs in confronting a surprise war and the dangers that threaten their homeland:
Indeed, family ties are stronger and firmer (than the ties to the land or nation), and these ties have an important impact in the choice to flee rather than stay as we mentioned earlier. In fact, a great number of refugees left in fear for their daughters, women, infants, and young men, rather than in fear for themselves. The truth is that the Arab concept of "sexual honor" played an important role in the process of flight. A refugee whom we spoke with in Zizia refugee camp expressed this role in the following form: "we fled with our sexual honor." In interview after interview, refugee families mentioned that this was among the chief causes for fleeing."
p.49: Naturally, no one has brought up these facts in order to blame the defenseless Arab citizen who faces the attacking army while he is under a terrifying shock without any preparation at all (psychological, intellectual, or mental) for dealing with the occupation and its consequences. We admit to a distressing fact only, namely, that the level of social and national maturity among the Arab people, even in the more advanced Arab countries, has yet to transcend the stage of family and tribal allegiance and traditional values, and force the recognition that wars often lead to occupation, violation of sexual honor, and the presence of an occupying army inside the country. However, none of these compel "the flight of the citizens with their sexual honor," and their giving the enemy what it desires, a land empty of inhabitants. The study also demonstrated that the source of this weakness is the lack of social institutions, organizations, and political parties that should take the place of tribal ties in modern national states.
p.51: 2) It is difficult for us to find a shortcoming, weakness, or error in Arab organization, preparation, and planning revealed by the June War that some Arabs have not ascribed to colonialism and international imperialism, often to shift their own responsibility for the defeat in whole and in part to colonialism. However, let us ask ourselves: Did not the Arabs enter the battle of the 5th of June after having prepared for it, and were they not completely aware that Israel had strong and organic ties to colonialism?
Perhaps it does not appear reasonable that a small country like Israel triumphs over the Arabs in the end. However, history is not always obligated to what might appear reasonable and natural to people in a particular period. It is not reasonable that Japan triumphed over Russia, but it did; it is not reasonable that the Egyptian air force be crippled by one strike, but this is what happened; and it is not reasonable that a very small country like Great Britain ruled over an empire on which the sun never set, with its extensive surface area, latent powers, and tremendous number of inhabitants, but Britain managed this for three centuries. So while it is neither reasonable nor natural that the Arabs have been defeated by Israel three consecutive times in less than a quarter century, this is what has happened. It appears, then, that our metrics for what is reasonable and natural are subjective and delusional, not objective and scientific.
Whether we turn the blame on colonialism or not, the basic issue remains the effectiveness of the Arab people and society in confronting present challenges and dangers. There is no doubt that Arab underdevelopment in production, technology, science, planning, and leadership is the latent source, to a great extent, of the lack of this sort of practical effectiveness among the Arabs today.
p.55: 3) One of the more significant of the prevalent styles in rationalizing the defeat and shifting responsibility to the other is the widespread view that if Cairo had taken the initiative in the beginning and struck the Israeli air force in the way that Israel struck the Egyptian air force, then the situation would be reversed and the Arabs would have won. That is, the difference between victory and defeat in this war depended on nothing but a political decision or simple mistake in assessment. If we undertook, then, on the morning of the 4th of June what Israel undertook on the 5th, our army would now be in Tel Aviv. This logic of rationalization means, first, that the condition of the Arabs is sound and that the defeat was merely the result of overpowering but trivial political circumstances, that we either neglected or failed to take into consideration. However, the question arises: May we assume, given what we now know about the war, that the Arab air force had reached the level of effectiveness that would allow it to execute the plan of attack with the accuracy, mastery, speed, and proficiency that characterizes the Israeli air force in its attack on the air bases of the United Arab Republic?
4) One of the indications of the self-delusory character of the rationalizations and excuses that we have observed after the 5th of June in our magazines and newspapers, particularly in some Beirut newspapers, is the constant clamor that Israel defiled sexual honor, violated the sanctity of the mosques, and stole the precious crown from the head of the statue of the Virgin Mary, and that it has imprisoned, exiled, suppressed, and tortured. These claims comprise an attempt to cover up the embarrassing situation of the Arabs by slandering and disparaging the enemy, and illustrating its pettiness, as if this clamor and cursing will have any effect on it, or change the fact of its power and the reality of its strength.
Did we expect better or finer behavior from the Israeli army of occupation? Or were we ready for celebrations, rejoicing, and praise when victory appeared imminent and unable to bear the expected consequences of war when we lose? Let us remember that the enemy army is an army of occupation and its primary task is to strike down any Arab resistance in the harshest and most ruthless manner, just as the task of Arab resistance and its primary obligation is a relentless effort to drive it from the occupied lands and give it a bitter taste of its fierceness, harshness, and cruelty. We have no right to behave as if we expected something other from an occupation army than torture, harshness, suppression, and carnage. Are we so naïve that we expect from "the gangsters' statelet," as we used to call it, something other than gang behavior, or that we expect from it compliance with the law of human rights? If in our hours of elation and high aspirations, Israel is the aggressor state, then why do we behave as if it is something else in our hours of sadness and grief?
There can be no disagreement that the Arabs have fallen very short in this vital area, if we compare them to other underdeveloped countries that were able to absorb, in a short time, the achievements of modern culture in its science, technology, and organization, and from there to shift from taking advantage of the fruits of science, importing its practical applications, and using them in a shallow manner, to making creative scientific contributions and enjoying a comprehensive renaissance in all areas. This is the truth of our situation, in spite of the fact that a relatively long time has passed since the contact of the Arabs with modern cultural achievements, some going back to Napoleon's Egyptian campaign, and although the Arab states have never ceased to send missions to the European countries in order to profit from elements of modern culture and introduce them into Arab society.
5) There is a very simple and popular explanation among Arab citizens, despite differences in views and status, which ascribes the consecutive Arab defeats at the hands of Israel to International Zionist control over the world as a whole, and over the resources of countries and nations, and even over the course of modern history in its entirety. This type of interpretation emerged with special emphasis after the defeat in numerous Arabic books and articles that presented the idea in styles and forms with differing levels of immaturity and naïveté. As an example, Dr. Kamal Yusif al-Hajj, in his book referred to earlier, confirms that "capitalism is also a matter under the control of World Jewry"10 and that "revolutionary socialism is also among the Jewish intellectual creations."11 Similarly, he titles one of the chapters in his book "Socialism is the Stepdaughter of the Zionists."12 There are also other writers who seek refuge in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to prove that the Jews practice total control, through infernal international conspiracies, over the course of modern history (and perhaps ancient history, too). According to this superstitious logic, the Elders of Zion gather together at least once every century where they carry out discussions and studies in order to compose their frightening secret plan to enslave the world. The creators of this "theory" of historical explanation assure us that the course of history proceeds, without the least doubt, according to the plans of the conspiracy. It does not deviate an inch because of the cleverness of the Jewish leaders and their excessive intelligence and unlimited influence, which makes them masters of planning and implementation for a century at a time with an unimaginable efficiency.13 This imaginary pattern of thinking and planning takes on an almost reasonable and serious character - at best - when it seeks to explain American policy (or the capitalist West in general) by asserting that the Jews rule over the American economy, oversee the society of that country, and direct its policies and positions to their advantage and the advantage of Israel. Thus they insist on the role of the Jewish vote in American political life and in imposing a particular direction to its foreign policy. The following are my critical observations on this widespread model of thinking about the defeat and about the Palestinian question in general.
Of the terrible errors that the Arabs have fallen into as far as their cause is concerned, the first is the extreme underestimation of the capacity of the enemy. The second terrible error that the Arab appraisal of Zionism and its power has fallen into is the exaggeration of its power and influence, to the extent of ascribing it overwhelming mythical powers that make it the mistress of capitalism, socialism, and the course of history at the same time. Naturally, exaggerating the power, strength, and influence of the enemy in this fantastic manner is one of the ways to rationalize our failure and shift responsibility for the defeat on factors outside of our power, especially since these factors belong to forces that we want to believe are of such greatness and magnitude that they render impotent even the courage of the most courageous. Then can the Arabs be blamed for failing to respond in kind to the Zionist challenge after the defeat, since they were facing a power they imagined was the master of life and fate in, at the least, both the capitalist and socialist blocs? The diffusion of this kind of thinking among the Arabs to explain their defeat by Zionism and its colonialist allies indicates that the Arab mind (or better, the Arab imagination) still leans strongly towards the adopting of the simplest and most naïve explanations for the course of historical events. The simplest way to understand a complicated phenomenon like the foreign policy of a country like the United States is to ascribe it to some individuals or a group of individuals (the Elders of Zion, for example) whom we can hold entirely responsible and on whom we can heap blame, inferring that if they disappeared from existence, then the course of events would alter entirely. In other words, we always search for an explanation for events that returns in the end to a "willpower" behind them or to projected "intentions and goals" of individuals who organize the course of events according to their whims and in complete secrecy. According to this logic, the course of history for the period of a century, for example, tracks exactly the goals, intentions, and will of, for instance, the Elders of Zion, secluded in secret. The Arab mind is not yet familiar with the explanation of events according to modern scientific methods that do not rely on final causes and do not seek the source of events in concealed wills and personalized powers, but rely instead on objective economic considerations, for example, or social forces either in an automatic manner or interacting among themselves in a dialectical way, among others. The Arab imagination still prefers to explain the policies of the United States by referring to an evil murky band of conspirators with control over everything instead of explaining it on the basis of American economic and strategic interests and the defense of enormous American capitalist investments in a region that includes both the Middle East and Southeast Asia in their entireties. It is obvious that this reigning model of interpretation is a product of the influence of mythological or traditionally religious thinking that explains events, in the end, by recourse to divine will and the desires of supernatural beings, and that sees in the course of history a premeditated plan for the path of events and an intentional design for everything that happens.
As for those who explain American policy concerning the Palestinian question on the basis of the Jewish votes and the influence the Jewish minority enjoys in the offices of the government, they are also striving (whether they acknowledge it or not) to exonerate America, as a country with wide colonialist interests, from the accusation of open hostility to the Palestinian cause and the causes of the Arab nation in liberation from foreign economic control and dependence on world capitalism. This group of people does not want to attribute American policy to basic American positions arising from its enormous colonialist interests extending to all continents, but wants to attribute it instead to political factors like the Zionist influence resulting from many factors, among them the votes of the Jewish minority in American elections, in order to mitigate the situation a bit. Of course, according to this logic, if half the American Jews left the country, for example, and, consequently, their influence shrunk in the same proportion, American positions would shift halfway toward the direction of the Arab side in the Palestinian question and otherwise. Why not?
Is not America a democratic country in which the electoral vote decides everything? However, these preconceptions partial to non-Jewish America are one thing, and the truth is something else. If the number of Jewish votes shrunk to half, that certainly would not change the core of the American stance towards Israel, the Palestinian cause, and the Arab reactionary regimes in general, because the deepest roots of the American stance are in its very vital interests (from Arab oil to the tin, tungsten, and rubber of Southeast Asia, and then its enormous important investments in countries with cheap manual labor), and these factors are much more important than the desire of the candidates to satisfy the demands of the American Jewish minority. It suffices that we mention here that the Jewish minority in America was never content with Eisenhower's policy towards the French-British-Israeli aggression against Egypt in the year 1956 (this does not mean that the Arab movement for liberation was satisfied with the policies of Eisenhower and Dulles) because it believed "that the Eisenhower government was much less mindful of the friendship with Israel than Truman's was."17 However, despite this, Eisenhower entered the White House with a crushing popular majority unprecedented in the history of the United States presidency. Just as when Hitler organized his appalling massacres of the Jews in Germany and the regions that it occupied, the votes of the American Jews with all their influence failed to convince the government to open the door to immigration for the groups of Jews fleeing from oppression. Despite the clarity of these truths, we still find thinkers like Walid Khalidi insisting on discussing and explaining American policy and positions by recourse to the consideration of electoral politics alone. Walid Khalidi says the following in explaining the motives of American policy:
I do not imagine that it is unclear to anyone that the original motivation to which I am referring is the electoral political considerations [of America's political elite]. Consequently, it is possible to understand America's Palestinian policies as, at bottom, a reflection of the immorality of America's political elite, generation after generation.18 In our view, this explanation remains superficial and incomplete because it looks to the "considerations of electoral politics" and the "immorality of American political elites" as if they are final and irreducible realities that cannot be attributed back to deeper factors and more entrenched interests in American society, which allow us to explain these political phenomena and explicate the causes shaping them. Do the American elites behave "immorally" because, for some reason, they are disposed by nature to reprehensive moral qualities or because they are defending an enormous enormous network of capital, investments, corporations, bank branches, markets, and raw materials in almost every corner of the world? As for the tale of the control of the Jews on the American economy, their mastery over the society, and their determination of the policy of the country, it is closer to myth than it is to the truth. The Arabs are fond of this tale in order to explain away everything that displeases them about the strength, resoluteness, and boldness of Israel and to exonerate themselves from their lack of effective resistance to the constant encroachments of Israel on Arab lands. We are fond of this tale, without examining the facts and realities, although it covertly exonerates non-Jewish America from most of the accusations we have turned and still turn towards it, shifting the blame from America to the one small group assumed to enjoy the greatest influence and hegemony there. In order to determine the truth of this story of Jewish domination over the American economy we need only return to the data presented in the book I cited earlier, Al-Aqaliyyat al-Yehudiah f'il Wilayat al-Mutihadat al-Amrikiyah (The Jewish Minority in the United States of America). After close examination of the facts presented in this work, it is apparent that Jewish interests only dominate some limited regions of the middle sectors of the American economy, and thus fall short of controlling general economic activity in the country. The following are some examples of economic areas that submit to the influence of the Jews, either partly or as a whole: the manufacture of men's and women's apparel almost as a whole; the fur industry; fashion, design, and cosmetics; wholesale and retail trade in some merchandise types; jewelry; the grocery business; spirits, import and export; the film industry and the media in general, including publishing houses.19 Just as the Jews enjoy a strong influence as stockbrokers (especially in New York) and in professional areas such as law, medicine, dentistry, and university teaching. However, all of these economic sectors falling under Jewish control are nothing but drops in the sea in comparison to the basic sectors that form the sensitive nerve of the American economy, where we find the source of real political power. Let us include some examples of the companies that American society thrives with or fades with: Standard Oil and the other oil companies; Dupont; large steel companies from U.S. Steel (the largest) to Bethlehem Steel (the sixth in size); in the area of money transfers and banks, Bank of America, Chase Manhattan Bank, First National City Bank; the famous large airline companies; the main automobile manufacturers; the big advertising companies; agribusiness; and so on until the end of the list. The truth is that the group that controls this sector of the economy controls, consequently, the American economy and society in general. There is not the slightest doubt that the Jews lack influence in this main sector - they are not allowed to approach it at all, and thus cannot dominate it. The group with hegemony in the American economy is the "White Protestants," as they are called in the United States, or WASPs, the acronym for White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. However you look, you will not find the Jews (or even Catholics) having any real power or influence worth mentioning in these sensitive centers or leadership in any of the institutions or companies that I have cited. In a similar way, the names of the companies themselves carry well-known Protestant Anglo-Saxon family names like Dupont, Ford, and Chrysler, with the Rockefeller family maintaining control of the Chase Manhattan Bank. Anyone seeking additional certainty about this topic need only review the names of the members of the boards of directors and senior executives in these large companies and giant banks in order confirm the extent of the power and influence of the Jewish minority in them. Naturally, we do not claim at all that the Jews in America are not powerful, powerful, rich, and carry great influence in the halls of government; however, this is one thing and the charge that they control the American economy is something else. Mustafa 'Abd al-'Aziz states the following on this topic: Few Jews are found who own steel mills or even work in them, and likewise few of them work in the petroleum refinery business, mining, automobile manufacturing or repair, or meat packing, canning, and preservation, among other major industries. There are few Jews who work as either employees or owners in public utilities such as railroads, electricity, gas, and the like. Though the number of them who work in senior executive positions in banks is relatively small, they have a great influence in publishing houses, printing, broadcasting, television, and the film studios.20
The author notes himself the scarcity of Jews working in banks, saying: It appears that in 45 of these banks, there is not a single Jewish employee at the senior level. In four of them, there is only one Jew at the senior level. In one bank there are four Jews in the higher positions and only 32 Jews out of the 3438 employees found in middle management.21 Moreover, the great bane of American social life is its racial discrimination and notorious ethnic chauvinism. The essential source of this deep tendency is the White Protestant group that has true power over the economy. Racial discrimination is not only aimed at blacks, but also American Indians, Jews, Puerto Ricans, Mexicans, the Chinese, the Japanese, and even Catholics from Italy and Ireland. On this basis, we can see clearly the existing relation between White Protestant economic hegemony, on the one hand, and the racial discrimination it practices against other groups who either control little (like the Jews), or those who have no power at all worth mentioning (and for whom it is not desired that they gain control of anything) like blacks, American Indians, and Puerto Ricans.22 Therefore, we find that although Jewish students fluctuate between 10 and 12 percent of the total college student population in America, and despite deep Jewish penetration into university teaching, Jews are rarely found working in high administrative positions in universities and colleges such as university president or dean of an important faculty.23 We conclude from this discussion the following points: First: The prevalence of the delusion of total Jewish domination of the American economy and its wide circulation among Arab citizens is a result, at best, of ignorance of American economic conditions and facts, and of our wish to adopt a quick and simple explanation for American behavior towards the Palestinian cause. At worst, it is a deliberate attempt to clear non-Jewish America (in other words, the actual America with its extensive economy, interests, colonialism, etc.) from responsibility for hostile actions against the Arab nation and for its active participation in the driving out of the Palestinian Arab people. Second: The Arab conception of the Zionist movement either as an extension and a dependant of America or as ruling and controlling America contains a significant oversimplification of the historical facts, since the history of the Zionist movement shows that it formed alliances with powerful states according to its current interests and present conditions. For that reason, Herzl tried to rely on Kaiser Wilhelm II in the beginning (1898), and when that failed, tried to approach
Al-Azm, Sadik J.. Self-Criticism After the Defeat: A Devastating Critique of the Arab World's Political Stagnation by One of Its Most Revered Thinkers (pp. 70-71). Saqi Books. Kindle Edition.