Sharansky at Harvard and in the NYT

Natan Sharansky gave two speeches at Harvard last Thursday to "enthusiastic crowds." And the New York Times finally reviewed his book yesterday. At Harvard, the Crimson reports that:

Sharansky concluded his second talk with a message from his popular new book, "The Case for Democracy: the Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror."

"If [world leaders] prefer to be dictators, we should give them no legitimacy," he said. "There is no way to separate security from the question of a free society." The crowd at the JFK Jr. Forum responded with a standing ovation.

Not everyone was so supportive, as Sharansky was harshly questioned at both events about Israel’s treatment of Palestinian refugees.

One vocal critic at the first event told Sharansky that he "represents a fundamentally anti-Democratic state" because it gives greater rights to Jews than to Palestinians. Audience members questioned whether the U.S. should withhold aid to Israel because of this.

Sharansky responded that Israel must take unfortunate steps so as "not to be destroyed," but he voiced his support for a democratic Palestinian state. During the peace process, "the depths of our concessions should match the depth of [Palestinian] democratic reforms," he said.

Sharansky said he was open-minded about negotiations with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and other Palestinian leaders.

"What’s really important is that [an elected Palestinian leader] will be celebrated if he supports democratic freedom. . . .  If the free world is strong in this position, then we have a chance," he said.

Solomon at Solomonia.com attended both Sharansky speeches and has a long, well-written report, with audio, here.  His report is worth reading in its entirety.

Three months after its publication, the New York Times finally reviewed Sharansky’s book yesterday.  Roger Cohen acknowledged it is an "important book" that is "written with vigor, argued with panache and imbued with the fierce conviction" of someone who grew up in an unfree society.

The book is "often prescient and rarely dull" — with "powerful passages" and arguments and observations that are often "persuasive" or "acute."  It "speaks eloquently and from the heart."

But Cohen thinks the book has an important flaw:  it is — all together, now — not nuanced.  The fundamental question it raises (unlike Sharansky’s "simplicity") is "complex."  International politics are "messy" and thus may not be amenable to "moral clarity."  Sharansky "shies away" from the "hard questions" — for example, how freedom is to be delivered in China (Cohen might re-read the chapters on the Soviet Union a little more closely).  Cohen thinks freedom is a "slogan" (or maybe just another word for nothing left to lose), rather than a guide.

The book is No. 18 on the Amazon.com bestseller list today, and No. 15 on the NYT list.  You be the judge.