What do you think?
Rate this book
The Case for Peace: How the Arab-Israeli Conflict Can Be Resolved
In The Case for Peace , Dershowitz identifies twelve geopolitical barriers to peace between Israel and Palestine–and explains how to move around them and push the process forward. From the division of Jerusalem and Israeli counterterrorism measures to the security fence and the Iranian nuclear threat, his analyses are clear-headed, well-argued, and sure to be controversial. According to Dershowitz, achieving a lasting peace will require more than tough-minded negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. In academia, Europe, the UN, and the Arab world, Israel-bashing and anti-Semitism have reached new heights, despite the recent Israeli-Palestinian movement toward peace. Surveying this outpouring of vilification, Dershowitz deconstructs the smear tactics used by Israel-haters and shows how this kind of anti-Israel McCarthyism is aimed at scuttling any real chance of peace.
256 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2005
11 people are currently reading
258 people want to read
About the author
Alan M. Dershowitz
148 books320 followersAlan Morton Dershowitz is an American lawyer, jurist, and political commentator. He is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. He is known for his career as an attorney in several high-profile law cases and commentary on the Arab-Israeli conflict.
He has spent most of his career at Harvard, where, at the age of 28, he became the youngest full professor in its history, until Noam Elkies took the record. Dershowitz still holds the record as the youngest person to become a professor of law there.
As a criminal appellate lawyer, Dershowitz has won thirteen out of the fifteen murder and attempted murder cases he has handled. He successfully argued to overturn the conviction of Claus von Bülow for the attempted murder of Bülow's wife, Sunny. Dershowitz was the appellate advisor for the defense in the criminal trial of O.J. Simpson for the murder of his ex-wife Nicole Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman.
He has spent most of his career at Harvard, where, at the age of 28, he became the youngest full professor in its history, until Noam Elkies took the record. Dershowitz still holds the record as the youngest person to become a professor of law there.
As a criminal appellate lawyer, Dershowitz has won thirteen out of the fifteen murder and attempted murder cases he has handled. He successfully argued to overturn the conviction of Claus von Bülow for the attempted murder of Bülow's wife, Sunny. Dershowitz was the appellate advisor for the defense in the criminal trial of O.J. Simpson for the murder of his ex-wife Nicole Simpson and her friend Ronald Goldman.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews
August 11, 2023
In this sequel to Dershowitz' phenomenal The Case for Israel the author outlines his vision of how peace can be achieved between Israel and the Palestinians, as well as how the enemies of Israel around the world, Islamic Fundametalists and far-left academics, NGOs, politicians, media and religious leaders etc are standing in the way of peace as they care more about causing the destruction of Israel than about the welfare of the Palestinians.
He explains how these ivory tower commentators- who live far from the klling fields- and who will accept nothing other than the total destruction of Israel, have blood on their hands as they encourage Palestinian radicals to continue terror, knowing they have the continued support in international academia, media, the international community and other constituencies that matter to them.
As Dershowitz points out "Even if the Palestinians and the Arabs recognize Israel's right to exist as an independent Jewish State, with secure and defensable boundaries and free from terrorism, there will be no real and enduring peace until Israel's other enemies- academic, religious, political, and diplomatic- come to terms with the reality that Israel is here to stay and that it's existance is a force for good in the world".
So long as the anti-Israel bigots in the world see the acceptance of a Two State solution as as a temporary strategy towards Israel's eventual dismemberment and replacement with a Muslim Arab State and so long as Israel is regarded as less "legitimate", "normal" or "acceptable" than Australia, South Africa, Joran, the United States or Pakistan, there will be some who refuse to recognize Israel and who remain commited to the destructive and bigoted goal of Israel's destruction.
There can be no real peace under these circumstances.
Dershowitz demolishes the arguments of such anti-Israel racism hate-mongers as Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein. Alexander Cockburn and Tony Judt.
He refers to Judt's malicious assertion that as a nation-state Israel is an anachronism and an embarrasment towards "progressive"' diapora Jews.
People like Judt canot expect a whole country to dissapear and it's people subjugated, exiled or massacred just to spare them embarassment in the social circles in which they move.
And why should Israel be the first nation-state to be dismantled to suit the multi-cultural utopian fantatsies of leftwing idologues like Judt. Why shouldn't Judt's 'binational' experiment be tried elswhere like India and Pakistan, Irana nd Iraq and Germany and France.
Indeed one could ask if these leftwing ideologue fanatics also wish to force the 15 former member states of the Soviet Union back together, or Yugoslavia, and why they did not oppose the indepedence of East Timor.
He points out that the dissapearance of Israel and the subjugation of her Jews to Arab rule would lead to slaughter.
He quotes as making this powerful point:
'If the day were ever to come when the Jews of Israel lost the power to defend themselves and had to submit to the rule of their neighbours, the outcome would not be "pluralism" but slaughter...One must hate Israel very much indeeed to prefer such an outcome to the reality of the liberal democracy that exists in Israel today.
Dershowitz deals with many issues in this work. He points out that the offical policy of Hamas , like Al Qaida is the mass murder of civillians.
The decision to employ that policy was made by it's so-called "political" leaders.
I would add the question as to whether anyone have objected to the targeted liquidation of the leaders of the Nazi Party during World War II? Like the Nazis Hamas aim to anihilate an entire population from the region.
He refers to UN (and international left) hypocrisy in condemmning the security fence built by Israel to protect her population from genocidal murder by Hamas and other Palestinain terror networks.
He deals with the Iranian nuclear threat of a second holocaust of Israel's population and it's encouragement in this by the international extreme left.
Most importanty he tackles the hate speech that proliferates internationally on university campuses, the media, NGO's politicians certain governments etc against Israel and her people.
most loathsome is the hideous comparison of the descendants of holocaust survivors to the Nazis, and the attempt to strip Israel's people of the right to the legacy of the victims of the holocaust.
Such as racist leftwing radical academic Professor Nicholas De Genova who declared that "The heritage of the victims of the Holocaust belongs to the Palestinian people...Israel has no claim to the heritage of the holocaust".
Who are the descendants of the holocaust survivors in the Middle East, the Arabs or millions of Israelis?
In referring to the evil slur comparing Israel and her people to the Nazis employed by so many hate-filled leftwing fanatics, Dershowitz points out:
"Notice that Israel is never compared to Stalin's Soviet Union, to Mussolini's Italy, to Franco's Spain, to Castro's Cuba, to Pincohet's Chile, or even to Hirohito's Japan. It is always and only compared to Hiter's Nazi Germany. I have often wondered what could motivate any person of presumed decency to compare Israel's treatment of Palestinians to what the Nazis did to the Jews during the Holocaust. Israel's goal is to protect it's civillians from Palestinian terrorism, whereas the Nazi goal was to genocidally destroy every Jewish baby, child, woman and man so as to eliminate the Jewish race. The analogy is obscene and yet it is repeated daily on college campuses, by mainstream European political activists, and even by writers and intellectuals. It's target audience is the current generation of college students too young to remember the Holocaust and too caught up in the passions of the day to bother to research the history. When alie is repeated often enough, it risks becoming conventional wisdom. Comparing Israel to Nazi Germany is anti-Semitism, pure and simple. There is no other explanation, especially in the light of the reality that there is no actual similarity between Hitler's systematic genocide of the Jews and Israel's efforts to defend itself from genocidal threats against it's Jewish population".
Dershowitz progresses to exposing the intellectual frauds and hatemongers that are the likes of Chomsky, Finkelstein and Cockburn, who have among other things, collaborated with Neo-Nazis and holocaust denialists.
He also illustrates the campaign of intimidation and duble standards on university campuses across the world, guaranteeing that only anti-Israel extremist views are given a hearing.
also he tackles the powerful organization, unions, church groups, academics etc who advocate a boycott of Israel and only Israel, while not advocating any boycott or censure of States that do enage in genocide or severe repression and persecution like China, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Iran or Sudan.
As regards Dershwitz' advocacy of a twostate solution, I believe that what is more viable, sustainable and consistant with the historical realities is to federate the majority of the West Bank with Jordan, and to absorb the larger Jewish settlemts blocs into Israel, as Jordan has a Palestinian majority and was created in 1922 out of 78% of Palestine.
This would also guarantee that the Palestinians could not continue with irredentist claims on Israel, under the pretext that their state is too small.
Dershowitz mentions Israeli concerns about an independent 'Palestinian State' being used as a launch pad for terror against Israel but does not legitimately adress these concerns.
I also disagree with his proposals to divide Jerusalem, as the city legitimately belongs to the Jewish people , who have had a plurality in the city since 1840.
Jerusalem, was founded by King David as his capital 3000 years ago, and which Jews have lived in ever since. Jerusalem, which is mentioned 600 times in the Torah and not once in the Koran. Jerusalem, in which Jews have been the single largest group of residents since 1840. Jerusalem, contains the Western Wall of the Temple Mount, the holiest Jewish site in the world. In 1948, Arab forces swept into East Jerusalem and massacred her Jewish inhabitants, driving out the survivors and desecrating the Jewish holy sites. In 1967, in a defensive war for her survival, Israel finally liberated the entire city from the control of her Arab occupiers.
I also put forward that groups like Hamas, Hezbullah and Islamic Jihad need to be completely destroyed before there can by any settlement of any kind.
Not withstanding that this work is a a highly educational imformative and rational peace, and should be read by anyone wanting to understand more about the conflict over Israel's survival.
Merged review:
In this sequel to Dershowitz' phenomenal The Case for Israel the author outlines his vision of how peace can be achieved between Israel and the Palestinians, as well as how the enemies of Israel around the world, Islamic Fundametalists and far-left academics, NGOs, politicians, media and religious leaders etc are standing in the way of peace as they care more about causing the destruction of Israel than about the welfare of the Palestinians.
He explains how these ivory tower commentators- who live far from the klling fields- and who will accept nothing other than the total destruction of Israel, have blood on their hands as they encourage Palestinian radicals to continue terror, knowing they have the continued support in international academia, media, the international community and other constituencies that matter to them.
As Dershowitz points out "Even if the Palestinians and the Arabs recognize Israel's right to exist as an independent Jewish State, with secure and defensable boundaries and free from terrorism, there will be no real and enduring peace until Israel's other enemies- academic, religious, political, and diplomatic- come to terms with the reality that Israel is here to stay and that it's existance is a force for good in the world".
So long as the anti-Israel bigots in the world see the acceptance of a Two State solution as as a temporary strategy towards Israel's eventual dismemberment and replacement with a Muslim Arab State and so long as Israel is regarded as less "legitimate", "normal" or "acceptable" than Australia, South Africa, Joran, the United States or Pakistan, there will be some who refuse to recognize Israel and who remain commited to the destructive and bigoted goal of Israel's destruction.
There can be no real peace under these circumstances.
Dershowitz demolishes the arguments of such anti-Israel racism hate-mongers as Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein. Alexander Cockburn and Tony Judt.
He refers to Judt's malicious assertion that as a nation-state Israel is an anachronism and an embarrasment towards "progressive"' diapora Jews.
People like Judt canot expect a whole country to dissapear and it's people subjugated, exiled or massacred just to spare them embarassment in the social circles in which they move.
And why should Israel be the first nation-state to be dismantled to suit the multi-cultural utopian fantatsies of leftwing idologues like Judt. Why shouldn't Judt's 'binational' experiment be tried elswhere like India and Pakistan, Irana nd Iraq and Germany and France.
Indeed one could ask if these leftwing ideologue fanatics also wish to force the 15 former member states of the Soviet Union back together, or Yugoslavia, and why they did not oppose the indepedence of East Timor.
He points out that the dissapearance of Israel and the subjugation of her Jews to Arab rule would lead to slaughter.
He quotes as making this powerful point:
'If the day were ever to come when the Jews of Israel lost the power to defend themselves and had to submit to the rule of their neighbours, the outcome would not be "pluralism" but slaughter...One must hate Israel very much indeeed to prefer such an outcome to the reality of the liberal democracy that exists in Israel today.
Dershowitz deals with many issues in this work. He points out that the offical policy of Hamas , like Al Qaida is the mass murder of civillians.
The decision to employ that policy was made by it's so-called "political" leaders.
I would add the question as to whether anyone have objected to the targeted liquidation of the leaders of the Nazi Party during World War II? Like the Nazis Hamas aim to anihilate an entire population from the region.
He refers to UN (and international left) hypocrisy in condemning the security fence built by Israel to protect her population from genocidal murder by Hamas and other Palestinian terror networks.
He deals with the Iranian nuclear threat of a second Holocaust of Israel's population and it's encouragement in this by the international extreme left.
Most importanty he tackles the hate speech that proliferates internationally on university campuses, the media, NGO's politicians certain governments etc against Israel and her people.
most loathsome is the hideous comparison of the descendants of Holocaust survivors to the Nazis, and the attempt to strip Israel's people of the right to the legacy of the victims of the Holocaust.
Such as racist leftwing radical academic Professor Nicholas De Genova who declared that "The heritage of the victims of the Holocaust belongs to the Palestinian people...Israel has no claim to the heritage of the Holocaust".
Who are the descendants of the Holocaust survivors in the Middle East, the Arabs or millions of Israelis?
In referring to the evil slur comparing Israel and her people to the Nazis employed by so many hate-filled leftwing fanatics, Dershowitz points out:
"Notice that Israel is never compared to Stalin's Soviet Union, to Mussolini's Italy, to Franco's Spain, to Castro's Cuba, to Pinochet's Chile, or even to Hirohito's Japan. It is always and only compared to Hiter's Nazi Germany. I have often wondered what could motivate any person of presumed decency to compare Israel's treatment of Palestinians to what the Nazis did to the Jews during the Holocaust. Israel's goal is to protect it's civillians from Palestinian terrorism, whereas the Nazi goal was to genocidally destroy every Jewish baby, child, woman and man so as to eliminate the Jewish race. The analogy is obscene and yet it is repeated daily on college campuses, by mainstream European political activists, and even by writers and intellectuals. It's target audience is the current generation of college students too young to remember the Holocaust and too caught up in the passions of the day to bother to research the history. When alie is repeated often enough, it risks becoming conventional wisdom. Comparing Israel to Nazi Germany is anti-Semitism, pure and simple. There is no other explanation, especially in the light of the reality that there is no actual similarity between Hitler's systematic genocide of the Jews and Israel's efforts to defend itself from genocidal threats against it's Jewish population".
Dershowitz progresses to exposing the intellectual frauds and hatemongers that are the likes of Chomsky, Finkelstein and Cockburn, who have among other things, collaborated with Neo-Nazis and Holocaust denialists.
He also illustrates the campaign of intimidation and duble standards on university campuses across the world, guaranteeing that only anti-Israel extremist views are given a hearing.
also he tackles the powerful organization, unions, church groups, academics etc who advocate a boycott of Israel and only Israel, while not advocating any boycott or censure of States that do enage in genocide or severe repression and persecution like China, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Iran or Sudan.
As regards Dershwitz' advocacy of a twostate solution, I believe that what is more viable, sustainable and consistent with the historical realities is to federate the majority of the West Bank with Jordan, and to absorb the larger Jewish settlement blocs into Israel, as Jordan has a Palestinian majority and was created in 1922 out of 78% of Palestine.
This would also guarantee that the Palestinians could not continue with irredentist claims on Israel, under the pretext that their state is too small.
Dershowitz mentions Israeli concerns about an independent 'Palestinian State' being used as a launch pad for terror against Israel but does not legitimately adress these concerns.
I also disagree with his proposals to divide Jerusalem, as the city legitimately belongs to the Jewish people , who have had a plurality in the city since 1840.
Jerusalem, was founded by King David as his capital 3000 years ago, and which Jews have lived in ever since. Jerusalem, which is mentioned 600 times in the Torah and not once in the Koran. Jerusalem, in which Jews have been the single largest group of residents since 1840. Jerusalem, contains the Western Wall of the Temple Mount, the holiest Jewish site in the world. In 1948, Arab forces swept into East Jerusalem and massacred her Jewish inhabitants, driving out the survivors and desecrating the Jewish holy sites. In 1967, in a defensive war for her survival, Israel finally liberated the entire city from the control of her Arab occupiers.
I also put forward that groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad need to be completely destroyed before there can by any settlement of any kind.
Not withstanding that this work is a a highly educational informative and rational peace, and should be read by anyone wanting to understand more about the conflict over Israel's survival.
He explains how these ivory tower commentators- who live far from the klling fields- and who will accept nothing other than the total destruction of Israel, have blood on their hands as they encourage Palestinian radicals to continue terror, knowing they have the continued support in international academia, media, the international community and other constituencies that matter to them.
As Dershowitz points out "Even if the Palestinians and the Arabs recognize Israel's right to exist as an independent Jewish State, with secure and defensable boundaries and free from terrorism, there will be no real and enduring peace until Israel's other enemies- academic, religious, political, and diplomatic- come to terms with the reality that Israel is here to stay and that it's existance is a force for good in the world".
So long as the anti-Israel bigots in the world see the acceptance of a Two State solution as as a temporary strategy towards Israel's eventual dismemberment and replacement with a Muslim Arab State and so long as Israel is regarded as less "legitimate", "normal" or "acceptable" than Australia, South Africa, Joran, the United States or Pakistan, there will be some who refuse to recognize Israel and who remain commited to the destructive and bigoted goal of Israel's destruction.
There can be no real peace under these circumstances.
Dershowitz demolishes the arguments of such anti-Israel racism hate-mongers as Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein. Alexander Cockburn and Tony Judt.
He refers to Judt's malicious assertion that as a nation-state Israel is an anachronism and an embarrasment towards "progressive"' diapora Jews.
People like Judt canot expect a whole country to dissapear and it's people subjugated, exiled or massacred just to spare them embarassment in the social circles in which they move.
And why should Israel be the first nation-state to be dismantled to suit the multi-cultural utopian fantatsies of leftwing idologues like Judt. Why shouldn't Judt's 'binational' experiment be tried elswhere like India and Pakistan, Irana nd Iraq and Germany and France.
Indeed one could ask if these leftwing ideologue fanatics also wish to force the 15 former member states of the Soviet Union back together, or Yugoslavia, and why they did not oppose the indepedence of East Timor.
He points out that the dissapearance of Israel and the subjugation of her Jews to Arab rule would lead to slaughter.
He quotes as making this powerful point:
'If the day were ever to come when the Jews of Israel lost the power to defend themselves and had to submit to the rule of their neighbours, the outcome would not be "pluralism" but slaughter...One must hate Israel very much indeeed to prefer such an outcome to the reality of the liberal democracy that exists in Israel today.
Dershowitz deals with many issues in this work. He points out that the offical policy of Hamas , like Al Qaida is the mass murder of civillians.
The decision to employ that policy was made by it's so-called "political" leaders.
I would add the question as to whether anyone have objected to the targeted liquidation of the leaders of the Nazi Party during World War II? Like the Nazis Hamas aim to anihilate an entire population from the region.
He refers to UN (and international left) hypocrisy in condemmning the security fence built by Israel to protect her population from genocidal murder by Hamas and other Palestinain terror networks.
He deals with the Iranian nuclear threat of a second holocaust of Israel's population and it's encouragement in this by the international extreme left.
Most importanty he tackles the hate speech that proliferates internationally on university campuses, the media, NGO's politicians certain governments etc against Israel and her people.
most loathsome is the hideous comparison of the descendants of holocaust survivors to the Nazis, and the attempt to strip Israel's people of the right to the legacy of the victims of the holocaust.
Such as racist leftwing radical academic Professor Nicholas De Genova who declared that "The heritage of the victims of the Holocaust belongs to the Palestinian people...Israel has no claim to the heritage of the holocaust".
Who are the descendants of the holocaust survivors in the Middle East, the Arabs or millions of Israelis?
In referring to the evil slur comparing Israel and her people to the Nazis employed by so many hate-filled leftwing fanatics, Dershowitz points out:
"Notice that Israel is never compared to Stalin's Soviet Union, to Mussolini's Italy, to Franco's Spain, to Castro's Cuba, to Pincohet's Chile, or even to Hirohito's Japan. It is always and only compared to Hiter's Nazi Germany. I have often wondered what could motivate any person of presumed decency to compare Israel's treatment of Palestinians to what the Nazis did to the Jews during the Holocaust. Israel's goal is to protect it's civillians from Palestinian terrorism, whereas the Nazi goal was to genocidally destroy every Jewish baby, child, woman and man so as to eliminate the Jewish race. The analogy is obscene and yet it is repeated daily on college campuses, by mainstream European political activists, and even by writers and intellectuals. It's target audience is the current generation of college students too young to remember the Holocaust and too caught up in the passions of the day to bother to research the history. When alie is repeated often enough, it risks becoming conventional wisdom. Comparing Israel to Nazi Germany is anti-Semitism, pure and simple. There is no other explanation, especially in the light of the reality that there is no actual similarity between Hitler's systematic genocide of the Jews and Israel's efforts to defend itself from genocidal threats against it's Jewish population".
Dershowitz progresses to exposing the intellectual frauds and hatemongers that are the likes of Chomsky, Finkelstein and Cockburn, who have among other things, collaborated with Neo-Nazis and holocaust denialists.
He also illustrates the campaign of intimidation and duble standards on university campuses across the world, guaranteeing that only anti-Israel extremist views are given a hearing.
also he tackles the powerful organization, unions, church groups, academics etc who advocate a boycott of Israel and only Israel, while not advocating any boycott or censure of States that do enage in genocide or severe repression and persecution like China, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Iran or Sudan.
As regards Dershwitz' advocacy of a twostate solution, I believe that what is more viable, sustainable and consistant with the historical realities is to federate the majority of the West Bank with Jordan, and to absorb the larger Jewish settlemts blocs into Israel, as Jordan has a Palestinian majority and was created in 1922 out of 78% of Palestine.
This would also guarantee that the Palestinians could not continue with irredentist claims on Israel, under the pretext that their state is too small.
Dershowitz mentions Israeli concerns about an independent 'Palestinian State' being used as a launch pad for terror against Israel but does not legitimately adress these concerns.
I also disagree with his proposals to divide Jerusalem, as the city legitimately belongs to the Jewish people , who have had a plurality in the city since 1840.
Jerusalem, was founded by King David as his capital 3000 years ago, and which Jews have lived in ever since. Jerusalem, which is mentioned 600 times in the Torah and not once in the Koran. Jerusalem, in which Jews have been the single largest group of residents since 1840. Jerusalem, contains the Western Wall of the Temple Mount, the holiest Jewish site in the world. In 1948, Arab forces swept into East Jerusalem and massacred her Jewish inhabitants, driving out the survivors and desecrating the Jewish holy sites. In 1967, in a defensive war for her survival, Israel finally liberated the entire city from the control of her Arab occupiers.
I also put forward that groups like Hamas, Hezbullah and Islamic Jihad need to be completely destroyed before there can by any settlement of any kind.
Not withstanding that this work is a a highly educational imformative and rational peace, and should be read by anyone wanting to understand more about the conflict over Israel's survival.
Merged review:
In this sequel to Dershowitz' phenomenal The Case for Israel the author outlines his vision of how peace can be achieved between Israel and the Palestinians, as well as how the enemies of Israel around the world, Islamic Fundametalists and far-left academics, NGOs, politicians, media and religious leaders etc are standing in the way of peace as they care more about causing the destruction of Israel than about the welfare of the Palestinians.
He explains how these ivory tower commentators- who live far from the klling fields- and who will accept nothing other than the total destruction of Israel, have blood on their hands as they encourage Palestinian radicals to continue terror, knowing they have the continued support in international academia, media, the international community and other constituencies that matter to them.
As Dershowitz points out "Even if the Palestinians and the Arabs recognize Israel's right to exist as an independent Jewish State, with secure and defensable boundaries and free from terrorism, there will be no real and enduring peace until Israel's other enemies- academic, religious, political, and diplomatic- come to terms with the reality that Israel is here to stay and that it's existance is a force for good in the world".
So long as the anti-Israel bigots in the world see the acceptance of a Two State solution as as a temporary strategy towards Israel's eventual dismemberment and replacement with a Muslim Arab State and so long as Israel is regarded as less "legitimate", "normal" or "acceptable" than Australia, South Africa, Joran, the United States or Pakistan, there will be some who refuse to recognize Israel and who remain commited to the destructive and bigoted goal of Israel's destruction.
There can be no real peace under these circumstances.
Dershowitz demolishes the arguments of such anti-Israel racism hate-mongers as Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein. Alexander Cockburn and Tony Judt.
He refers to Judt's malicious assertion that as a nation-state Israel is an anachronism and an embarrasment towards "progressive"' diapora Jews.
People like Judt canot expect a whole country to dissapear and it's people subjugated, exiled or massacred just to spare them embarassment in the social circles in which they move.
And why should Israel be the first nation-state to be dismantled to suit the multi-cultural utopian fantatsies of leftwing idologues like Judt. Why shouldn't Judt's 'binational' experiment be tried elswhere like India and Pakistan, Irana nd Iraq and Germany and France.
Indeed one could ask if these leftwing ideologue fanatics also wish to force the 15 former member states of the Soviet Union back together, or Yugoslavia, and why they did not oppose the indepedence of East Timor.
He points out that the dissapearance of Israel and the subjugation of her Jews to Arab rule would lead to slaughter.
He quotes as making this powerful point:
'If the day were ever to come when the Jews of Israel lost the power to defend themselves and had to submit to the rule of their neighbours, the outcome would not be "pluralism" but slaughter...One must hate Israel very much indeeed to prefer such an outcome to the reality of the liberal democracy that exists in Israel today.
Dershowitz deals with many issues in this work. He points out that the offical policy of Hamas , like Al Qaida is the mass murder of civillians.
The decision to employ that policy was made by it's so-called "political" leaders.
I would add the question as to whether anyone have objected to the targeted liquidation of the leaders of the Nazi Party during World War II? Like the Nazis Hamas aim to anihilate an entire population from the region.
He refers to UN (and international left) hypocrisy in condemning the security fence built by Israel to protect her population from genocidal murder by Hamas and other Palestinian terror networks.
He deals with the Iranian nuclear threat of a second Holocaust of Israel's population and it's encouragement in this by the international extreme left.
Most importanty he tackles the hate speech that proliferates internationally on university campuses, the media, NGO's politicians certain governments etc against Israel and her people.
most loathsome is the hideous comparison of the descendants of Holocaust survivors to the Nazis, and the attempt to strip Israel's people of the right to the legacy of the victims of the Holocaust.
Such as racist leftwing radical academic Professor Nicholas De Genova who declared that "The heritage of the victims of the Holocaust belongs to the Palestinian people...Israel has no claim to the heritage of the Holocaust".
Who are the descendants of the Holocaust survivors in the Middle East, the Arabs or millions of Israelis?
In referring to the evil slur comparing Israel and her people to the Nazis employed by so many hate-filled leftwing fanatics, Dershowitz points out:
"Notice that Israel is never compared to Stalin's Soviet Union, to Mussolini's Italy, to Franco's Spain, to Castro's Cuba, to Pinochet's Chile, or even to Hirohito's Japan. It is always and only compared to Hiter's Nazi Germany. I have often wondered what could motivate any person of presumed decency to compare Israel's treatment of Palestinians to what the Nazis did to the Jews during the Holocaust. Israel's goal is to protect it's civillians from Palestinian terrorism, whereas the Nazi goal was to genocidally destroy every Jewish baby, child, woman and man so as to eliminate the Jewish race. The analogy is obscene and yet it is repeated daily on college campuses, by mainstream European political activists, and even by writers and intellectuals. It's target audience is the current generation of college students too young to remember the Holocaust and too caught up in the passions of the day to bother to research the history. When alie is repeated often enough, it risks becoming conventional wisdom. Comparing Israel to Nazi Germany is anti-Semitism, pure and simple. There is no other explanation, especially in the light of the reality that there is no actual similarity between Hitler's systematic genocide of the Jews and Israel's efforts to defend itself from genocidal threats against it's Jewish population".
Dershowitz progresses to exposing the intellectual frauds and hatemongers that are the likes of Chomsky, Finkelstein and Cockburn, who have among other things, collaborated with Neo-Nazis and Holocaust denialists.
He also illustrates the campaign of intimidation and duble standards on university campuses across the world, guaranteeing that only anti-Israel extremist views are given a hearing.
also he tackles the powerful organization, unions, church groups, academics etc who advocate a boycott of Israel and only Israel, while not advocating any boycott or censure of States that do enage in genocide or severe repression and persecution like China, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Iran or Sudan.
As regards Dershwitz' advocacy of a twostate solution, I believe that what is more viable, sustainable and consistent with the historical realities is to federate the majority of the West Bank with Jordan, and to absorb the larger Jewish settlement blocs into Israel, as Jordan has a Palestinian majority and was created in 1922 out of 78% of Palestine.
This would also guarantee that the Palestinians could not continue with irredentist claims on Israel, under the pretext that their state is too small.
Dershowitz mentions Israeli concerns about an independent 'Palestinian State' being used as a launch pad for terror against Israel but does not legitimately adress these concerns.
I also disagree with his proposals to divide Jerusalem, as the city legitimately belongs to the Jewish people , who have had a plurality in the city since 1840.
Jerusalem, was founded by King David as his capital 3000 years ago, and which Jews have lived in ever since. Jerusalem, which is mentioned 600 times in the Torah and not once in the Koran. Jerusalem, in which Jews have been the single largest group of residents since 1840. Jerusalem, contains the Western Wall of the Temple Mount, the holiest Jewish site in the world. In 1948, Arab forces swept into East Jerusalem and massacred her Jewish inhabitants, driving out the survivors and desecrating the Jewish holy sites. In 1967, in a defensive war for her survival, Israel finally liberated the entire city from the control of her Arab occupiers.
I also put forward that groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad need to be completely destroyed before there can by any settlement of any kind.
Not withstanding that this work is a a highly educational informative and rational peace, and should be read by anyone wanting to understand more about the conflict over Israel's survival.
May 9, 2015
One should read the book as a lawyer's defense in favor of Israel and then how peace can be achieved conserving Israel's best interests.
The book has many good arguments in favor of a two-state solution, but the only argument against it is that Arabs's population grows faster than the Jewish, i.e. it's not in the best interest of a Jewish state to have a fast growing population of another ethnicity.
In Dershowitz selective history; Israel has never violated the international laws or human rights and it has never started a war, it has maybe in one case or two overreacted, but even that is still justified as teaching terrorists a lesson... This kind of self-righteous preaching and blaming only one side for all wrongs will achieve nothing.
As much as I agree that it is wrong to blame the Jews for the antisemitism; I cannot not blame Israel for creating a generation or Arabs that hate its guts. You cannot expect what is politically correct to be the accepted norm in repressed society that has suffered and is still suffering.
This is an important issue in this book, it is a legal argument disconnected from history and society, it actually argues that since Israel is stronger it has the right to choose!
Hate speech against Jews and non-Jews is a big problem in the Arab world, and it should end if the Arab peoples wanted to see peace and prosperity in their own countries; not just Palestine-Israel. On the other hand; hypocrisy, outright lies, self-righteous speech and appeal to extremists by Israeli politicians and religious figures must also end if they wanted to see peace soon.
The book has many good arguments in favor of a two-state solution, but the only argument against it is that Arabs's population grows faster than the Jewish, i.e. it's not in the best interest of a Jewish state to have a fast growing population of another ethnicity.
In Dershowitz selective history; Israel has never violated the international laws or human rights and it has never started a war, it has maybe in one case or two overreacted, but even that is still justified as teaching terrorists a lesson... This kind of self-righteous preaching and blaming only one side for all wrongs will achieve nothing.
As much as I agree that it is wrong to blame the Jews for the antisemitism; I cannot not blame Israel for creating a generation or Arabs that hate its guts. You cannot expect what is politically correct to be the accepted norm in repressed society that has suffered and is still suffering.
This is an important issue in this book, it is a legal argument disconnected from history and society, it actually argues that since Israel is stronger it has the right to choose!
Hate speech against Jews and non-Jews is a big problem in the Arab world, and it should end if the Arab peoples wanted to see peace and prosperity in their own countries; not just Palestine-Israel. On the other hand; hypocrisy, outright lies, self-righteous speech and appeal to extremists by Israeli politicians and religious figures must also end if they wanted to see peace soon.
August 3, 2012
This is so one-sided that it is not likely to change anyone's mind. If you know Dershowitz, then you pretty much already know what he's going to say. Still, if you're interested in this issue, it may be worth wading through his many poor arguments and misrepresentations of (or outright lies about?) others' views to get to his few good points.
May 11, 2019
The book should have been titled. The case for a peace that serves Israel interests. When you claim to make a pragmatic book and start it saying "the enemies of Israel are the enemies of peace" you already choose a side or when you say that Ariel Sharon was committed to peace you already...
Or the fact that any discussion about the return of refugees to there land is a no no for you because they are not first generation refugees in the moment jews claimed to return to a land they left as refugees 2000 years ago sounds ironic
Or the fact that any discussion about the return of refugees to there land is a no no for you because they are not first generation refugees in the moment jews claimed to return to a land they left as refugees 2000 years ago sounds ironic
June 8, 2020
This book is a chain of fallacies and logical inconsistencies. His entire argument in almost every case he brings up hinges on terms he leaves undefined. Assaults against Israel are terrorism, but the disproportiate use of force against Palestinians is just casually accepted as a consequence to restoring order. His arguments would serve any genocidal doctrine if one simply took his method of arbitrary attributions. He judges Palestinian sentiments anecdotally but reserves personal right to impose his own excuse to white wash generalizations that suit his narrative.
For eg, he points out that he was once referred to as a militant by one German newspaper one time, and then draws a parallel in the very next sentence that the word also is commonly used referring to terrorists. Meanwhile he's supporting an illegal occupation - one preserved illegally by force, as if terrorists don't occupy territory and believe their religious entitlements just the same as he. That's like me taking his 2 sentences and claiming his whole book is a manifesto for ethnic cleansing... It is, but I'm not saying so based on 2 sentences like he does one almost every page. Not even an attempt to honestly objectively analyse his own bias. His own preconceptions aren't even questioned but the sweeping broad strokes and "us" / "them" phrasing is obtusely propagandist.
It's a rigorously painful read for any critical thinker who has spent an hour or more fact checking.
For eg, he points out that he was once referred to as a militant by one German newspaper one time, and then draws a parallel in the very next sentence that the word also is commonly used referring to terrorists. Meanwhile he's supporting an illegal occupation - one preserved illegally by force, as if terrorists don't occupy territory and believe their religious entitlements just the same as he. That's like me taking his 2 sentences and claiming his whole book is a manifesto for ethnic cleansing... It is, but I'm not saying so based on 2 sentences like he does one almost every page. Not even an attempt to honestly objectively analyse his own bias. His own preconceptions aren't even questioned but the sweeping broad strokes and "us" / "them" phrasing is obtusely propagandist.
It's a rigorously painful read for any critical thinker who has spent an hour or more fact checking.
July 31, 2013
Not even worth a skim. Part1 at least addresses some of the key issues and challenges facing the peace process today but without the in-depth thoughtful analysis of a Tom Freidman or Sari Nusseibeh, and zero attempt at solution.
Part2 was quite worthless as Dershowitz proceeds with rantings about how anti-semitism is the root of all that is wrong in the world, almost to the degree of Ch�vez proclaiming that "the Empire" is the cause of all that is wrong in Venezuela. His credibility certainly is not helped by the petty procession to a literary "you got served" that he could have titled "Norman Finklestein is a big fat idiot" or "Noam Chomsky is a skinny little bitch." I expect much more than this from one of the world's most distinguished professorial minds.
Part2 was quite worthless as Dershowitz proceeds with rantings about how anti-semitism is the root of all that is wrong in the world, almost to the degree of Ch�vez proclaiming that "the Empire" is the cause of all that is wrong in Venezuela. His credibility certainly is not helped by the petty procession to a literary "you got served" that he could have titled "Norman Finklestein is a big fat idiot" or "Noam Chomsky is a skinny little bitch." I expect much more than this from one of the world's most distinguished professorial minds.
June 29, 2010
Starting with nearly losing a friendship because I was distressed at what seemed a callous disregard for the lives of Palestinian people I've begun an education. And, wow, I had no idea. No idea at all. I was put off a bit by his reading (he doesn't hide his contempt and uses sarcasm a lot) but for the most part could tell he was relaying solid opinions based in fact. When I say I had no idea it was that I knew the conflict had to do with land and who should live where, but I had no idea there was such an international theme of hatred. I also had no idea there were people who think Israel shouldn't exist. I've heard that before, but always assumed it was only fringe extremists.
I'd recommend this book to anyone who wants to hear about the possibility for peace. His arguments make a lot of sense to me. I also understand a lot better, now, why my friend freaked out on me. The language I used has been used as code words for antisemitism in ways I couldn't even imagine.
I'd recommend this book to anyone who wants to hear about the possibility for peace. His arguments make a lot of sense to me. I also understand a lot better, now, why my friend freaked out on me. The language I used has been used as code words for antisemitism in ways I couldn't even imagine.
October 9, 2014
Alan Dershowitz analyzes with great logic and directness the geopolitical impediments for peace, or rather, the main subjects on the table of negotiation. This book a must-read for anyone who wants to understand the current situation of the conflict.
I have however, one major criticism (alongside smaller ones) of Dershowitz's analysis. He fails to acknowledge a fault or misconception regarding Palestinian politics, one that is well-rooted in the history of conflict.
The Arab and Western cultures have developed very different social/political structures. Western cultures (Israel included) cultivate the rule of law. Elected leaders have the means to decree policy and enforce it. Arab societies is some way lack this quality.
In 1948, it was this quality that was perhaps the decisive element that determined the results of the first part of the war (the part where the Arabs of Palestine were fighting the Jews of Palestine). The Jewish leader could give order and the entire settlement would follow. This was not the case with the Arab society.
Today, the Palestinian society still somewhat lacks this order. Though Abbas is recognized internationally as the leader of the Palestinian people, many Palestinians do not view him so, and will not necessarily acknowledge any agreement he signs. One example of this is Hamas which controls Gaza. Another amazing example is Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, which initially were a military branch of Abbas' very own Fatah, but now Abbas has failed (or rather, couldn't even try to) to disarm them, or at least subjugate them to the official PA forces.
I have however, one major criticism (alongside smaller ones) of Dershowitz's analysis. He fails to acknowledge a fault or misconception regarding Palestinian politics, one that is well-rooted in the history of conflict.
The Arab and Western cultures have developed very different social/political structures. Western cultures (Israel included) cultivate the rule of law. Elected leaders have the means to decree policy and enforce it. Arab societies is some way lack this quality.
In 1948, it was this quality that was perhaps the decisive element that determined the results of the first part of the war (the part where the Arabs of Palestine were fighting the Jews of Palestine). The Jewish leader could give order and the entire settlement would follow. This was not the case with the Arab society.
Today, the Palestinian society still somewhat lacks this order. Though Abbas is recognized internationally as the leader of the Palestinian people, many Palestinians do not view him so, and will not necessarily acknowledge any agreement he signs. One example of this is Hamas which controls Gaza. Another amazing example is Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, which initially were a military branch of Abbas' very own Fatah, but now Abbas has failed (or rather, couldn't even try to) to disarm them, or at least subjugate them to the official PA forces.
March 28, 2020
I found this book so helpful. The author presents each chapter as a question. He attacks the Arab-Israeli conflict from a lot of different angles, diving into contentious topics honestly asking the question, “if this remains how it is, is peace truly possible?” Interesting read for those needing a more in-depth look at the Arab-Israeli conflict.
December 24, 2012
viability via democratic structure quality of governance economic structure rule of law education, extreme justice is injustice, said enough untruth is perceived as truth, palestinian and jewish states evolution.
December 21, 2007
I love Alan Dershowitz's mind. His books are always interesting to me.
October 26, 2018
Needed to learn more about the challenges in the Middle East related to Israel and the Palestinians as this topic arises in the news every couple of months. This book gave me some good insights and depth into the issues vs sound bites in the media. While the author is certainly "pro-Israel" I thought he provided a fairly balanced view of both sides of the issues and he is certainly not anti Palestinian as his views are not extreme at all. Obviously he has strong comments reference some individuals but didn't feel like it skewed the text. The lines that I think lead to the best conversations on this issue are below.
- Until recently the conflict between the Arabs and the Israelis was not over boundaries. It was over Israel's right to exist in peace as a Jewish democratic state.
- UN Resolution 242 demands Israeli withdrawal only from "territories," not "the territories" or "all the territories." This is no legal technicality; the definite article was omitted quite intentionally, and after extensive discussion, so that Israel would be free to negotiate reasonable and mutually secure borders with the defeated states that had threatened it.
- As Thomas Friedman of the New York Times once remarked, if terrorism is rewarded in the Mideast, it will soon be coming "to a theater near you."
- It is easy for terrorists to thwart a democracy's efforts to make peace. All they have to do is kill enough civilians so that the citizens of the democracy demand a military response.
- But no democratically elected government can continue to ignore repeated acts of terrorism against civilians when it has a military option. It can, perhaps, absorb one, two, or even three serious attacks, but after a while, opposition candidates will begin to make an issue of the government's "softness" on terrorism and this issue will begin to resonate with the electorate.
- Until recently the conflict between the Arabs and the Israelis was not over boundaries. It was over Israel's right to exist in peace as a Jewish democratic state.
- UN Resolution 242 demands Israeli withdrawal only from "territories," not "the territories" or "all the territories." This is no legal technicality; the definite article was omitted quite intentionally, and after extensive discussion, so that Israel would be free to negotiate reasonable and mutually secure borders with the defeated states that had threatened it.
- As Thomas Friedman of the New York Times once remarked, if terrorism is rewarded in the Mideast, it will soon be coming "to a theater near you."
- It is easy for terrorists to thwart a democracy's efforts to make peace. All they have to do is kill enough civilians so that the citizens of the democracy demand a military response.
- But no democratically elected government can continue to ignore repeated acts of terrorism against civilians when it has a military option. It can, perhaps, absorb one, two, or even three serious attacks, but after a while, opposition candidates will begin to make an issue of the government's "softness" on terrorism and this issue will begin to resonate with the electorate.
May 8, 2024
Not so relevant after October 7th
November 17, 2024
Good but doesn’t really address the title well; deducting a star for a false premise
October 13, 2023
In this 2005 follow-up to The Case for Israel, Alan Dershowitz promotes the two-state solution in which there are separate Israeli and Palestinian states and takes aim at those he considers to be obstacles. As of 2023, when I am writing this review, there appear to be three de facto states: Israel, Gaza (controlled by Hamas) and the West Bank (controlled by the Palestinian Authority). Furthermore, Hamas has provoked a muscular Israeli response with a ground incursion and associated massacre and kidnapping of Israelis as well as a massive rocket barrage. So, at this point, peace seems very distant, indeed, and the future is unclear. So, my review represents the present historical context.
As of 2005, when Dershowitz wrote this book, Yassir Arafat was dead. In the 2000 Camp David negotiations, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak had offered the Palestinians their own state, encompassing most of Gaza and the West Bank, with its capital in East Jerusalem, as well as a generous compensation package for property lost by Palestinians as a result of the 1948-49 Independence War. Not only did Arafat walk away from the offer, he refused to even broach a counter-offer. Once he returned home, he started planning and preparation for an intifada that killed around 1,000 Israelis and 3,000 Palestinians. In the aftermath, some of the Palestinians were regretting that decision; their lives were worse, and they still had no state of their own. Dershowitz considered Arafat to be an obstacle to peace and, after Arafat’s death in 2004, he saw an opportunity to push for another go at the two-state solution. So, he wrote this book, making arguments in support of the two-state solution in which Israel coexists with a Palestinian state. He also had a lot to say about those he considered obstacles to peace:
• Advocates for the Palestinian right to return who are actually pushing for the demographic destruction of Israel because this would cause Jews to be outnumbered, producing a Muslim- and Arab-majority state in which the Jews would be a minority and subject to oppression, deportation or worse.
• Academics who disparage Israel and make trouble for proponents of Israel, sometimes damaging the careers of other academics who publish works in support of Israel. After Dershowitz wrote The Case for Israel, he drew a lot of fire from this crowd. Judging from his commentary in this book, he gave as good as he got.
I am not going to address Dershowitz’ arguments for a two-state solution because they may be moot at this point. However, he did predict a growing level of antisemitism in the West on account of professors indoctrinating their students to hate Israel, and I have to agree with him. In the wake of Hamas’ barbaric act of mass murder, there have been protests in support of it and elements of the media, academia, etc., have provided rationalizations justifying such evil deeds. Shame on them! You can get away with a lot when you call it what it’s not. At least Dershowitz calls a spade a spade. May he keep it up and refuse to back down.
As of 2005, when Dershowitz wrote this book, Yassir Arafat was dead. In the 2000 Camp David negotiations, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak had offered the Palestinians their own state, encompassing most of Gaza and the West Bank, with its capital in East Jerusalem, as well as a generous compensation package for property lost by Palestinians as a result of the 1948-49 Independence War. Not only did Arafat walk away from the offer, he refused to even broach a counter-offer. Once he returned home, he started planning and preparation for an intifada that killed around 1,000 Israelis and 3,000 Palestinians. In the aftermath, some of the Palestinians were regretting that decision; their lives were worse, and they still had no state of their own. Dershowitz considered Arafat to be an obstacle to peace and, after Arafat’s death in 2004, he saw an opportunity to push for another go at the two-state solution. So, he wrote this book, making arguments in support of the two-state solution in which Israel coexists with a Palestinian state. He also had a lot to say about those he considered obstacles to peace:
• Advocates for the Palestinian right to return who are actually pushing for the demographic destruction of Israel because this would cause Jews to be outnumbered, producing a Muslim- and Arab-majority state in which the Jews would be a minority and subject to oppression, deportation or worse.
• Academics who disparage Israel and make trouble for proponents of Israel, sometimes damaging the careers of other academics who publish works in support of Israel. After Dershowitz wrote The Case for Israel, he drew a lot of fire from this crowd. Judging from his commentary in this book, he gave as good as he got.
I am not going to address Dershowitz’ arguments for a two-state solution because they may be moot at this point. However, he did predict a growing level of antisemitism in the West on account of professors indoctrinating their students to hate Israel, and I have to agree with him. In the wake of Hamas’ barbaric act of mass murder, there have been protests in support of it and elements of the media, academia, etc., have provided rationalizations justifying such evil deeds. Shame on them! You can get away with a lot when you call it what it’s not. At least Dershowitz calls a spade a spade. May he keep it up and refuse to back down.
November 12, 2015
Dershowitz's "The Case for..." series, all related to Israel, is an excellent series, and this is no exception. This book does an excellent job of showing what has happened, why it has happened, what should happen and why it should happen. Like always with Dershowitz, it's well thought out, well researched, and strongly argued. You might not agree with him but it would be hard to say he didn't lay out his case strongly.
The problem with this book is, unlike "The Case for Israel" and "The Case for Against Israel's Enemies," this book A. Has, in large part, been overtaken by events, and B. For largely predictable reasons that Dershowitz didn't address. Dershowitz makes an excellent case that peace is in the best interests of both sides, that it is workable at a reasonable price for both sides, and that compromise is both possible and morally right. He fails, however, to deal with the fact that Palestinian rejectionism has not changed and did not die with Arafat. It may have been worth hoping that Abbas would be substantively different, but it seems to me that he at least should have done more to lay out the scenario that ended up playing out, it wouldn't have been that hard to do, and give some reason as to how to avoid it. It seems to me he basically failed at doing that.
It is perhaps fair to say that Dershowitz's purpose was not to predict, but to lay out a path forward that could hopefully catch fire. Nonetheless, he'd have done better to lay out more contingency plans for the sake of discussion. Sadly, as it ended up, they would have been useful.
Still, I applaud him for writing this book. There's a lot to think about here and his observations are solid, even if his hopes didn't play out. Still, it is wise to remember that politics struggles when it tries to change a culture, and when it does it often isn't toward what was intended. It would have been a stronger book if he'd acknowledged this a little more clearly and laid out alternatives.
The problem with this book is, unlike "The Case for Israel" and "The Case for Against Israel's Enemies," this book A. Has, in large part, been overtaken by events, and B. For largely predictable reasons that Dershowitz didn't address. Dershowitz makes an excellent case that peace is in the best interests of both sides, that it is workable at a reasonable price for both sides, and that compromise is both possible and morally right. He fails, however, to deal with the fact that Palestinian rejectionism has not changed and did not die with Arafat. It may have been worth hoping that Abbas would be substantively different, but it seems to me that he at least should have done more to lay out the scenario that ended up playing out, it wouldn't have been that hard to do, and give some reason as to how to avoid it. It seems to me he basically failed at doing that.
It is perhaps fair to say that Dershowitz's purpose was not to predict, but to lay out a path forward that could hopefully catch fire. Nonetheless, he'd have done better to lay out more contingency plans for the sake of discussion. Sadly, as it ended up, they would have been useful.
Still, I applaud him for writing this book. There's a lot to think about here and his observations are solid, even if his hopes didn't play out. Still, it is wise to remember that politics struggles when it tries to change a culture, and when it does it often isn't toward what was intended. It would have been a stronger book if he'd acknowledged this a little more clearly and laid out alternatives.
January 7, 2016
Alan Dershowitz's Case for Peace is best when in keeping with its subtitle: How the Arab-Israeli Conflict Can Be Resolved. The optimal solution the book proposes is that Israelis and Palestinians agree to a two-state solution where most or all of the West Bank and Gaza Strip are declared Palestine, and this land is made contiguous by some sort of railway/subway line that connects the two territories, part of which would run through Israel. On this plan, Jerusalem would be a shared city. Although I think the plan is novel, I don't imagine everyone will ultimately accept this or any two-state solution in fact, but I hope that is just my lack of imagination.
What I did not like about the book is that a large proportion of it is devoted to a rebuttal to critics of his previous book, The Case for Israel, in which Dershowitz defends himself from accusations of plagiarism, poorly-cited material, and other textual matters. I understand his desire to defend himself, but I don't think this was the book for it. Also, since the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is such a charged issue, these sections of the book actually made me more suspect that Dershowitz is in fact more partisan and less transparent than he presents himself, which is probably the exact opposite consequence he would want from people reading his book.
What I did not like about the book is that a large proportion of it is devoted to a rebuttal to critics of his previous book, The Case for Israel, in which Dershowitz defends himself from accusations of plagiarism, poorly-cited material, and other textual matters. I understand his desire to defend himself, but I don't think this was the book for it. Also, since the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is such a charged issue, these sections of the book actually made me more suspect that Dershowitz is in fact more partisan and less transparent than he presents himself, which is probably the exact opposite consequence he would want from people reading his book.
Read
September 16, 2009Dershowitz quotes Amos Oz as saying that the perfect is the enemy of the practical, as if seeking perfection is an impediment to practicality. That is nonsense!
Mat 5:48 - You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
God is not an obstacle to practical reality, and suggesting that He is, is the real impediment.
Mat 5:48 - You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
God is not an obstacle to practical reality, and suggesting that He is, is the real impediment.
August 19, 2010
He seemed to spend too much time on a battle beween him and Noam Chomsky; this detracted from what was overall a good book.
December 2, 2013
Well argued, though repetitive at times.
Displaying 1 - 21 of 21 reviews