79 of 129 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A Defense Counsel's Summation and Rebuttal of the Plaintiffs' Cases, December 30, 2008
This review is from: The Case Against Israel's Enemies: Exposing Jimmy Carter and Others Who Stand in the Way of Peace (Hardcover)
Before commenting on the book, let me mention that I studied Law and Medicine under Professor Dershowitz many years ago at Harvard Law School. The course was conducted as a running debate between the M.D. professor and Professor Dershowitz. Much could be learned by listening to both sides.
When it comes to Israel and Palestine (and its supporters in and out of the Arab world), there aren't very many debates. Instead, supporters of one side or the other make claims about the other side being at fault. The history is so involved and complicated that few people know enough about it to assess the assertions without doing a lot of research (something that is beyond the interest of most uninvolved observers).
Professor Dershowitz offers to debate critics of Israel, but they don't often take up the challenge. As a result, books like this one are important for helping to get a balanced view of the historical perspective and the current issues (as we all watch with horror as rockets are launched at Israel and Israel attacks those who launch them . . . often in civilian dominated areas).
Let me summarize the book's key points:
1. Former President Jimmy Carter got it wrong in his book, Peace, Not Apartheid. Professor Dershowitz clearly distinguishes what South Africa did to its African and "colored" populations from what Israel does to Palestinians. Carter's book seems filled with obvious errors which are detailed pretty thoroughly in an appendix. Yet Carter stands by the book being without error.
2. Professors John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt mischaracterized the history of Palestinian-Israeli relations in a way that is either incompetent or corrupt. The fact-checking makes the two professors look pretty bad.
3. Those who want to boycott Israeli academics and divest from Israeli businesses are acting as though stifling free debate will help create peace, on the one hand, and that Israel is a rogue nation, on the other hand. Professor Dershowitz shows that the academic community doesn't support the boycotts and that the divestiture movement isn't based on a sound factual evaluation.
4. Those who oppose Israel's activities with regard to the Palestinians from either the hard left or hard right seem to be taking positions that are racist because they don't criticize regimes that are actually engaged in genocide or severe forms of racial discrimination. Many are also quoted as having made anti-Semitic statements.
5. Those who favor suicide bombers aren't interested in peace but are rather acting on religious beliefs that require that Israel be destroyed and eliminated, and he provides many quotes to support that view.
6. The Iranian atomic program is a danger to Israel and the United States because the current leadership is committed to destroying Israel and any nation that opposes what Muslims want to do. He provides many quotes to support these views from the mouths of the appropriate leaders.
In conclusion, he argues that
1. Israel has always been willing to trade land for peace, but Palestinians haven't.
2. Israel has the right under international law to take a proportionate response to attacks on its territory and citizenry.
3. Muslims, Arabs, and Christians have more rights in Israel than they do in Muslim countries.
4. Palestinian opposition to the Jewish presence in what is now Israel dates back to the Nazi era and includes collaboration in the Holocaust.
5. Most of the current social problems that Palestinians experience are a result of Arab nations not wanting to accept them in their countries rather than mistreatment by Israelis.
After having read the book, I wanted to understand why so many people are making such preposterous statements.
In thinking about how all these falsehoods could have occurred, I realized that it was a lot like watching two football fans argue about which fan's team was the better. Each fan is convinced of its team's superiority and isn't very aware of or sympathetic to the other side. And they really don't care if they get it wrong in making their arguments. Why? Their loyalty to the team is more important than the truth. It's about emotions . . . not about facts.
If someone is outraged to see Palestinians suffer from Israeli bombs, they will see the Israelis as guilty. If someone is outraged to see Israeli civilians blown up by Palestinian suicide bombers or Hamas rockets, they will see at least some Palestinians as guilty.
When football is involved, the leagues supply independent officials to sort it all out. In the case of Israel and the Palestinians, no one is playing that role of independent officials any more. And I have to assume that few would want to be inserted into what could be hundreds of years of warfare.
It seems like a situation that will only escalate, until one side or the other has to give up because the cost of "victory" is too high. That's hardly a civilized or desirable resolution.
What's the answer? Well, if every nation is going to be at risk of these angry parties lobbing atomic weapons at one another, perhaps the time has come for the international community to realize that it had better supply those objective officials or bear a horrible price.
Who will step forward? I don't know, but I pray someone will.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
![[Start the discussion]](http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/communities/discussion_boards/start-new-discussion-sec._V192250339_.gif){kind=small}
