30 of 43 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Biased in presenting information, but conclusions are reasonable, November 22, 2010
This review is from: The Case for Israel (Paperback)
From the outset, it should be noted that Alan Dershowitz is a lawyer and not a historian. He does not present information from a disinterested perspective as respected historians (e.g. Shlomo Ben-Ami and Benny Morris) do. Although I myself strongly support Israel's existence and the right of its people to live in peace and security, it is difficult to ignore the "blame-it-on-all-the-Palestinians-and-the-Arabs" tone of Professor Dershowitz's book. In Professor Dershowitz's presentation of the Israel-Palestine conflict, almost all wrongdoings on the part of the Israelis are sheerly coincidental, unintentional, or accidental while almost all wrongdoings on the part of the Palestinians are unequivocally malicious and motivated by extremism or anti-Semitism. Although he correctly points out that Jews throughout history have faced disproportionate criticism, unforgivable pogroms, and unjustified discrimination (which are my main reasons for supporting a state in which Jews can live in security and peace), Professor Dershowitz's overly broad and extremely biased assessment of the Arabs and the Palestinians fails in substantiating his case. For one, recycling the same argument spewed out by Daniel Pipes, he writes that all or most Palestinians supported the "losing side" during World War I and World War II (and vis-à-vis the latter, he outrageously claims that all or most Palestinians supported Hitler either explicitly or implicitly during the Holocaust). This is one of several instances in which Professor Dershowitz interprets the decisions and stances of Arab leaders (most of whom are/were corrupt, unpopular, and/or unelected) as being representative of the entire Palestinian population (e.g. "Palestinians rejected peace"; "When Palestinians want a Palestinian state more than they want to see the destruction of the Jewish state, they will have a state of their own"). He does not take into account the serious pro-peace endeavors of the Arabs (most notably, the Arab Peace Initiative, which includes the recognition of and the opening of diplomatic relations with Israel) while he bemoans the Arab world's "refusal" to recognize Israel. In another case, Professor Dershowitz appears to contradict himself as he rightly paints Yassir Arafat as an extremely corrupt and avaricious opportunist who was not representative of the Palestinian people (Professor Dershowitz goes on further to quote an Arab prince who called Arafat's rejection of the concessions offered by Barak a "crime against the Palestinian people") while accusing all or most Palestinians of not wanting peace because of the anti-peace actions of Arafat.
One particular annoyance was Professor Dershowitz's incessant attacks against persons who have a different view of the Israel-Palestine conflict, namely Norman Finkelstein, Edward Said, Noam Chomsky, Nelson Mandela, Christopher Hitchens et al. Professor Dershowitz, for reasons I do not know, appears especially hell bent on wanting to discredit Professors Chomsky and Said. He paints Professor Said as a radical academic who supported Palestinian terrorism against the Israelis (and anyone who is familiar with his work knows this is untrue), and Professor Dershowitz portrays Professor Chomsky as an extreme left wing, anti-Israel fanatic, quoting Mr. Chomsky's support for Robert Faurisson's (a Holocaust denier) right to free speech. Despite his own background as a criminal appellate lawyer, Professor Dershowitz ludicrously questions whether Professor Chomsky is even qualified to professionally participate in the Israel-Palestine debate, using the example of Professor Chomsky's teaching a course on the Israel-Palestine conflict at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University because of his background as a linguist. In sum, Professor Dershowitz's borderline ad hominem attacks against his opponents were a frequent distraction. He also dismisses prominent and credible international organizations such as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and the United Nations because of their critical assessments of Israel.
However, notwithstanding Professor Dershowitz's migraine inducing bias against the Palestinians and what I see as an unfair characterization of respected scholars such as Professors Chomsky and Said, he nevertheless raises some excellent points for going forward in his book. He demands the renouncement of terrorism by Palestinian militants (a point which no reasonable and credible scholar on either side opposes). He - at least ostensibly - advocates for a peaceful two state solution in which both Israelis and Palestinians can live in peace with each other (whether he actually believes in a peaceful two-state settlement in accordance with UN Resolution 242 is questionable based on his remarks elsewhere). He writes that he supports an economically viable and contiguous Palestinian state in which the Palestinians will control the Arab dominanted portion of Jerusalem and the Israelis will control the Jewish dominated portion of Jerusalem. He correctly states that extremists on both sides (Christian Zionists who support a Greater Israel on one end and the Muslim fundamentalists who support the destruction of Israel on the other end) present an obstacle in the peace process. He criticizes the building of new settlements in the Occupied Territories although Professor Dershowitz appears to believe (as he stated on a Crosstalk debate against Gideon Levy) that the freezing of settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories shouldn't be a precondition for peace.
In sum, Professor Dershowitz's book, despite being riddled with bias, some factual and typographical errors, and personal jabs against his opponents, nevertheless makes important points for achieving a lasting peace between the two peoples. The solutions delineated by Professor Dershowitz are quite reasonable and deserve serious attention. However, if one wishes to read a more balanced account of the Israel-Palestine conflict, I would strongly recommend Benny Morris's
Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-2001, which has received praise from Palestinian and Israeli scholars alike.
On another note, this book has stirred controversy within academic circles due to accusations of plagiarism by Norman Finkelstein. I want to briefly address this issue. Derek Bok, the former president of Harvard, conducted an investigation on the charges and concluded that no plagiarism had occurred, and James O. Freedman, the former president of Dartmouth, has stated that Dershowitz had correctly followed the Chicago Manual of Style in citing his sources. However, on the other side, journalist Alexander Cockburn and Oxford academic Avi Shlaim have supported Dr. Finkelstein's charges - the latter saying that Dr. Finkelstein has delineated the charges "in a manner that would stand up in court." Although I believe that plagiarism is a serious charge, I do not think, at least in regards to the arguments and conclusions presented by Mr. Dershowitz, that it's an issue worth fussing about (although I am very puzzled as to why Professor Dershowitz mentions "Orwellian turnspeak" twice in his book). Joan Peters (whose work, From Time Immemorial, is the book from which Professor Dershowitz allegedly plagiarized) has not raised a complaint in regards to Professor Dershowitz's improperly citing her work, and Noam Chomsky himself has said that it was much more important to focus on the arguments presented by Professor Dershowitz than the charges of plagiarism. If the reader wishes to conduct his or her own investigation, I would advise the reader to look at Norman Finkelstein's
Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, Updated Edition and Professor Dershowitz's response in
The Case for Peace: How the Arab-Israeli Conflict Can be Resolved. The reader who wishes to conduct an even more nuanced investigation can view the Democracy Now! debate between Dr. Finkelstein and Professor Dershowitz, which is available on YouTube and on the Democracy Now! website. (Also, the reader may want to take a look at the articles by Frank Menetrez and Alexander Cockburn in regards to the plagiarism issue and Professor Dershowitz's responses to the former two). I'll leave it to the reader to come to his or her own conclusion.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
4 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Sound, but not thorough enough, June 14, 2011
Firstly, for the structure of the book: In this book, Professor Dershowitz attacks 31 various allegations that were made against Israel by various people. Professor Dershowitz, as a lawyer, follows a format of first stating the allegation, then stating the supposed truth, and finally, stating the evident to back the truth and hopefully refute the allegation.
As for the content of the book: Dershowitz mostly counts on sources such as Benny Morris's book, "
Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-2001". And, in a few cases, the proof he provides is over-simplistic and not comprehensive enough. To cite just one example: in Chapter Three (since I didn't read the English version of the book the number of the chapter might be different and the translation is my own), the allegation is that the second "aliyah" to Israel from Europe had an imperialistic nature, hence, the main goal of the new settlers was to establish a new Jewish state without its Arab residences. Professor Dershowitz refutes this allegation by providing a quote from historian Benny Moris who basically said that " the main reason for the second "aliyah" was the fear from the pogroms in Europe", and therefore, the Jewish people fled Europe due to fear, and not because of any evil intention of taking over the Arab's land. That might be true, however, to quote one historian is not enough to refute such an allegation, and Dershowitz fails to provide any more proof to back his argument.
Having said that, the fact that a few of his proofs are not comprehensive enough doesn't necessarily mean they are wrong. As a matter of the fact, I found most of his arguments to be rather satisfying and convincing. In my opinion, the main strength of the book is that it summarizes the most common allegations that are made against Israel and, in most cases, he was able to refute them in a straightforward, logical and clear way.
In conclusion, this book is well written and a rather easy book to read through. It's well suited for people who are interested in a light and quick read about a complicated topic. However, if you're looking for a thorough and detailed account of the Israeli side of the Israeli-Palestine conflict it's better to look somewhere else.
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}
