Customer Reviews

The Case for Israel

5 star:		(101)
4 star:		(36)
3 star:		(7)
2 star:		(7)
1 star:		(35)

 

 

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.

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.

Dershowitz unveils the "Big Lies" that seem to permeate so much of the world's perception of the world's only Jewish state. This book tears away the mantle of rationality and respectability shrouding so much of the anti-semitism that is leveled at Israel. ... A Must Read for anyone concerned about human rights, justice, and the right of this oasis of democracy and civilization to exist.

Dershowitz's succinct prose lays out the case for Israel in an organized fashion. His claim that Egypt and Jordan have accepted Israel is a case of wishful thinking. Egypt is the source of the most vicious anti-semitism, much of it originating in the tightly controlled official government press. Examples are a recent series on TV presenting the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion' and another 2 programs presenting the blood libel against the Jews, which was rejected by the Pope in the 12th century. He should have devoted more space to the biggest secret in recent Mid-East history ie the fact that one million Jews were driven out of their homes in
Arab and Moslem (Iran) countries since the establishment of Israel. Please take note you reviewers, who point out the ratio of Jews to Arabs in the Holy Land at the advent of the 20th century.

When you first read this book a lot of the claims made seems convincing, but if you read another side of the argument his argument begins to fall apart. First his heavy reliance of Joan Peters "From Time Immemorial" speaks volumes about the sources he uses. Joan Peters book has been regarded by most serious scholars as a hoax. It was initially reviewed well but after some time (specifically after the doctoral thesis of NOrman Finkelstein) The book was denounced as nothing more than a threadbare hoax. But dershowitz regards Peters book as the rule of law.
Secondly Dershowitz claim that during the 1948 war most refugees left at the exhortations of Arab leaders is simply false. For example he quotes BEnny Morris extensively during this chapter, but Benny Morris was actually one of the New Historians and the central thesis of his book runs counter to dershowitz's claims. Specifically the New HIstorians came out to refute what dershowitz actually said. Read The ethnic cleansing of Palestine by Ilan Pappe (a fellow new historian) to find out what really happened during the 1948 war. Third Dershowitz claims that Israel has never been accused of war crime by human rights organizations, but infact they have been accused of that many times. If you read beyond Chutzpah it reveals all of the war crimes committed by Israel. Even Btselem the Israeli human rights group is highly critical of Israels record. BUt according to dershowiz he believes that those reports aren't true. COuld n't he have stated that they are accused of war crimes then proceed to say why he believes all these mainstream human rights organizations are false, instead of simply denying it altogether without giving the reader an informed view. Another point related to this is that he says more noncombatants have been killed on the israeli side since 2000 but when you check the ststistics this turns out to be false. He responds to this by stating that these humans rights organizations should redefine the concept of civilianality. I think that is being extremely disingenuous to distort the records and then claim that the statistics dont fit your definition of a war crime. One should report all these war crimes and the number of noncombatants killed by humans rights organizations and then if you dispute them go on to say why. Frankly i dont know how he can dispute the allegations of a consensus of humans rights groups and claim they are false, and in his book act as if these groups never existed. So these concerns raise questions about dershowitz's ability to produce a non biased piece of work on such a contentious issue.

Update: Ok, there still seem to be some people that this book is worth reading. First thing i'd like to add is that Dershowitz essentially subscribes to the Peter's thesis that Palestine was essentially an empty land with a decreasing population. The fact is that Peter's thesis is thoroughly discredited absolutely no one even cites the book not even scholarly pro israeli works. See Professor Peroth's review called Mrs. Peter's Palestine in the NYRB to find out why. Unlike Peters Professor Peroth is a leading expert on the Palestinian National movement. Second really important issue i would like to point out is that Dershowitz absolutely misrepresents the refugee problem especially Israel's role in it. The statistic he uses to say that 68 percent of palestinians left without seeing a soldier, the poll was taken by the institute of Palestinian studies. This would seem to be a crucial piece of evidence he adduces to support his case about the 1948 exodus. But the poll was about the 1967 exodus and not the 1948 exodus. Another example is that he says Deir Yassin was an abberation and it was the only Jewish atrocity that took place. Well Benny Morris explicitly states in the Birth and Righteous victims and maybe also in the book 1948 that the Zionist forces committed far more atrocities than the arab side. That was one of the core findings of his research. Another example is worth noting is the example of Jaffa. Dershowitz says the residents left and Ben Gurion was surprised and commented why the inhabitants left. He cited Morris for this assertion but unfortunately for him MOrris paints a different picture. The Irgun militia basically let loose on the town turning hotels into hosptitals with their indiscriminate Mortar fire. This is what Morris wrote
" [T]he objectives of the mortar barrage, which went on without respite for three days, with nine tons of explosives being delivered on day two of the attack, were clear, as described by IZL OC operations, Amihai Paglin, in his pre-battle briefing to his troops: "To prevent constant military traffic..., to break the spirit of the enemy troops, [and] to cause chaos among the civilian population in order to create a mass flight."
Then Morris introduces Ben Gurions surprise to the as clearly ironic but dershowitz skips over the paragraph i just quoted and mentions Ben Gurion's surprise as if Morris agrees with him. I could go on and on but i think these examples should suffice.

In The Case for Israel, Alan Dershowitz addresses the numerous accusations made against Israel, and responds with facts and context. He shows that many of Israel's opponents who "can see no right on the side of Israel and no wrong on the side of those who would seek to destroy the Jewish state" are either ignorant of the Middle East or malevolent in their intentions.

The theme pervading throughout this book is introduced on page 11: Israel is subject to a unique double standard of judgment and criticism for its actions in defending its very existence. If the Jewish state were judged by the same standard as every other nation, Israel would be at or near the top of the list in terms of civil liberties, human rights, and every other test of morality and justice.

One example of this double-standard is the inordinate scrutiny by the United Nations regarding Israeli control of the West Bank and Gaza. The Tibetans, the Kurds, the Basques, and dozens of other stateless peoples have much stronger claims to statehood than do the Palestinians. The Tibetans and Kurds have been treated far more brutally by their occupiers than have the Palestinians. The Tibetans have never resorted to terrorism. The UN has never condemned China or recognized the rights of Tibetans, Kurds, Basques, or the others. Only the Palestinians have resorted to terrorism as a primary method for seeking independence. Only the Palestinians have been offered a state (three times) and only the Palestinians have rejected a state (three times).

Dershowitz provides extensive documentation for the facts, with over 500 footnotes - many of them from pro-Palestinian and other Arab sources, or American and international media sources.

One of the subjects that I wished Dershowitz had addressed is the security barrier being built in the West Bank. Also the United Nations bias against Israel, a bias discussed in various sections, would seem to merit its own chapter. Some of the chapters are quite short, although the short replies may be necessary since the book covers so many issues.

Most readers agree that Israel's supporters will enjoy this book. Far more important, I believe, is that if you are neutral to the Israeli-Arab conflict, if you have little background in the Middle East, then you owe it to yourself to read this book in order to understand the reasons why Jews, Christians, and every American President has and continues to support the only democracy in the Middle East and the only Jewish state in the world.

As countless other reviewers have noted, this book borrows heavily from Joan Peters's long-discredited From Time Immemorial. While Dershowitz has denied plagiarizing Peters, Dershowitz's use of source material in two chapters about pre-1948 Israel is nearly identical to Peters's - down to quotation errors and the placement of ellipses in long quotes.

Peters's extreme conclusions flow naturally from her extreme presentation of cherry-picked source material. That Dershowitz would pretend to disavow Peters's conclusions, while for multiple chapters recycling her "research", suggests his true agenda: paying lip-service to moderation while tacitly advocating extremism.

For the open-minded who want to read a detailed debunking of Peters's work, see the second chapter of Finkelstein's Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict. For a careful dissection of Dershowitz's unconscionable use of Peters's material, and his amateurish defense of Israel, see the second part of Finkelstein's Beyond Chutzpah.

I was a bit lost about the whole Middle East issue. This book really helped me sort things out. The author is pro-Israeli, but he rights in a way that lets you evaluate what he says for yourself.
It is also well written and reads easily.
I really recommend it.

This book is one of the worst on the subject of Israel/Palestine. It is not just nonobjective but is full of false information, misquotes and lies....yes, lies. The author makes claims that are simply irrefutably wrong and misleading. The only people who would even consider giving it multiple stars are those who have absolutely no background on the subject and take it at face value. I think the author should stick to defending criminals like O.J. and let the scholars and historians write about this subject. There is also very much proof that large portions of this book were actually plagiarized. Shame on Mr. Dershowitz!

This book by Alan Dershowitz, a Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, is one of a pair of books that take a close and serious look at the longstanding Arab-Israeli conflict, as well as the accusations leveled against Israel in particular. As an attorney, Dershowitz writes this first book, titled "The Case for Israel," with the drama and precision of a moving courtroom case. He opens his remarks with a detailed and penetrating analysis of the issues that fuel the continuing wars in the Middle East, identifying the players, actions, reactions, accusations and the accused--Israel. The following is a summary quote from Dershowitz:

"The Jewish nation of Israel stands accused in the dock of international justice. The charges include being a criminal state, the prime violator of human rights, the mirror-image of Nazism, and the most intransigent barrier to peace in the Middle East. Throughout the world--from the chambers of the United Nations, to the campuses of universities--Israel is singled out for condemnation, divestment, boycott, and demonization (sic). Its leaders are threatened with prosecution as war criminals. Its supporters are charged with dual loyalty and parochialism."

As clearly indicated by the title of this book, Dershowitz poses as the defense attorney advocating for the nation of Israel. Not surprisingly, he chooses a unique format for his presentation. Each chapter opens with THE ACCUSATION, followed by THE ACCUSERS, using specific quotes from the most well-known and vocal anti-Israel antagonist, then what Dershowitz views as THE REALITY, a brief, summary, and finally follows this with an extremely detailed presentation of his evidence (including historical maps, quoted documents, witness testimonies, and historic statements made by Arabs) against the accusations and accusers in a section Dershowitz calls THE PROOF.

I found this format to be an extremely efficient and effective way to present his case. Surprisingly, Dershowitz relies heavily on materiel found in anti-Israel writers like historian Benny Morris and antagonists Edward Said and Noam Chomsky. Unlike many other authors on this subject, Dershowitz presents his case for Israel first in an historical context, going back to the 19th Century, and even covering relevant details from ancient Arab-Jewish history.

Dershowitz presents his case using 32 questions like "Have the Jews Always Rejected the Two-State Solution?", "Did Israel Create the Arab Refugee Problem?", Has Israel Made Serious Efforts at Peace?" and "Why Have More Palestinians Than Israelis Been Killed?" for example. He goes into such detail that, even though most of the chapters are relatively short (10-12 pages), the reader must not breeze through the information. The book is well written and guaranteed to provide the reader with a history lesson, one I'm sure you definitely didn't hear in high school or college. If history isn't your forte, staying with the historical context in this book is important and may make the author's conclusions very enlightening. I studied the Balfour Declaration (resolution) in school, but never like this.

Dershowitz does not hesitate to fault Israel when the evidence calls for criticism. On the other hand, he also provides impressive evidence of the misinformation that has replaced the actual history of the Arab campaign to eliminate Israel, using the Palestinians as a constant point of agitation and terrorism.

Most of the quoted material and cited references are included in an extensive End Notes section for those of you who are fact checkers. At the end of each chapter, Dershowitz also includes a brief summary of the question and issues covered. He includes his closing remarks in a 23-page summation at the end of the book.

There were a number of historical facts that Dersowitz brought out that I found very interesting. One was that the Arab nations, including the Palestinians, allied themselves with defeated Germany in both WWI and WWII. In WWII, the Palestinian leader Haj Amin al-Husseini visited Germany requesting Hitler expand his "Final Solution" to include all Jews in Arab/Muslim nations. Curiously, after Germany was defeated and Palestine was reapportioned by the Balfour Declaration, providing Israel the opportunity to immigrate in greater number after the war, the Arab nations (including Palestinians) stepped up their terrorism, complaining how unfair the reapportionment was. As a veteran myself of several wars, the old adage should have been obvious here that "To the victor go the spoils."

A second fact I, for whatever reason, was not aware of was that since the late 19th Century, Israel has, time after time, agreed to give back valuable land (their security buffer) in exchange for a permanent peace with the Palestinians. In every case, the Palestinians and surrounding Arab nations have rejected a permanent peace with Israel. Surprisingly, in 2002, Israel offered an amazing and unprecedented number of options for peace, but Arafat walked away, shocking then President Clinton, other Arab nations and even the Palestinians, preferring instead to continue the terrorist jihad toward the complete inhalation of the Jews.

I have noted that quite a number of reviewers have simply dismissed this book, calling Dershowitz bias. After reading such comments I suppose that it must have eluded these reviewer's attention that this book was written from the viewpoint of a legal advocate for Israel and against antisemitism. Therefore, focusing criticism on their opinion of Dershowitz and not an honest analysis of his evidence is, in my opinion, not a valid argument.

Dershowitz makes it clear very early that he supports a Two-State (Palestinian-Israel) solution. I'm surprised that after writing this book he can conclude that there can even be a peaceful solution. His own evidence proves that the Arab-Muslim world is and has been for centuries interested in only a solution that involves the elimination of Israel as a State and the subjugation or complete eradication of the Jews as a people-group. How can he think a side-by-side, collocation of Israel and the Palestinian Authority would be successful and not result in continued terrorism and death? This is an excellent book, but, unfortunately, Professor Dershowitz is more than just a wishful-thinking optimist, he's a pure dreamer who is ignoring the historical facts.

I clearly appreciated the effort Dershowitz put into this book. Although I don't agree with some of his solutions and found his zeal and passion for Israel clouded his logic in places, I still don't think I've read a better and more interesting book on this subject. I also plan to read a book by historian Benny Morris to balance my viewpoint.

For those who want to read a well-written defense of Israel's history and their right to exist as a national entity, this book is recommended. For those who are not interested or simply can't honestly consider the other side of the coin, this book will only infuriate you and the hard evidence will probably just cause your head to explode. Read it if you care; read it if you dare.