Customer Reviews

The Case for Peace: How the Arab-Israeli Conflict Can be Resolved

5 star:		(17)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(12)

 

 

I read The Case for Peace by Alan Dershowitz with great interest. Although I am basically an optimist, I have been lately quite pessimistic about the opportunities for peace in the Arab Israel conflict. There are so many obstacles to peace and so many players that the possibility of peace seemed to be remote, at best.

But Dershowitz, in a methodical analytic way approaches each of the pitfalls that I had considered and presents the consistent message that peace is possible.

This is not a pie in the sky book of dreams. It is rather a hard hitting, at times argumentative, but always convincing case for peace. The aspect of the book that I found most convincing was its avoidance of calling on the various parties to exercise "good will". The time for good will has long passed and now is the time when only hard nosed negotiation can bring about lasting peace.

Dershowitz rightfully points out that this final war for peace will be slow and painful for both sides. He predicts that terrorist attacks will continue after the peace is declared and that the parties must avoid, at all costs, the resumption of the "cycle of violence" that has been the hallmark of the intifada.

The second part of the book, entitled "Overcoming the Hatred Barriers to Peace" makes this book necessary reading for the opponents of peace throughout the world on both sides of the issue. Sadly, because Dershowitz has been such a vocal advocate for Israel and for a lasting and just peace between Israel and its neighbors, he has become the target of too many personal attacks. These attacks and his necessary defense reach a climax in his passionate call to the reader to "Marginalize and confront those who persist in their hate speech even while Israel and the Palestinians move toward peace."

For a previous book , "The Case for Israel" Alan Dershowitz has been attacked and libeled by the radical left, who accuse of him being a warmongering chauvinist . In this book he presents a clearly argued refutation of this personal charge against him by outlining a peace plan for the Israeli- Palestinian conflict which in his words is both pro- Israeli and pro- Palestinian.
Essentially he adopts the two- state position of what in Israel has long been called the ` peace- camp'. It is pretty much the Peres- Beilin plan in which Israel cedes most of the West Bank ( Judaea and Samaria) and Gaza, and in return receives an end to Palestinian terror and violence, and complete international recognition of its legitimacy.
In the first part of the book, ` Overcoming the Geopolitical Barriers to Peace' Dershowitz presents the heart of his plan, and answers questions as to possible difficulties with it. The final goal is two states with secure and recognized borders, an end to violence, and end to all claims each side has on the other. In the course of this he indicates that claims which have long been neglected by the world, such as that of Jews expelled from Arab lands must also be taken into account. He indicates that one of the great sticking points, the question of Palestinian Arab refugee return must be solved within the framework of the Palestinian Arab state. He also answers objections to the critics who claim such a state would not be viable. He too criticizes what he calls `extremists' of both sides who would reject all compromise. But he makes it clear that there is a great assymetry here in that the Jewish extremists are on the margin of Israeli society, while Palestinian extremism and rejectionism is the present commanding position within the society.
In this regard Dershowitz has no illusion as to what has been the major reason peace has not been made to now. Palestinianian rejectionism of the Peel Commission report in 1937 which would have given them eighty percent of the land West of the Jordan, their rejection of the UN partition plan of 1947 , their rejection of post -1967 peace plan, their rejection most recently in 2000 of the Israeli ( Barak) and US (Clinton) plan which would have given them ninety- seven percent of the West Bank, the control over the Temple Mount, and control over East Jerusalem has prevented peace from coming earlier. The basic Palestinian Arab rejection of any Jewish sovereignty in the Holy Land is what has made the conflict persist.
One source of hope for Dershowitz is the belief that with Arafat's passing a new and more realistic Palestinian leadership will emerge which will opt for the realistic benefit of its people, and not a demagogic vain hope of destroying Israel. Dershowitz seems optimistic that the Palestinians can take a new tack. And while this book was published before the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza he probably believes this an encouraging sign( However one- sided) for peace.
In the second section of the book `Overcoming the Hatred Barriers to Peace' Dershowitz briefly but convincingly makes a case for the idea that outside forces which presumably aim to help the Palestinians have caused them tremendous damage. These forces whether the U.N or a certain element of the media and academic world have by demonizing Israel and justifying Palestinian violence encouraged the Palestinians to believe that they need never be responsible and compromise. Deshowitz has his own score with the Evil - Three of Hate- Israel propaganda Chomsky- Cockburn- Finklestein and makes a brief but effective skowering of their being more Palestinian than the Palestinians , in promoting hate of Israel.
In this regard one central element Dershowitz claims in any peace - agreement must be the end to the demonization of Israel. And this of course especially by the Palestinian ,Arab and Islamic media for whom it is a major source for distracting their readers from real domestic woes.
As for the nuts and bolts of Dershowitz's plan and its realistic possibilities I have my reservations. He does make a very convincing argument that a ` one- state solution' is impossible, a clear cover for the destruction of Israel by demographic means. But my sense is that he does not go fully enough into the dangers of the ` two- state solution.' And my sense is that he is very over- optimistic about a Palestinian transformation towards acceptance of Israel.
Yet on the whole I believe his effort is a truly positive and fair one, that aims at providing benefit to both peoples.

Although Dershowitz's 2003 polemic The Case for Israel was widely praised (and purchased), it was also found to be seriously flawed. Dr. Norman Finkelstein of Depaul University revealed that a section about pre-1948 Palestine mirrored the sloppy scholarship of Joan Peters's From Time Immemorial. Peters's book cherry-picked, distorted, and in some cases even fabricated evidence to argue that the lion's share of Palestinians living in the Holy Land in 1948 were recent immigrants. Not only did Dershowitz rely on dozens of the same sources as Peters, but he also quoted nearly identical portions of those sources, and in one instance even reproduced one of Peters's citation errors. Following Finkelstein's disclosures, Dershowitz was subject to critical press coverage in addition to an embarrassing probe by his employer, Harvard University, to determine whether he had committed plagiarism. The Case for Peace represents Dershowitz's lawyerly effort at damage control in the wake of these events.

Dershowitz's "case" consists of two arguments. The first is for a two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict along the lines discussed at Camp David in 2000, with Israel permanently annexing many of its illegally constructed West Bank settlements (p. 20). Despite the occasional overstatement, Dershowitz's advocacy on the first issue is coherent and more moderate than expected.

It is in his second argument, an explication of the political obstacles to his preferred two-state settlement, where he goes off the deep end. Dershowitz asserts that Noam Chomsky, Alexander Cockburn, and Norman Finkelstein constitute a small but powerful troika of "anti-Israel, antipeace, and antitruth zealots" (p. 167-168). Dershowitz profiles all three men, relying heavily on innuendo and cheap guilt-by-association tricks to cast his aspersions. Chomsky's support for the free-speech rights of a notorious Holocaust-denier in Europe, Cockburn's acceptance of money from a group Dershowitz deems "anti-Israel" (a term Dershowitz doesn't define), and Finkelstein's popularity amongst some neo-Nazis are all adduced as reasons to treat the trio harbor a hatred for the state of Israel and the prospect for a two-state solution.

Nowhere in his dossier does he mention that both Chomsky and Finkelstein support a two-state solution, one that is presumably "anti-Israel" because it calls for Israel to dismantle its illegal settlements inside the Palestinian territories. In an interview he gave to ZNet in 2004, Chomsky reiterated his position: "[T]he only feasible and minimally decent solution to the conflict is along the lines of the long-standing international consensus: a two-state settlement on the border (Green Line), with minor and mutual adjustments." Shannon McCord of the Santa Cruz Sentinel writes: "Finkelstein supports a two-state solution to the ongoing Middle East conflict that would include 'full Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories' and Palestinians recognizing the right of Israelis to live in security and peace with their neighbors." A simple web search will confirm the authenticity of both these quotes.

Yet according to Dershowitz, not only is the Chomsky-Finkelstein-Cockburn troika "anti-peace", they also coordinate to intimidate their political detractors: Chomsky selects the targets and then contacts Finkelstein; Finkelstein does the opposition research and then sends it to Cockburn; Cockburn then publishes it online, usually under the guise of exposing plagiarism or fraudulence. While Dershowitz provides zero substantiating evidence of such a tightly orchestrated intimidation campaign, he does correctly point out that Chomsky was the person who first notified Finkelstein about potential problems in Peters' book. Interestingly, though, Dershowitz's source for this claim is one of Finkelstein's own books. Why would Finkelstein be so candid if he were a member of a vast left-wing, Israel-hating conspiracy?

As Dershowitz lodges his accusations, he engages in some of the very same tactics he accuses the troika of using. Five pages before accusing Chomsky of "mis-citing authorities" (p. 172), he quotes Chomsky as saying: "[T]he Jews do not merit a 'second homeland' because they already have New York, with a huge Jewish population, Jewish-run media, a Jewish mayor, and domination of cultural and economic life" (p. 167). The brackets around the "t" in the first word of the quote indicate the omission of text earlier in the sentence. The full quote, as recorded in Dershowitz's source (The Anti-Chomsky Reader) is: "We might ask how the Times would react to an Arab claim that the Jews do not merit a 'second homeland' because they already have New York, with a huge Jewish population, Jewish-run media, a Jewish mayor, and domination of cultural and economic life." Chomsky authored this quote in response to an editorial by A.M. Rosenthal which questioned the need for a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Citing the large Palestinian presence in Jordan, Rosenthal suggested that the Palestinians already had a state of their own. Chomsky's rejoinder demonstrates that such horrendous logic, when applied consistently, might be used to call Israel's legitimacy into question. In other words, Chomsky is denouncing a rationale that would undermine Israel's right to exist. This is not exactly the kind of argument one would expect from an "anti-Israel zealot."

Dershowitz also misleads his readers about how Chomsky has characterized Holocaust denier Robert Faurisson's writings. Once again citing the Anti-Chomsky Reader, Dershowitz claims that Chomsky described Faurisson's writings as "findings" produced by "extensive historical research" (p.171). This is untrue, however, as is clear from looking to the source Dershowitz cites. Chomsky merely signed a petition which included the language Dershowitz mentions. And the purpose of the petition was not to advocate or in any way support Faurisson's conclusions about the Holocaust. It called for the protection of Faurisson's "just right of academic freedom ... and the free exercise of his legal rights" (Anti-Chomsky Reader, p. 124).

In short, The Case for Peace raises serious questions not just about the overall quailty of Dershowitz's work, but also about Dershowitz's ethics.

What emerges most starkly from Dershowitz's account of prospects for peace in Israel/Palestine are important asymmetries between the two peoples with regard to their attitudes about each other and about their respective notions of peace. Thus, Dershowitz points out that hatred of Jews, Judaism and Israel is imparted by PA-sponsored media, schools and mosques whereas analogous attitudes toward Palestinians among Israelis are relegated to fringe elements with little influence in wider Israeli society. Similarly, Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists enjoy the sympathy and support of large numbers of Palestinians, whereas, on the Israeli side, territorial maximalists, along with the comparatively few advocates and perpetrators of outright terrorism, have been the object of general condemnation and censure by their peers.

It is, Dershowitz implies, the robust strength of violent rejectionism within the Palestinian camp that will remain the most significant threat to peace prospects in the foreseeable future.

The book includes an informative chapter on the campaign to delegitimize Israel, focusing on the thuggish and dishonest tactics of its ringleaders. There is a useful discussion in this connection of the difference between legitimate criticism of Israel, on the one hand, and anti-Semitism, on the other.

This book will of course do little to convince those for whom the very notion of Israel as a Jewish state is anathema. However, for those who accept the basic premise that the Israel/Palestine conflict is between two rights, Dershowitz traces a path toward resolution of that bloody century-long struggle between two peoples over one land.

First, there are few things this book isn't. For example, don't let the title fool you. While "peace" is the general topic, reading The Case for Peace won't make you feel as if you're sitting around a campfire singing Kumbaya to acoustic guitar accompaniment. This book is vintage Dershowitz - fast, argumentative, and thought provoking. (It also happens to be a lot of fun to read, though I'm sure that more politically extreme readers will feel less comfortable.) Also, this book isn't another peace proposal; there's no "Dershowitz Peace Plan." In fact, Dershowitz starts from the end, noting that all reasonable people recognize the basic outlines of an ultimate peace agreement between Israeli and Palestinians. From there, Dershowitz moves backwards. He identifies the obstacles to such a peace plan, and then he points out either why they aren't really obstacles, or how best to overcome them.

In Part I, Dershowitz goes over what he calls the "Geopolitical Barriers to Peace." He's talking about the actual issues that peace negotiators must consider before reaching an agreement: borders, Jerusalem, the security fence, counterterrorism measures, refugees, etc. Most importantly, Dershowitz puts the lie to those who argue that (1) a one-state binational solution is preferable to the two-state solution (Chapter 2), and (2) a future Palestinian state would not be viable because Israel will only allow for several non-contiguous Bantustans (Chapter 3). Dershowitz proves that these are disingenuous and false arguments advanced by people whose interest is not in precipitating peace, but in undermining Israel's legitimacy.

One of the themes running through Part I is similar to what Dershowitz wrote in Why Terrorism Works. While Palestinians are entitled to self-determination, they should not receive the same or more than they would have gotten at Camp David in 2000, prior to launching their terrorist war against Israel. It only makes sense. If Israel is serious about deterring terrorism, it can't reward the Palestinians for refusing to negotiate.

A second theme is that compromise isn't perfect. It sounds obvious, but I have the feeling too many people don't get it. Dershowitz takes special care to point out, on several occasions, that whatever agreement the Israelis and Palestinians reach, no side will get everything it wants, and no one will consider the agreement entirely just. Some advocates on both sides believe that the other side has no right to statehood. But to Dershowitz -- who no doubt believes that Israel, at least, "deserves" to exist -- statehood isn't only about what a community "deserves." He views self-determination more pragmatic than old disputes about history, morality, and law. Call it Peace by Exhaustion, maybe.

Occasionally Dershowitz is a little esoteric. For example, in Chapter 4, instead of writing directly about the Palestinian and Jewish Rights of Return, Dershowitz discusses refugee issue in the context of "rights." He tells us the nature of rights versus claims, the difference between collective and individual rights, and who may waive which type. It's one of the few times Professor Dershowitz subverts Polemicist Dershowitz. Dershowitz is a lawyer, after all, and I'd rather hear he made his case plainly than that he make fine distinctions over abstractions.

Part II is more aggressive, and also more relevant, because it relates to our own live, our own schools, and the very language we use to describe the Israel-Arab conflict. Here, Dershowitz explains that one of the most powerful barriers to peace has nothing to do with land or refugees or religious symbols. Instead, it has to do with attitudes. Hate, Dershowitz argues, is a principal obstacle to reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians. And not just hate between the two parties. In fact, Dershowitz focuses on outsiders who see the conflict in terms of black and white, good and evil, and end up emboldening their preferred side to eschew a negotiated settlement in favor of an ultimate "total victory." On the anti-Israel side ("Chapter 14: More Palestinian than the Palestinians"), Dershowitz painstakingly documents hate-speech from the usual suspects: European elites, the UN, university professors, some religious leaders, and the Arab media. On the anti-Palestinian side ("Chapter 15: More Israeli than the Israelis"), Dershowitz takes aim at ultra-Zionist American Jews and right-wing Evangelical Christians. The chapters aren't of equal length, but the difference is appropriate, because, as Dershowitz explains, "there is a clear asymmetry in the hate speech."

In Chapter 16, Dershowitz exposes how three men (three men!) have tried to silence Israel's supporters by telling nearly identical lies about around a dozen Holocaust scholars, pro-Israel writers, and Jewish public officials. The list includes Joan Peters, Daniel Goldhagen, Edgar Bronfman, Israel Singer, Abraham Foxman, Stuart Eizenstat, Martin Gilbert, Burt Neuborne, Yehuda Bauer, Gerald Feldman, Richard Overy, and Abba Eban. (Page 178). These three men -- Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, and Alexander Cockburn -- first accuse Jewish writers of not having written their books; then they call the books plagiarized; and then they descend into grunts of "hoax," "fraud," "liar," and "huckster."

(1) Does Dershowitz have a personal stake in the argument? Admittedly he does. (The three made the same accusations against Dershowitz for writing The Case for Israel. First they said he didn't write the book. When he showed them his hand-written manuscript, they started claiming he had plagiarized the book, which, you'll see, makes absolutely no sense.) But unbiased doesn't mean dispassionate; Dershowitz has an added motivation to set the record straight. (2) Did Dershowitz need to spend a full chapter on Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein? I don't know. What's clear, though, is that Dershowitz could have let Chomsky's and Finkelstein's silly charges rest two years ago, after everyone with an ounce of academic credibility cleared Dershowitz of these spurious accusations. But if he had only protected himself, Dershowitz would have let the three off the hook, and they could have continued making the same wild accusations against the next writer or professor who was foolish enough to argue that Israel has a right to exist or that the Holocaust isn't only a Jewish plot to garner sympathy. Considering the publicity surrounding Dershowitz's successful self-defense, I'm confident that Dershowitz is the last writer Chomsky-Finkelstein-Cockburn will falsely accuse of plagiarism, of not writing his or her own book, and of perpetrating a "fraud" and a "hoax." Thanks to Dershowitz, we all now know their MO.

In the end, Dershowitz's Case for Peace leaves out the cliches and platitudes you so often find in books about peace. The book is gratifyingly forceful, not to mention timely. I think many people will be pleased to find that Dershowitz has not rested his case for Israel alone. He's now defending Israel AND Palestine against those who would obstruct fair compromises and a moderate, thoughtful environment for discourse.

This book is well written, honest and sincere. I liked it, even though I often disagreed with it. It argues for a two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. But this book makes a better case against the enemies of peace than it does in favor of any specific solution. And indeed, if the people in the region want peace, they'll achieve it and it will benefit them. But that will entail, in my opinion, a big change in Arab attitudes.

Late in the book, Dershowitz makes an excellent point. Namely, that, perhaps in response to his own book called "The Case for Israel," Michael Neumann has written a book called "The Case Against Israel." Um, why not "The Case for the Arabs?" I think this shows part of the problem: many of those who are against Israel are not really for anyone.

Dershowitz realizes that many Arabs want to be rewarded, not punished, for their campaign of terrorism. And he knows that some actions he recommends may be seen as impractical appeasement of terrorism. He's willing to state some of the objections to what he says. And he then makes his points clearly and fairly.

The author notes that some people, including some Jews, say that the existence of Israel is bad for the Jews. Well, they might want to ask some of the Jews from Russia, Ethiopia, Argentina, and elsewhere who have found Israel to be a very useful haven!

There is a discussion of the failure of the Camp David talks. Dershowitz explains that although some people claim that the Arabs were offered only a disjointed and non-contiguous area in the West Bank, the truth is that they were offered a completely contiguous region there, and he shows maps to illustrate this. And he disposes of claims that peace would somehow infringe upon the rights of individuals or groups in the region.

The author says that Jerusalem can be shared in order to achieve peace. I disagree. It may indeed be shared, but I think this idea is too clever by half. I suspect it is likely to be a waste of time to spend so much effort to split up Jerusalem, inch by inch, when such agreements may last only hours before being replaced by something which changes the border by miles. If the people on both sides really want to split Jerusalem in this weird and awkward manner, they'll choose it. If not, I think it may be a bad idea anyway.

Dershowitz notes that suicide bombers, along with the hate speech and other incitement that helps produce them, are serious threats to peace. And that a new Levantine Arab state that launched terrorist attacks on Israel would also threaten peace. He also explains why the touted "Geneva Accords" won't work.

Well, what about having an international court help out? Dershowitz replies that the International Court of Justice is much like Mississippi courts in the 1930s. Just as these Mississippi courts, which excluded Blacks, could not judge fairly when issues involved disputes between Blacks and Whites, the International Court of Justice can't judge fairly when issues involve Israel. Nor can the United Nations.

The author argues in favor of having a demilitarized Levantine Arab state. I think this is a bad idea, and that the entire purpose of such a state would be to militarize and attack Israel.

Now, what about those who are on the sidelines, off in America or Europe? And not in the Middle East at all? Dershowitz shows us that many professors are so extreme in their demands for war that even if Israel could make peace with the Arabs, it would have no chance of making peace with these academics (especially with some of the professors at Columbia University, in New York City). Some of these scholars compare Israel with Germany of the 1930s and 1940s. Or with South African apartheid. But the author shows that such comparisons are not mere opinions, but wild falsehoods. And he also shows that there are some media folks with similar problems.

One frequent charge made by anti-Zionists is that any criticism of Israel is called anti-Semitic. Dershowitz carefully explains that this charge is false, and includes nice checklists that show the differences between legitimate criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism.

But what about supporters of Israel who make stronger demands than Israel does itself? Dershowitz implies that this is going too far. But I disagree. I think a stand has to be judged on its merits, not on how unusual it is. Israeli Jews may be pressured into violating the rights of Arabs. They may be pressured into violating their own rights. I see absolutely no reason why I and others shouldn't criticize them, or simply disagree with them, if they do so.

Near the end of the book, Dershowitz takes on a trio of anti-Israeli writers: Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, and Alexander Cockburn. Chomsky is a very bright individual who has made many scholarly contributions to society, but as Dershowitz shows, Chomsky is also a very strong opponent of Jewish rights in the Levant. Finkelstein is a little different. He's not much of a scholar, and is a terrific example of one who has substituted political propaganda for scholarly work. As the author tells us, Finkelstein has criticized Joan Peters' book, "From Time Immemorial." And that some of Peters' data about Arab immigration and in-migration may be a little off, and some of her interpretations of these data may be inaccurate. Still, most of her book has nothing to do with any of this. And even in the part that is affected, others have shown that her most basic conclusions are valid. But Finkelstein has gone overboard, and called her whole work a "hoax" based on such minor points!

This is a fine book, and I recommend it to everyone.

Overall, I think Dershowitz provided a good rebuttal to Finkelstein's outlandish criticisms. I also think Dershowitz does a nice job of explaining the difference between legitimate and constructive criticism of Israel's policies and false inflammatory remarks based on hatred. True critics of Israel who hosently would like to see changes to Israel's policies would do well to read this book and learn how to make their case founded on factual complaints instead of emotional and biased ranting. This book is not "nazi in content" as one reviewer remarks, not that I'm even sure what that means. However, remarks such as this one help illustrate the importance of this book. It is not anti-semitic to criticize Israel or disagree with Israel policies or support the creation of a Palestinian state. Similarly, one is not a nazi or lover of apartheid if they do support Israel and criticize the Palestinian Authority. If you want to learn how to formulate a real critical opinion about Israel, you would do well reading this book. My only complaint with a Case for Peace is that Dershowitz only broadly outlines many of his ideas and does not provide the reader with any real suggestions about how a two-state solution can actually be achieved.

Alan Dershowitz's "The Case for Peace: How the Arab-Israeli Conflict Can be Resolved" proffers hope for a settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli dispute, and carries on the fierce war of words over the conflict. Harvard Law professor Dershowitz, author of The Case For Israel, feels that, with Arafat's death and a new Palestinian leadership, prospects for peace have brightened. He endorses the "obvious" two-state solution suggested by Ehud Barak's ill-fated 2000 proposals and the recent non-governmental Geneva accords, involving Israel's withdrawal from Gaza and most of the West Bank (except for some large Jewish settlements), divided sovereignty over Jerusalem and some "recognition" of Palestinian refugees by Israel without an absolute "right of return." Dershowitz continues to back such controversial Israeli actions as the targeted assassination of suspected terrorists and the construction of the West Bank security wall, but acknowledges a common interest in peace which must be protected from extremists on both sides. He is less conciliatory toward outside supporters of the Palestinians, whom he accuses of opposing peace and seeking "the destruction of the Jewish State," citing everything from anti-Semitic ravings in the Arab press to Western academics who violate his 28-point guidelines for separating legitimate criticism of Israel from anti-Semitism. He particularly targets the "real and acknowledged" conspiracy of "anti-Israel, anti-peace, anti-truth zealots" Noam Chomsky, Alexander Cockburn and Norman Finkelstein and offers a detailed rebuttal of Finkelstein's recent anti-Dershowitz broadside Beyond Chutzpah. In keeping with the vitriolic conventions of the debate-over-the-debate-over the Middle East, he bombards opponents with inflammatory charges based on sometimes tendentious readings of skimpily contextualized remarks; readers trying to substantiate them must often follow long trails of footnotes to other sources. Dershowitz presents his usual vigorous case, but not the judicious treatment these issues cry out for.

One "reviewer" decided to pan The Case for Peace without actually writing a review of the book. That reviewer's comments bear a suspiciously close resemblance to what Dershowitz-hater Norman Finkelstein has asserted time and again. Can anyone honestly believe that the reviewer, "Truth-Seeker," is anyone except a minion of Finkelstein? (S)He is hardly attempting an even-handed search for truth, as (s)he disregards the many falsehoods that Finkelstein has attempted to propagate. Instead of just reading the accusations made by Finkelstein on his website (which "Truth-Seeker" decides to recycle on Amazon.com), a responsible reader would try to see the other half of the picture. You can do that by visiting www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/dershowitz/finkelstein.html. It's only fair that you do that.

Now, for an actual review. Although Dershowitz has been known for his sometimes-controversial opinions, The Case for Peace is a book most striking in its moderation. (Nobody has ever accused Finkelstein of taking a moderate stance!) The fact that The Case for Peace has been praised by as diverse a collection of people as Bill Clinton, Ariel Sharon, Amos Oz, and Stuart Eizenstadt speaks to the book's fair approach. Dershowitz takes on the zealots of both ends of the spectrum-those who believe Israel should not exist at all, and those who feel that the Palestinians should not have a state of their own-and argues for a two-state solution. He thoroughly addresses many of the supposed geopolitical barriers to a two-state solution. And he analyzes the impediments to this outcome posed by hatred of Israel and the Jews. (In the process, he thoroughly demolishes Finkelstein's biased accusations.) "Truth-Seeker" titles his review, "Check the original sources." Go for it. With 34 pages of endnotes in The Case for Peace, the documentation should be meticulous enough to keep anyone happy. If you are someone who wants to see a peaceful outcome to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, The Case for Peace will provide a compelling argument about how it can be accomplished.

Eloquently argued thesis for why peace in the middle east is not only possible, but in the best interest of all the peoples who live there. Unfortunately, I feel that the premises are naive and the entire arguement fails when one considers that Hamas and the other rejectionist groups will never accept Israel's existence, no matter how much Israel is willing to compromise. That a huge number of Palestinians (majority?) agree with the "terrorists'" position and hate Jews and will never accept the concept of giving away any "holy" Arab land leaves hope for peace quite impotent. The book makes logical sense, but passions do not respond to logic, especially in the middle east.