Audible sampleThe Case for Peace: How the Arab-Israeli Conflict Can be Resolved 1st Edition, Kindle Edition
by Alan Dershowitz (Author) Format: Kindle Edition
4.3 4.3 out of 5 stars 43 ratings
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.
On Kindle Scribe
Publisher
Trade Paper Press
The Case Against Israel's Enemies: Exposing Jimmy Carter and Others Who Stand in the Way of Peace
Alan Dershowitz
4.5 out of 5 stars 84
Kindle Edition
$11.99
Editorial Reviews
From Publishers Weekly
On Kindle Scribe
Publisher
Trade Paper Press
The Case Against Israel's Enemies: Exposing Jimmy Carter and Others Who Stand in the Way of Peace
Alan Dershowitz
4.5 out of 5 stars 84
Kindle Edition
$11.99
Editorial Reviews
From Publishers Weekly
While holding out hope for a settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli dispute, this lively polemic 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.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Review
Praise for The Case for Peace
“Alan Dershowitz has been on the forefront of making the case for Israel and against terrorism. Now he turns his attention to making the case for peace. He understands, as I do, how difficult it is to achieve peace with security. He confronts these difficulties with insight and with the benefit of years of experience.” —Ariel Sharon
“In The Case for Peace, Alan Dershowitz has offered a thoughtful and profoundly logical response to all the critical questions about what sustains the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians and what can end it. For anyone who believes in peace, even while having doubts about whether it can be achieved, this is an important book to read.” —Dennis Ross, former U.S. Envoy to the Middle East and author of The Missing Peace: The Inside Story of the Fight for Middle East Peace
“Alan Dershowitz has done it again! Just as he brilliantly presented The Case for Israel, he cogently argues that now is the time for peace between Israelis and Palestinians, with the passing of Yasser Arafat and the democratic election of Mahmoud Abbas. The Case for Peace, like The Case for Israel, takes aim at Israel’s enemies, but Alan Dershowitz now recognizes that the enemies of peace, in the extremist camps of the Palestinians and Israel, are also enemies of an Israel that deserves to have peace within secure borders next to a Palestinian state. He properly takes special aim at those American academics who insist that only a one-state solution will provide justice for Palestinians, a certain prescription for the end of Israel as a Jewish state.” —Stuart Eizenstadt, former senior official in the Carter and Clinton administrations
===
Product details
ASIN : B00DNL43PG
Publisher : Trade Paper Press; 1st edition (April 21, 2008)
Publication date : April 21, 2008
Sticky notes : On Kindle Scribe
Print length : 256 pages
4.3 4.3 out of 5 stars 43 ratings
About the author
Follow authors to get new release updates, plus improved recommendations.
+ Follow
Alan M. Dershowitz
ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ is a Brooklyn native who has been called 'the nation's most peripatetic civil liberties lawyer' and one of its 'most distinguished defenders of individual rights,' 'the best-known criminal lawyer in the world,' 'the top lawyer of last resort,' and 'America's most public Jewish defender.' He is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. Dershowitz, a graduate of Brooklyn College and Yale Law School, joined the Harvard Law School faculty at age 25 after clerking for Judge David Bazelon and Justice Arthur Goldberg. While he is known for defending clients such as Anatoly Sharansky, Claus von B'low, O.J. Simpson, Michael Milken and Mike Tyson, he continues to represent numerous indigent defendants and takes half of his cases pro bono. Dershowitz is the author of 20 works of fiction and non-fiction, including 6 bestsellers. His writing has been praised by Truman Capote, Saul Bellow, David Mamet, William Styron, Aharon Appelfeld, A.B. Yehoshua and Elie Wiesel. More than a million of his books have been sold worldwide, in numerous languages, and more than a million people have heard him lecture around the world. His most recent nonfiction titles are The Case For Peace: How the Arab-Israeli Conflict Can be Resolved (August 2005, Wiley); Rights From Wrongs: A Secular Theory of the Origins of Rights (November 2004, Basic Books), The Case for Israel (September 2003, Wiley), America Declares Independence, Why Terrorism Works, Shouting Fire, Letters to a Young Lawyer, Supreme Injustice, and The Genesis of Justice. His novels include The Advocate's Devil and Just Revenge. Dershowitz is also the author of The Vanishing American Jew, The Abuse Excuse, Reasonable Doubts, Chutzpah (a #1 bestseller), Reversal of Fortune (which was made into an Academy Award-winning film), Sexual McCarthyism and The Best Defense.
Top reviews
Top reviews from the United States
GPL
5.0 out of 5 stars The Case For שָׁלוֹםReviewed in the United States on July 9, 2016
Verified Purchase
As usual, another well-written book by attorney and professor Alan Dershowitz. I would love to sit in on one of his lectures some day just to experience his wit and logic first hand.
The case Mr. Dershowitz makes for peace is a strong one and valid. Unlike many others in today's world, Mr. Dershowitz knows what he is talking about and does not merely spew words that give the appearance of validity. Peace is something that is easily attained if desired. Unfortunately, most people in our "civilized" world do not want peace. It will never cease to amaze me that with all the Muslim States in the Middle East that one sole Jewish State can be attacked indiscriminately and denied a similar right to peaceably co-exist. שָׁלוֹם
One person found this helpful
HelpfulReport
Karen Hessellund Hansen
5.0 out of 5 stars A must read for everyone who want a balanced view...Reviewed in the United States on December 25, 2013
Verified Purchase
Allan - har done it yet again - a easy to read book with lots of fact instead of emotion and propaganda...
HelpfulReport
Billie Pritchett
3.0 out of 5 stars Alan Dershowitz's Case for Peace is best when in keeping with its subtitleReviewed in the United States on November 17, 2014
Verified Purchase
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.
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.
3 people found this helpful
HelpfulReport
Paul Fishbein
4.0 out of 5 stars hopeful, but....Reviewed in the United States on October 14, 2005
Verified Purchase
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.
17 people found this helpful
HelpfulReport
S Mullin
5.0 out of 5 stars Five StarsReviewed in the United States on February 26, 2015
Verified Purchase
great read
HelpfulReport
Jill Malter
5.0 out of 5 stars An excellent book about the Arab-Israeli conflict and obstacles to peaceReviewed in the United States on August 20, 2005
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.
20 people found this helpful
HelpfulReport
See more reviews
Top reviews from other countries
Barry
5.0 out of 5 stars ExcellentReviewed in the United Kingdom on December 13, 2016
Verified Purchase
Brilliant book. Well worth reading
Report
See more reviews
3 people found this helpful
HelpfulReport
Paul Fishbein
4.0 out of 5 stars hopeful, but....Reviewed in the United States on October 14, 2005
Verified Purchase
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.
17 people found this helpful
HelpfulReport
S Mullin
5.0 out of 5 stars Five StarsReviewed in the United States on February 26, 2015
Verified Purchase
great read
HelpfulReport
Jill Malter
5.0 out of 5 stars An excellent book about the Arab-Israeli conflict and obstacles to peaceReviewed in the United States on August 20, 2005
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.
20 people found this helpful
HelpfulReport
See more reviews
Top reviews from other countries
Barry
5.0 out of 5 stars ExcellentReviewed in the United Kingdom on December 13, 2016
Verified Purchase
Brilliant book. Well worth reading
Report
See more reviews
No comments:
Post a Comment