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

Many comments seem to be focus on the fact that the work is not bi-partisan. This seems misguided. Of course the work is not bi-partisan. It is not intended to be. It is piece of advocacy. The title states as much. "The Case for". The author is a lawyer. His job is to make the case for his clients. You might as well blame a duck for not being a swan.
The work must be judged on its own merits and claims. The introduction/preface is there for a reason.

It is a bit all over the place, and several sections seem to be left over from an edit of an early draft of "The Case for Israel". The author virtually admits as much in the introduction. Also indicating alternative titles he considered. As the author declares all this up front, the work being somewhat incoherent must then be allowed.

The most obvious shortcoming in the work is the little space devoted to the actual actions of creating peace. Notable since the title indicates that something of the sort might follow. However, what there is of it, is fine as far as it goes. A reasonable amount of detail and prescription as laypeople would understand it.
Much more space is devoted to the required "attitude adjustment" of various parties, mostly those pro-Palestinian.
Fair enough; the author has a client to represent, and would obviously like to see the client get as much as possible. He repeatedly states that Palestinians mush be punished for terrorism and should lose land as a consequence. This is very contemporary thinking. Were terrorism is somehow a new and unacceptable category of fighting.
More "classical" thinking would simply be that Israel won the various wars and has more bargaining chips to play with in order to keep as much land as it can manage to hold on to. As has been the case at every peace negotiation that has ever taken place. Dershowitz should have stuck with the later argument. It at least has the virtue of ample precedent. Terrorism is too ambiguous a term to build a solid case on.

Much space is also devoted to the various offers made to Palestinians over the years, and that they have all been rejected by them. Wisely the author stays away from any larger questions or discussions on the context of those offers. Framed the right way, rejection can be construed as aggression and Dershowitz is at least partially successful in this.

Mr. Dershowitz touches briefly one point which has been brought forward by others as a major factor in breaking the deal in 2000. The issue of "hot pursuit". Israel's insistence on being able to pursue wanted people inside the new state of Palestine. Ostensibly the "ticking-bombs", though in reality not limited in any particular way.

After the Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated in Sarajevo in June 1914 Austria made 10 demands of Serbia, on whose behalf the murders had been carried out. All but one were accepted. This single rejection gave Austria the excuse they wanted and the rest is history.
The one demand that Serbia would not accept then was much same as the one made by Israel in 2000. Extra-territorial policing powers.
(On page 116 Dershowitz describes it with this gem of a phrase: "pro-active self-defence".)
This was unacceptable in 1914, and no less so in 2000.
Mr. Dershowitz no doubt is aware of the history and knows the significance. He dances around this contentious issue in chapters 9 and 12 with committing himself. No doubt a tribute to his erudition. But is it helpful in his advocacy?

Many pages are devoted to the issue of dismantling terrorist organizations. The example of the pre-1948 zionist terrorist organizations begin broken up with force by the Israeli Army (Though politically they live on in the Likud Party), is repeatedly sited with approval by the author.
Dershowitz mentions that Ben Gurion crushed the zionist terrorist organizations AFTER Israel was established, and had an army to do the job. But then cites this to argue that the de facto Palestinian government should do similarly BEFORE it has either a country or an army. In fact, being most insistent that it should have neither until after such time.
Since so much space is devoted to this issue it must in Mr. Dershowitz view be important. The fact that his evidence tends to contradict his conclusion rather than support it, is therefore a major problem in the work. A problem magnified by the author's own emphasis.

Another tactical mistake is answering the equivalent of "have you stopped beating your wife?" (page 190) with what amounts to "it depends on her".

Dershowitz handles the issue of ethnic dominance much better. He employs the argument that Jews much be numerically superior in Israel on many occasions in the work. To effectively argue against various pro-Palestinian proposals, without opening himself up to the counter thrust of why this numeric superiority is desirable, what ethnic supremacy means in practical terms, or even its place in the modern world. Very well handled.

Taring the opposition rather than their arguments is par for the course in political books and Dershowitz can not be reasonably singled out for indulging in this low-brow practice. Saying someone is "bad" is usually much easier than addressing their arguments head on.
Dershowitz is certainly guilty of some inflated rhetoric, though much less than is currently the norm for this type of political advocacy. First describing a position as "ludicrous, wrongheaded", then, a page later, as "Immoral, sinful, bigoted"; Without any further arguments to backup to these additional charges. Not particularly helpful, but not significantly damaging either. Dershowitz books usually benefit from quite sober writing.

The second half of the book is devoted to hatreds of Israel and Jews. And whether this hatred is a real obstacle to peace.
The amount of anti-Israeli and anti-semitic propaganda disseminated in the Arab world is of course well known, but it bears repeating and the author does it well. There is so much material available on this issue, that no more than a cursory description is possible for the author, but still very illuminating.

For large groups of people to think that blowing up a night club in Tel Aviv is A Good Thing, a lot of preparation is required. Evil acts must be preceded by evil lies.
Sociopaths are quite rare. The rest of us need propaganda before we engage in or approve of, such acts.
There is nothing new here. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was put together over a hundred years ago, by the Russian government, for a reason. Even autocrats need the compliance of their people. Several Arab governments find it fits their requirements very well to this day.
Egypt a 41-part TV mini-series based on The Protocols, Israel has its Masada-complex. It is all about getting people fired about some issue of the leaders' choosing. Or at least divert their attention.

The one-sidedness is not a weakness in the work, quite the reverse. After all, it is the case for his client, Israel, he is making. Not for anybody else. It is when he strays into bipartisanship that the work is diminished. The sock-puppetry is sometimes a bit too obvious and opens up to unhelpful comparisons. Overall he would have done better with fewer historical references.

Dershowitz makes a lot out of the hypocrisy of those who are critical of Israel's actions but not of the many other countries perpetrating the same things.
Pleading selective prosecution is very effective defensive tactic in a court of law. In international relations it makes no difference whatever.
This is part of a wider criticism sited by others: the work is excessively legalistic. This is somewhat disingenuous. The author is a legal advocate of international stature. His works can't reasonably be expected to be otherwise.

There is one significant problem with using hypocrisy charge against the critics of Israel, valid and justified though it is.
Dershowitz is comparing his client to those other odious examples he himself is citing. Does he really wish to have Israel judged by the standards of Iran; Is Israel really no better than Sudan or China. Or is he comparing apples and oranges ?
If you argue that you are exceptional you can't then claim to be unfairly singled out.
Exceptionalism is the founding idea of the place. No, far less history would have served the advocacy in this book better. Pointing out the splinter in the eyes of others is helpful, but mind where you have you own beams.

The case at hand is no doubt a very difficult one; possibly even intractable. But Mr. Dershowitz could have done better for his client. His "The Case for Israel" did a better job of advocacy. That said "The Case for Peace" is a useful companion piece, an appendix really, to that book; and well worth a read for those who have read the former.

I take away 2 stars. One for the before/after argument miss-match; And one for the implicit apples-and-oranges-except-not comparisons.

The Case for Peace is an extremely worthwhile contribution to the debate surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Beginning with an examination of thirteen apparent geopolitical barriers to peace - these include Israeli counterterrorist operations, the security fence, the division of Jerusalem and the Iranian nuclear threat - Dershowitz suggests how these bulwarks can be overcome. In this respect, the sub-division of the book makes it particularly accessible, and it is enhanced further by the author's writing style and clarity, which are both exceptional.

Moreover, in analysing the above issues, Dershowitz does not flinch away from criticising Israeli policies when he believes such censure is appropriate. Indeed, there is even a specific section in the book in which he criticises right-wing Israeli settlers, politicians and religious leaders. (Dershowitz himself is hardly a neo-conservative; he opposed the re-election of President Bush and the war in Iraq.)

Therefore, only those with uncompromising, pre-conceived and parochial ideas are likely to be disappointed with this book (see the original reviewer, for example, who clearly hasn't bothered to read it). Ultimately, if you want a well-written and balanced perspective on the Middle East, this book is an excellent starting point.

In this sequel to Dershowitz' phenomenal The Case for Israel the author outlines his vision of how peace can be achieved between Israel and the Palestinians, as well as how the enemies of Israel around the world, Islamic Fundametalists and far-left academics, NGOs, politicians, media and religious leaders etc are standing in the way of peace as they care more about causing the destruction of Israel than about the welfare of the Palestinians.
He explains how these ivory tower commentators- who live far from the klling fields- and who will accept nothing other than the total destruction of Israel, have blood on their hands as they encourage Palestinian radicals to continue terror, knowing they have the continued support in international academia, media, the international community and other constituencies that matter to them.
As Dershowitz points out "Even if the Palestinians and the Arabs recognize Israel's right to exist as an independent Jewish State, with secure and defensable boundaries and free from terrorism, there will be no real and enduring peace until Israel's other enemies- academic, religious, political, and diplomatic- come to terms with the reality that Israel is here to stay and that it's existance is a force for good in the world".
So long as the anti-Israel bigots in the world see the acceptance of a Two State solution as as a temporary strategy towards Israel's eventual dismemberment and replacement with a Muslim Arab State and so long as Israel is regarded as less "legitimate", "normal" or "acceptable" than Australia, South Africa, Joran, the United States or Pakistan, there will be some who refuse to recognize Israel and who remain commited to the destructive and bigoted goal of Israel's destruction.
There can be no real peace under these circumstances.
Dershowitz demolishes the arguments of such anti-Israel racism hate-mongers as Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein. Alexander Cockburn and Tony Judt.
He refers to Judt's malicious assertion that as a nation-state Israel is an anachronism and an embarrasment towards "progressive"' diapora Jews.
People like Judt canot expect a whole country to dissapear and it's people subjugated, exiled or massacred just to spare them embarassment in the social circles in which they move.
And why should Israel be the first nation-state to be dismantled to suit the multi-cultural utopian fantatsies of leftwing idologues like Judt. Why shouldn't Judt's 'binational' experiment be tried elswhere like India and Pakistan, Irana nd Iraq and Germany and France.
Indeed one could ask if these leftwing ideologue fanatics also wish to force the 15 former member states of the Soviet Union back together, or Yugoslavia, and why they did not oppose the indepedence of East Timor.
He points out that the dissapearance of Israel and the subjugation of her Jews to Arab rule would lead to slaughter.
He quotes as making this powerful point:
'If the day were ever to come when the Jews of Israel lost the power to defend themselves and had to submit to the rule of their neighbours, the outcome would not be "pluralism" but slaughter...One must hate Israel very much indeeed to prefer such an outcome to the reality of the liberal democracy that exists in Israel today.
Dershowitz deals with many issues in this work. He points out that the offical policy of Hamas , like Al Qaida is the mass murder of civillians.
The decision to employ that policy was made by it's so-called "political" leaders.
I would add the question as to whether anyone have objected to the targeted liquidation of the leaders of the Nazi Party during World War II? Like the Nazis Hamas aim to anihilate an entire population from the region.
He refers to UN (and international left) hypocrisy in condemmning the security fence built by Israel to protect her population from genocidal murder by Hamas and other Palestinain terror networks.
He deals with the Iranian nuclear threat of a second holocaust of Israel's population and it's encouragement in this by the international extreme left.
Most importanty he tackles the hate speech that proliferates internationally on university campuses, the media, NGO's politicians certain governments etc against Israel and her people.
most loathsome is the hideous comparison of the descendants of holocaust survivors to the Nazis, and the attempt to strip Israel's people of the right to the legacy of the victims of the holocaust.
Such as racist leftwing radical academic Professor Nicholas De Genova who declared that "The heritage of the victims of the Holocaust belongs to the Palestinian people...Israel has no claim to the heritage of the holocaust".
Who are the descendants of the holocaust survivors in the Middle East, the Arabs or millions of Israelis?
In referring to the evil slur comparing Israel and her people to the Nazis employed by so many hate-filled leftwing fanatics, Dershowitz points out:
"Notice that Israel is never compared to Stalin's Soviet Union, to Mussolini's Italy, to Franco's Spain, to Castro's Cuba, to Pincohet's Chile, or even to Hirohito's Japan. It is always and only compared to Hiter's Nazi Germany. I have often wondered what could motivate any person of presumed decency to compare Israel's treatment of Palestinians to what the Nazis did to the Jews during the Holocaust. Israel's goal is to protect it's civillians from Palestinian terrorism, whereas the Nazi goal was to genocidally destroy every Jewish baby, child, woman and man so as to eliminate the Jewish race. The analogy is obscene and yet it is repeated daily on college campuses, by mainstream European political activists, and even by writers and intellectuals. It's target audience is the current generation of college students too young to remember the Holocaust and too caught up in the passions of the day to bother to research the history. When alie is repeated often enough, it risks becoming conventional wisdom. Comparing Israel to Nazi Germany is anti-Semitism, pure and simple. There is no other explanation, especially in the light of the reality that there is no actual similarity between Hitler's systematic genocide of the Jews and Israel's efforts to defend itself from genocidal threats against it's Jewish population".
Dershowitz progresses to exposing the intellectual frauds and hatemongers that are the likes of Chomsky, Finkelstein and Cockburn, who have among other things, collaborated with Neo-Nazis and holocaust denialists.
He also illustrates the campaign of intimidation and duble standards on university campuses across the world, guaranteeing that only anti-Israel extremist views are given a hearing.
also he tackles the powerful organization, unions, church groups, academics etc who advocate a boycott of Israel and only Israel, while not advocating any boycott or censure of States that do enage in genocide or severe repression and persecution like China, North Korea, Zimbabwe, Iran or Sudan.

As regards Dershwitz' advocacy of a twostate solution, I believe that what is more viable, sustainable and consistant with the historical realities is to federate the majority of the West Bank with Jordan, and to absorb the larger Jewish settlemts blocs into Israel, as Jordan has a Palestinian majority and was created in 1922 out of 78% of Palestine.
This would also guarantee that the Palestinians could not continue with irredentist claims on Israel, under the pretext that their state is too small.
Dershowitz mentions Israeli concerns about an independent 'Palestinian State' being used as a launch pad for terror against Israel but does not legitimately adress these concerns.

I also disagree with his proposals to divide Jerusalem, as the city legitimately belongs to the Jewish people , who have had a plurality in the city since 1840.
Jerusalem, was founded by King David as his capital 3000 years ago, and which Jews have lived in ever since. Jerusalem, which is mentioned 600 times in the Torah and not once in the Koran. Jerusalem, in which Jews have been the single largest group of residents since 1840. Jerusalem, contains the Western Wall of the Temple Mount, the holiest Jewish site in the world. In 1948, Arab forces swept into East Jerusalem and massacred her Jewish inhabitants, driving out the survivors and desecrating the Jewish holy sites. In 1967, in a defensive war for her survival, Israel finally liberated the entire city from the control of her Arab occupiers.
I also put forward that groups like Hamas, Hezbullah and Islamic Jihad need to be completely destroyed before there can by any settlement of any kind.

Not withstanding that this work is a a highly educational imformative and rational peace, and should be read by anyone wanting to understand more about the conflict over Israel's survival.