The Case for Israel by Alan Dershowitz Summary and Reviews
|
List Price: Our Price: $6.14 You Save: $6.81 (53%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $1.22 (click here) Category: Book See more book details and other editions |
|---|
Book Reviews of The Case for Israel
Book Review: Apologist
Summary: 1 Stars
I was very disappointed by the book.I wanted an explanation for Israels continuing occupation of Palestinian lands but got only apologistic rhetoric from this obvious pro zionist.Much of his writing I thought quite racist and certainly biased.Book Review: Biased in presenting information, but conclusions are reasonable
Summary: 3 Stars
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 (such as Shlomo Ben-Ami and Benny Morris) do. I am generally pro-Israel, but one cannot ignore the "blame-it-on-all-the-Palestinians-and-the-Arabs" tone of this book. In Mr. 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), Mr. Dershowitz's overly broad and extremely biased assessment of the Arabs and the Palestinians does not help him substantiate 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-a-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 Mr. 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 (ex. "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, Mr. Dershowitz appears to contradict himself as he rightly paints Arafat as an extremely corrupt and avaricious opportunist who was not representative of the Palestinian people (Mr. 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.
Another annoyance (which also does not help Mr. Dershowitz substantiate his case) was 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. Mr. Dershowitz, for reasons I do not know, seems especially hell bent on wanting to discredit Mr. Chomsky and Mr. Said. He paints Mr. Said as a radical professor who supported Palestinian terrorism against the Israelis, and Mr. Dershowitz portrays Mr. 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, Mr. Dershowitz ludicrously questions whether Mr. Chomsky is even qualified to professionally participate in the Israel-Palestine debate (Mr. Dershowitz used the example of Mr. Chomsky teaching a course on the Israel-Palestine conflict at the Kennedy School at Harvard) because of Mr. Chomsky's background as a linguist. Mr. 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, the United Nations because of their critical assessments of Israel.
However, notwithstanding Mr. Dershowitz's migraine inducing bias against the Palestinians and what I see as an unfair characterization of respected scholars such as Mr. Chomsky and Mr. 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 oppose). 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 Mr. 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, Mr. 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 Mr. 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 Palestinians and Israelis alike.
This book is controversial, partially because of 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 Mr. Finkelstein's charges - the latter saying that Mr. 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 a bit puzzled as to why Mr. Dershowitz mentions "Orwellian turnspeak" twice in his book). Joan Peters (whose work, From Time Immemorial, is the book from which Mr. Dershowitz allegedly plagiarized) has not raised a complaint vis-a-vis Mr. Dershowitz improperly citing her work, and even Mr. Chomsky has said that it was much more important to focus on the arguments presented by Mr. Dershowitz than the charges of plagiarism. If the reader wishes to conduct his or her own investigation, see Mr. Finkelstein's Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, Updated Edition and Mr. Dershowitz's response in The Case Against Israel's Enemies: Exposing Jimmy Carter and Others Who Stand in the Way of Peace. The reader who wishes to conduct an even more nuanced investigation can view the Democracy Now! debate between Messrs. Finkelstein and Dershowitz on YouTube (also, take a look at the articles by Frank Menetrez and Alexander Cockburn and Mr. Dershowitz's responses to the former two). I'll leave it to the reader to come to his or her own conclusion.
Book Review: Bland though important to balance bebate
Summary: 4 Stars
This book provides some insightful views and provides a fairly balanced (if you believe in the middle of the road, two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict) view. Dershowitz is up front with his liberalism and social libertarianism and how he disagrees with much of the policies of the Israeli government, but he believes that disagreement of policies has warped into anti-Israeli/anti-Semitic views. He points to a point system for distinguishing the two (disagreements with Israeli policy vs anti-Semitism) but fails to go into depth which would have strengthened his argument.
While it is interesting to see the accusations he refutes, too many of the refutes are aimed at the same people (most notably the many references against Edward Said). Irregardless of whether they were justified or not, a larger panel of accusations would have improved this book.
Additionally some of the chapters are very bland and repetitive and could be merged into one or two chapters.
Despite the weaknesses this is a good read for those uninformed. It does a good job of refuting claims made against Israel by radical uninformed college students and professors (I am currently in attendance at the time writing this).
Pick this up if you want to learn more about Israel, or are tired of the anti-Israeli rhetoric in academia.
Book Review: Book Review Or Political Commentary?
Summary: 5 Stars
Is there no end to the hatred of Israel?
Dershowitz's book is easy to read, follows a logical sequence, and is well-supported by the facts.
There, that's a book review.
Diatribes against Israel are not book reviews. Go find a left-wing blog for your ridiculous blather, and don't let the facts get in your way. Just keep believing what you want to believe. No one is listening (except maybe Michael Moore.)
Book Review: Book's main source is "Bandar" Bush - Saudi Ambassador to the US
Summary: 1 Stars
This book may seem interesting on the surface, but check his sources. A main source is the Saudi Ambassador to the US. That would be akin to "A Defense of the Soveiet Union" and using the cuban ambassador to a country as your main source.
Not much more to add, but this book is very, very weak.