Alan Dershowitz's new book?
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
No. Go back to your corner.
Posted by Her Royal Sweekiness (Member # 5747) on :
Alan Dershowitz is the sweekiest author I know. Posted by Princess Sweeky (Member # 5748) on :
Definitely.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
So, yeah... the new book is The Case for Israel, and it basically takes the claims made about Israel popular with a certain segment of the population, and addresses them point by point.
Its a good counter-text to a lot of the new history coming out right now from Israeli historians, because Dershowitz goes back and uses a lot of the same information, a lot of primary sources.
A good read for ANYONE interested in being more knowledgeable on the middle east.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
What is the 'case for Israel' other than that it is a democracy, a lot of people want to see the country destroyed which compels us to protect it, and they give us good intel?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
His book basically challenges the arguments put forth by people who think israel is a human rights disaster, that israel is an illegal state, etc.
The case for israel doesn't make the case for israel, rather, it destroys the arguments against israel.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
In other words, the book wouldn't hold a thimble of water. There is only one argument for Israel: it's there and it ain't gonna go away.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Wow Storm, aspectre, your dismissive attitudes make you appear like reactive robots more than thinking, intelligent individuals.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
What ever gave you the impression that I was anything other than an unthinking, reactive robot, O person whose response overfloweth with logic and reason? I'll have you know that I come from a long line of unthinking hardware. So there.
ps
__|__
Now, we can continue to lob little bon mots back and forth, or you can write a response to my points. What major reasons does the US have for allying with Israel other than the ones I gave? I freely confess that I am pretty clueless about the whole Israel thing. I admit that my opinions are vague, ill formed suppositions. I don't care any more for the people of Israel than those of any other country (outside of my own) in the world, really. I welcome any kind of informative response to my post.
[ September 29, 2003, 04:29 AM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by KEGE (Member # 424) on :
Alan Dershowitz has also made a case for Claus Von Bulow, O. J., Bill Clinton .... need I go on?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Yes, since 1) O.J. was never convicted
2) it took millions of dollars to get Clinton impeached, and the vast majority of charges leveled at him never even earned an indictment.
3) None of the cases you mention have anything whatsoever to do with Israel.
Posted by Her Royal Sweekiness (Member # 5747) on :
My arabic TA spent a summer working for a Palistinian rights organization, and the info that she gets says that according to world opinion, the US is Israel's toy. We throw lots money at them every chance we get, and they never do what we ask them to do. Not to mention the fact that Palistinians have no rights, and Israel just refuses to stop expanding when they've been asked to.
Anyone familiar with the Balfour Declaration of 1917? That's when the British put this idea into the heads of Zionists to begin with.
Edit: darn you twinky. I just noticed I gave the wrong year, and I was gonna change it without anyone noticing.
[ September 29, 2003, 09:02 AM: Message edited by: Her Royal Sweekiness ]
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
The Balfour declaration was in 1917, and the Zionists had already decided on a Jewish state in Palestine as their ultimate goal in the first World Zionist Congress in 1897.
...the Balfour declaration did give the movement more legitimacy, though.
Edit:
Ev, here's my question about the book: do you like it because you already agreed with the arguments, or because the arguments are well-presented? i.e., is it persuasive, or divisive? My major problem with most books on this subject is that they pander to one side or the other by giving them exactly what they want, rather than presenting a balanced argument.
[ September 29, 2003, 09:05 AM: Message edited by: twinky ]
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
The reason I liked it was because it dealt effectively with a lot of the nonsense thats been spouted as fact recently.
Obviously, I agree with Dershowitz... I agree with him that Israel makes mistakes, that there is a lot to criticize about Israel in the way it handles itself.
But I also agree with him that a LOT of what gets thrown at Israel is anti-semetic... not because people critize israel, a nation of jews... but because people criticize israel, and don't want to hear it when you say "But every other nation thats ever been in comparable circumstances has done worse, and a lot of other nations in less strenuous circumstances right now ARE doing worse, including all of Israel's enemies."
As he says in his intro, its not anti-semetic to say "Jews cheat" but it IS anti-semetic when you say "Jews cheat," someone responds "so do other groups of people" and then you respond "Don't change teh subject."
Anyrate, my point here is that I agree with Dershowitz, and did before hand... but anyone who wants to attack Israel will need to read this book, or something like it. The information he puts forth, from the sources he puts forth, is a distinct challenge to many of the spurious objections put forth against Israel by Palestinian supporters. He does not challenge the idea of a Palestinian state, nor does he challenge the idea of Palestinian self-determination. In fact, he specifically endoreses a two-state solution, and shows how if the Arabs had accepted a two-state solution at any of the numerous points they could have, the Palestinian people would be in much better shape then they are today. What he challenges are assertions that Israel is one of the worst human rights violators in the world, that Israel caused the refugee problem, that Israel has rejected the two-state solution while the palestinians have embraced it, that the Balfour declaration was not binding international law, etc.
Edit: I believe this book could easily be seen as divisive, largely because so many people who are anti-israel buy into a lot of pure fabrications, largely because they don't take the time to find out that what they are hearing IS fabrication. However, his intent, I think, is to get rid of certain biases, and put the debate back where it needs to be... finding a fair and just solution that leaves Israel as a homeland for the jewish people, and finds homes for the people living in the west bank, and gaze strip, in such a way that the arab world and israel can live in peace together. If you read it, and try to understand that (which he puts forth in his intro) then the book can be read as non-divisive. It isn't written in a confrontational manner. But on this subject, disagreement is OFTEN taken as confrontation.
[ September 29, 2003, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: Paul Goldner ]
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)