He still doesn't get it

Rotwatcher

You know, if you really wanted to change attitudes in Britain towards Israel you'd reconsider your unqualified support for Israel's disgusting and illegal attitudes and actions towards the Palestinians. Not that you're likely to do that anytime soon. Hooray for Obama, I say.

Jphn_R

I saw an insightful comment on another website today and it seems to be appropriate for your post as well. I wish I could take credit for it:

It will be interesting to see if hispanics are as susceptible to endless pandering without reward, as are other Democratic target groups.

littleguy on July 9, 2009 at 10:24 AM

david Glass

how right melanie is

Original Tony

Rotwatcher...please explain what is disgusting and illegal about Israel's attitudes? Don't hide behind such generalised comments

Tommy

I read his reply at
http://www.spme.net/cgi-bin/articles.cgi?ID=5724
and you are right Melanie-- He does not get it

toni

You are right, Melanie, and Dershowitz is wrong, just like Jews for Roosevelt were wrong.

Dershowitz refuses to learn from history.

Darwin Akbar

As my teenage son would say "owned."
It is sad that a strong supporter of Israel like Alan Deshowitz is so prejudiced against Republicans and conservatives that the mantra of "Obama and the Democrats Uber Alles" trumps everything.

LaurenceF

So, what you're saying Rotwatcher, is that in order to change British attitudes towards Israel, Melanie should change her own position to be the same as everyone else?

That in order to get people to support Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state in peace and security, she should join the crowds who criticise Israel at every turn and support Hamas and their charter of anti-Semitism and violence?

What a fantastic piece of logic. Hooray for the liberal intelligentsia, I say.

Michael B

Dershowitz protests via a fundamental and self-indulgent incoherence, fronted with a preemptive panoply of triumphalism. Aka b.s. Aka saving the appearances.

Terry

Dershowitz has an enormous personal investment in being a liberal Democrat - he can rationalize all he wants & find arguments (he is, after all, a lawyer) but in the final analysis, he is blinded to reality - he cannot see Obama for what he really is but only as he hopes he is. He will fool himself as only liberals can.

Margaret Muller-Johansson

You get him so good Melanie, well done!

Jeremy

The impression I received from your piece is that Mr Dershowitz thinks it is in the interests of Israeli-supporting Jews to ally themselves to, and work with, whichever party and president currently holds the popular democratic mandate in America. Although I know nothing about Mr Dershowitz's political background, it would seem that he also supports the kind of "liberal principles such as a women's right to choose abortion, the rights of gays and lesbians to equal justice" which might, in any case, naturally incline him towards the Democrats.

He has also said that he is prepared to extend to Obama "the benefit of the doubt" and accepts his word "that he seeks to bring about peace, by means of a two state solution pursuant to which all the Arab states recognize Israel's right to thrive as a Jewish democracy, while agreeing that any Palestinian state must be demilitarized and incapable of waging war or terrorist attacks against Israel.

"I also take him at his word when he says that the United States will not accept a nuclear armed Iran, and I believe that he has a better chance of achieving that goal through diplomacy--including sanctions if necessary--than would a tough talking and non-negotiating Republican administration."

In other words, he does not agree with your own estimation of President Obama as posing a threat to Israel and the free world.

And personally, at this point, I do not know enough for certain to be able to decide between the two of you.

Neverthless, the debate between you both is certainly fascinating and educative.

Adam B.

Rotwatcher, let's get this straight. You think attitudes to Israel would change if people stop defending her, and instead condemn her - you think that will change attitudes towards a more positive outlook.

Doesn't really make a lot of sense, does it?

Sleeping dolls

"I am trying to change the terrible hatred in Britain towards Israel."

Are you? Can I suggest calling everybody who disagrees with you (most of the country, apparently) either thick or a supporter of terrorism is a pretty flawed approach to the task.

Mladen Andrijasevic

While Dershowitz continues to give Obama the benefit of the doubt, most Israelis have stopped doing so. According to the JP poll only 6 percent of Israelis see the US government as pro-Israel while 50 percent consider the policies of Obama's administration more pro-Palestinian than pro-Israeli. Israelis have stopped doing so because on the issue they consider most important, Iran, they feel that the Obama administration has, by artificially creating the settlements/Iran linkage and by insisting on talking with Ahmadinejad with no red lines, put Israel in a much more dangerous position.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1245184872947

logdon

“That is why I gave, and continued to give, President Barack Obama the benefit of the doubt in his dealings with Israel. I take him at his word that he seeks to bring about peace, by means of a two state solution pursuant to which all the Arab states recognize Israel's right to thrive as a Jewish democracy, while agreeing that any Palestinian state must be demilitarized and incapable of waging war or terrorist attacks against Israel.”

And he seriously thinks that merely because the US has a young black president, that this will happen? That being of a black race will trump the Koran? That Bin Laden’s ‘American house boy’ comment has no meaning? That Hamas will freely give up it’s weapons? That the recognition of a State based on Judaism in the ME is feasible in the eyes of all the hate spewing mullah’s who rule the arab street?

"I also take him at his word when he says that the United States will not accept a nuclear armed Iran, and I believe that he has a better chance of achieving that goal through diplomacy--including sanctions if necessary--than would a tough talking and non-negotiating Republican administration."

Which is why Biden gave the nod to Israel to act unilaterally if and when the nuclear tipping point is reached? Is this not another example the classic ‘war by proxy’ practiced and honed by the US in Asia, the ME and South America? A rehash of precisely the same techniques used during the cold war?

I thought Dershowitz was made from a more substantial intellectual mettle, sadly I'm wrong.

The wolf in sheeps clothing fools the shepherd yet again. Only the flock itself, can save the flock now.

elixelx

Well now! Alan supports the Democrat devil he knows against the Phillips "devil" he doesn't!
Soon enough, soon enough, that will be a false choice, for the true choice is not barry or melanie, but barry or Israel!

Suki

What is wrong with Dershowitz? At some points this famous advocate just doesn't even bother arguing. Dershowitz just seems to say 'he's black, he's young, he's seen as cool. Let's be cool with that and say nothing.' First off, there's no logic in that, second, even if you want to play into that sort of thinking it won't last forever. Indeed, we find out today that "Obama plummets to minus 8 Presidential Approval Index (updated)".

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/obama_plummets_to_minus_8_pres.html

With no job and no food on the table for many Americans and the world's despots partying it up till the carpet's drenched in blood, this nonsense about "a young, extremely popular African American President" isn't going to last very long, is it?

Wake up, man, for crying out loud, before we're all blown to shreds.

Blake Dewitt

The fact that Mr. Dershowitz felt the need to write such an article in the first place speaks volumes. His conscience has no peace.

Carlos Perera

Mr. Derzhowitz's public persona is that of an intellectually sophisticated but hard-nosed lawyer, a "just-show-me-the-facts-and-the-law" sort of guy. Yet he exhibits the sort of credulity, where Mr. Obama is concerned, that would have embarrassed even the original Pollyanna at her greenest. Can any grownup having even a passing acquaintance with current events stand behind the statement, "I also take [Barack Obama] at his word when he says that the United States will not accept a nuclear armed Iran, and I believe that he has a better chance of achieving that goal through diplomacy--including sanctions if necessary--than would a tough talking and non-negotiating Republican administration." Has Mr. Dershowitz
even thought of asking Mr. Obama to operationalize what he means by saying that he "will not accept a nuclear armed Iran?" Would Mr. Dershowitz buy a used car from a salesman making a similarly unsupported and unspecific guarantee? If this is the sort of thinking that the best and brightest of America's (leftist) Jewish intelligentsia bring to bear in the defense of Israel, then I would strongly urge anyone trading in Israeli government securities to short them straightaway.

boxermk

Dershowitz is such a petty man. Apparently he blames Melanie for the fact that the British Left is virulently Anti-Israel. Instead of helping Melanie in her heroic fight against this evil, he resorts to intellectual dishonesty and sheer pettiness.

In the Wilderness in America

Melanie,you ate Alan's lunch. It's not a question of Democrat or Republican. It's a question of right or wrong, which transcends political party and indeed transcends the law.

No amount of legal argument will obscure the facts about Obama and Israel. As Dickens so astutely said: "The law is an ass."

Maybe the glove doesn't fit, but Ron Goldman's DNA in O.J.'s car is irrefutable.

CornFedBeauty

I think American Jews vote Democrat because they believe it will inoculate them against ancient libels such as the notion that they place money above all else and they believe they are better than anyone else. If they vote Democrat, the party of the 'common man,' they will be allowed to live their lives without being subject to the kind of prejudice and hate that brought them to America in the first place. They are dead wrong, as it is the hysterical Left, as Melanie points out, that is the bosom of anti-Semitism in America today. The Ron Paulite Right converges with the Left on this.

Miranda Rose Smith

Did it ever occur to Dr. Dershowitz that if Obama sells out too thoroughly to the people some people are afraid he wants to sell out to, women in Europe, and ultimately, in the United States, won't be worried about whether or not they can get an abortion. They'll be worried about avoiding a clitoridectomy. Gays in Europe, and ultimately, in the United States, won't be worried about whether or not they can get married. They'll be worried about avoiding being hanged.

Trumpeldor

This establishment guy will never have the courage to question himself about his REAL Jewish legacy .
He is confronted to the inexorable demise of US Jewry.
In "The vanishing American Jew", he tries to find a middle way between orthodoxy and reform Judaism to instill a sense of Jewish identity .
Alas,by casting aside the existence of G.d,he completely fails to deliver a conrete solution
To bad for us and for his kids !

Adam B.

I think Dershowitz has been a stalwart defender of Israel, and his books on the subject are astute and well researched. His name should not be blackened simply because he has a blindspot about Obama.

Scott

The problem with Barry saying that he wont accept a Nuclear armed Iran is this. Barry doesnt say he wont accept a Nuclear capable Iran (ie. nuclear power)...which is the real problem.

This statement also gives him and his supporters wiggle room to get out of any tight corners because they will just harp on about Iran NOT having the bomb, because their nuclear technology is being used for civilian power generation.

That is a problem that people like this guy refuse to see.

The reality is, Barry's stance is no different to the do nothing stance we have seen from him since he came to office.

Love him or hate him, at least with GW we had a man who we KNEW where he stood on issues.

With Barry this isnt so, and that is dangerous (mainly for America's friends).

Australians for Non-Bigoted Thinking

Points well made Suki (above)...Dershowitz would do well to heed the words of Martin Luther King... "Don't judge a man by the colour of his skin, but by the CONTENT of his CHARACTER."

Graeme Thompson

Alan Dershowitz quote: "Recall as well that among Israel’s most virulent opponents are right-wingers such as Pat Buchanan and Robert Novak."

In 2004 Buchanan endorsed John Kerry, just like other anti-Semites on the Right.

pinkeybrown

Dershowitz is a second rate mind, something that is well known in the legal community. What Dersh does not seem to understand is that anything and everything Obama said during his campaign and since his election is subject to change for the convenience of Obama. He can no more be trusted to keep his word about Israel than he can be trusted by the left to keep his word about Guantanamo. Obama showed you everything there is to known about him when he wouldn't condemn the Iranians over their election until he saw the Europeans (those diplomats who were so superior to Bush) and the majority of Americans stepping right up to condemn the election. Then suddenly he joined right in. The problem with Obama is not what he says, it is that what he says can never be counted on. And he will give away the store to make what he believes is a public relations triumph. A man of no principle and bad instincts.

Brian Moshe

Bravo Melanie!

I hope that next time Alan Dershowitz takes on the might of Melanie's pen he thinks more carefully before making himself look so ridiculous.

He would do well to remember that Humpty Dumpty's catch-phrase was: "Words mean what I say they mean".

Dershowitz seems to be saying exactly that when Melanie uncovers the illiogicity and feebleness of his arguments.

Carl Sesar

Dershowitz's denunciations of anti-Semitism in US academia, and on the left and the right, especially with regard to Israel, have won him well-deserved praise, but they obscure his own deep-seated animus, endemic among the left in Israel as well, towards religious Jews, particularly the "settlers."

A prominent, outspoken jurist, Dershowitz is well aware of, yet hypocritically silent about a long-standing pattern of trumped-up charges in Israeli courts, and police brutality, as in Amona, and in Hebron, against such "Jewish riff-raff" (as they've been called) because he favors the left's radical secular political agenda that sees "settlers" as fanatics, blames them for Arab hostility to Israel, and defames these loyal citizens as "enemies of the state."

Real and true enemies of Israel, well aware of such goings-on, are heartened and emboldened by them. Imagine their glee over Israel's sordid act of national self-mutilation in Gaza, for which Dershowitz was a loud, ardent advocate. Should yet another such mass atrocity of ethnic cleansing, 20 times larger in scale, take place in Judea and Samaria for Israel's enemies, and Obama, to exult over, they'll go delirious, dancing for joy.

And so will Alan Dershowitz.

Madrid

I do hope you are successful, Melanie, in your attempt to convince American supporters of Israel to support exclusively the Republicans. Given the stupidity and incompetence of that party and its supporters during the past 20 years, I can assure you that those of us that are fighting for Palestinian rights will win that much sooner if you are successful. Please keep up the good work!

Oh-- and thanks to you and Jeffrey Goldberg for continuing to alert the general public to the boycott as well (even if you also attacked it in your posts). Free publicity is always appreciated (even if it is negative publicity)!

justice4all

Dershowitz is just one of many self hating American Jews who believe that anti-Semites around the world will eventually forgive the Jews for their very existence. In the process they believe they must sacrifice Israel, and ultimately themselves, on the altar of 'Alice in Wonderland' logic.
Just like Adam and Eve, Jews have experienced an unprecedented period of freedom and peace in the garden of Eden that once was America. As always, history repeats itself with 80% of US Jews supporting an administration that is quickly destroying this great country. They had it all, but it wasn't enough!

Stuart Rose

As always, Melanie, your passion is more than equaled by your logic and command of the facts.
Let me just say here that Dershowitz is poorly informed about your work. For him to direct you to make the case for Israel in Britain, proves he knows nothing of your work.
And reading that he's decided to take Obama at his word, on Iran and Israel/Palestine, one cannot but be struck by the wishful thinking that's the foundation for his plea on behalf of Obama.
Of course, the G-8 summit just ended with no new sanctions enacted against Iran- when the mullahs are reeling and especially vulnerable- and the U.S. just released a batch of Iranian terror masters caught in Iraq.

logdon

Here's goes. Again. But different. An article on Dershowitz, completely in sync with Melanie's observations. And an expose of where Obama's real intentions lie.

In his grand scheme, Israel is the ultimate expendable asset and bargaining chip in a choice of nicey, nicey between Islam and the US and support for a nation whose roots stretch back to the Old Testament.

As Melanie says, Obama’s slight of hand in attempting to portray Israel as the West's reparation to Jews for the obscenity of the Holocaust is almost as obscene as the horror itself.

This is an outright lie, outrageously perpetrated to offer the image of a benefaction of land for which Jews should be eternally grateful. It reinforces the image that one religious entity was gifted a country at the expense of another entity which had been there from time immemorial, quite ignoring the absolute truth of the matter.

It subtly creates a purported colonialistic attitude whereby Europeans, wringing hands in anguish at what they’d done, decided that a Jewish nation was the only recompense, but not on their own terrain, or expense. That they, in conjunction with the Zionists, actually stole the property and territory of the local Muslims who were it’s rightful owners.

Obama is actually reversing history. And he knows it. This narrative is the lingua franca of the Jew hating ME and just like the Protocols is accepted as an undeniable truth.

The double whammy of damning both the West and Jews must be the tick box mannah from heaven for all those Cairo supplicants.

And let’s not forget a President whose former pastor and mentor spouted, ‘God damn America’. And after 9/11, ’the chickens are coming home to roost’.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3741299,00.html

"No doubt Obama would not want to see genocide in Israel. And he may even be pro-Israel and pro-Jewish to an extent. But to him America’s interests take precedence and in his view they no longer necessarily coincide with Israel’s. Taken to its extreme, if obtaining widespread Islamic support for America could only be achieved by the non-violent dissolution of Israel it seems that Obama would support (albeit reluctantly) that disintegration. Jews who supported Obama did not see this coming simply because they were not paying attention."

"President Barack Obama’s job is to do what’s best for America in his view. As prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu’s his job is to fight for Israel’s interests. These jobs and people will inevitably clash.".........

"
But Israel can and must stand up for itself and its interests. Netanyahu must not allow himself to be bullied by a White House which ultimately sees the appeasement of Islamic public opinion as more important than the continued existence of Israel. The Prime Minister and the Israeli public must not falter nor give in to the pressure they are being placed under. If Netanyahu caves he will have failed in his duties. Having done this once is bad enough, doing it twice would be criminal."

rmh

Does anyone think the status quo has actually worked?

Maybe a different approach is required?

Anthony Posner

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-muravchik19nov19,0,5419188.story

By Joshua Muravchik, JOSHUA MURAVCHIK is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
November 19, 2006

(SELECTED QUOTES)

"The reality is that we cannot live safely with a nuclear-armed Iran. One reason is terrorism, of which Iran has long been the world's premier state sponsor, through groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah."

"Another reason is that an Iranian bomb would constitute a dire threat to Israel's 6 million-plus citizens. Sure, Israel could strike back, but Hashemi Rafsanjani, the former president who was Ahmadinejad's "moderate" electoral opponent, once pointed out smugly that "the use of an atomic bomb against Israel would totally destroy Israel, while [the same] against the Islamic world would only cause damage. Such a scenario is not inconceivable." If that is the voice of pragmatism in Iran, would you trust deterrence against the messianic Ahmadinejad?

Even if Iran did not drop a bomb on Israel or hand one to terrorists, its mere possession of such a device would have devastating consequences. Coming on top of North Korea's nuclear test, it would spell finis to the entire nonproliferation system."

"The only way to forestall these frightening developments is by the use of force. Not by invading Iran as we did Iraq, but by an air campaign against Tehran's nuclear facilities. We have considerable information about these facilities; by some estimates they comprise about 1,500 targets. If we hit a large fraction of them in a bombing campaign that might last from a few days to a couple of weeks, we would inflict severe damage. This would not end Iran's weapons program, but it would certainly delay it."

"Finally, wouldn't such a U.S. air attack on Iran inflame global anti-Americanism? Wouldn't Iran retaliate in Iraq or by terrorism? Yes, probably. That is the price we would pay. But the alternative is worse.

After the Bolshevik takeover of Russia in 1917, a single member of Britain's Cabinet, Winston Churchill, appealed for robust military intervention to crush the new regime. His colleagues weighed the costs — the loss of soldiers, international derision, revenge by Lenin — and rejected the idea.

The costs were avoided, and instead the world was subjected to the greatest man-made calamities ever. Communism itself was to claim perhaps 100 million lives, and it also gave rise to fascism and Nazism, leading to World War II. Ahmadinejad wants to be the new Lenin. Force is the only thing that can stop him."

Michael B

Superb commentary and emphases, logdon.

leo solomon

Obama had a history prior to his becoming president which Dershovitz blithely ignores.He takes Obama at his word,he says, as if what he utters now is not in complete variance with what he has said in the past.His choice of advisors(not the ones for show and balance- whom he will ignore)could not be more revealing of what he really believes and what he intends to do.

Polly Gamma

I agree Michael B and all credit to Anthony Posner too.

Biff Larkin

Professor Dershowitz:

You are an accomplished scholar, a patriotic American and a distinguished friend of Israel, but in this particular case, I respectfully suggest to you that you are engaged in wishful thinking.

Respectfully,

Biff Larkin

Derek BLADES

Just what is it the Alan Dershowitz is supposed to be "not getting"? I assume that what he does “not get” is the proposition that President Obama's support for a two state solution with a demilitarised Palestine and an Israel confined to its pre-1967 borders is somehow a “bad thing”. What an extraordinary proposition!

The President's view coincides with that of the majority of US voters, Jewish and non-Jewish alike. His two-state solution is so obviously in the long-term interest of Israel that the mind boggles at the notion of anyone finding it a threat to Jewish interests.

Ms Phillips uses extravagant language in attacking President Obama’s common sense proposals but I do not recollect ever seeing any suggestion from her of an alternative that might actually work and that would receive the support it needs from the Arab world. Alan Dershowitz “gets it” very well indeed. He sees that the alternative to the Obama plan is an endless cycle of violence and eventually a real eruption of anti-Semitism.

Augustus

Now that BLADES has put in his anti-Melanie tuppence worth, here's mine (if the moderator will allow):-

In Jerusalem, the capital of Israel and the holiest Jewish city, there stands the Kotel or Wailing Wall where Jews come to pray. Non-Jews are also welcome there, and perfectly at liberty to visit the Kotel if they so desire. And then there is the Al Aqsa Mosque, right in the middle where the Jewish temple used to stand. From what you read in the international media you'd never know that Israel, being a democratic country, has given control of this vital area to Muslims. So even as Muslims across the globe support, sponsor, and carry out terrorism against the Jewish state, it is the Muslim Waqf, part of the Palestinian Authority, which has jurisdiction over the Temple Mount area. But what happens when non-Muslims dare to go there? Last month when an Israeli minister went there accompanied thoughtout his visit by the Waqf, and who were fully aware of his planned visit, there was total hysteria and threats of violence from Palestinian Muslims. Nine years ago when Ariel Sharon paid a visit it triggered a bloody and protracted intifada. So, a Jewish Israeli has the sheer nerve to visit a holy Jewish area in the Jewish homeland and all hell breaks loose. But Jerusalem was a holy place before Islam even existed. Yet the Palestinian appointed Grand Mufti of Jerusalem insisted that the Jewish minister did not have the right to visit al-Aqsa because it is an Islamic site and not a Jewish one, and it could ignite violence because
'the visit provokes the feelings of Muslims. It is and assault on an Islamic place.'
And there, in that statement, you have it. The sheer hypocrisy
of the demands made by Muslims in non-Muslim nations.

Ah yes, Muslim feelings. The same feelings that are provoked by cartoons and teddy bears and piggy banks, democracy and Geert Wilders, and books about Mohammed, and freedom for women,
and Jews and Christians and Hindus and Buddhists, and gays and atheists, and every single thing on the planet that does not comply with Islam. It is these Muslim feelings that Barack Obama, the great dhimmi in the White House is busy bending over backwards to appease.

Augustus

Derek BLADES, you say that Obama's two-state solution is so obviously in the long-term interest of Israel. Never mind that the nub of the conflict is not about the Palestinians getting 'their land' back. It's quite simply that the Arab world can't stand the fact that the whole of the peninsula isn't Islamic. It's about Jewish annihilation, not a peaceful second state. They wouldn't even know what a peaceful state entails, look at Iran. How would you like your neighbours to keep trying to push you out of your home and into the sea?

Linda Smith

Great post Augustus!

One thing though - when you call Barack Obama "the great dhimmi in the White House",. are you sure he's a dhimmi. I thought he was born and raised a Muslim.

Carlos Perera

Those who insist on a two-state "solution" of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are blithely (or cynically) ignoring geographical and historical reality. Israel, in terms of physical geography, is an incredibly small speck of land, with surface area of 8,019 square miles. New Jersey, one of the smallest states of the U. S., is about 9% larger in expanse! At its narrowest point, Israel is only 9 miles wide (just about the distance I drive to work each day, in Jacksonville, Florida, by itself about one fourth the size of all Israel!), courtesy of the salient driven into U. N.-partitioned Palestine by the (Jordanian) Arab Legion in 1948. Israel just about fits into the "panhandle" of Florida, which would be no more than a geographic afterthought for peninsular Floridians, if Tallahassee, the capital, were not located there. Historically, Israel is presented with a long string of violations of truces and peace agreements by its Arab neighbors, all of whom have, at one time or another, harbored or supported terrorist groups committed to the destruction of the Jewish state and quite willing to commit wanton, deadly violence in order to do it; nor does one have to reach deep into the past to find examples. Witness what happened almost immediately after the evacuation of Gaza by the IDF (with the forcible removal of the Israeli settlers there); that unfortunate Palestinian rump state became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Iran and a launch pad for terror weapons against Israeli civilians. Going back a little farther, we see the duplicitous policies of the Palestinian Authority being put into effect almost as soon as the the Oslo Accords were signed in 1993. Palestinian-controlled territory was turned into a staging area for terrorist attacks, while first Arafat and then Abbas protested indignantly, à la Captain Reynaud in _Casablanca_, that they were "shocked, shocked" that such things were happening . . . but that it was the Jews' fault for not making more concessions anyway. The entire West, of which Israel is--perhaps unfortunately for its not-so-long-term prospects--an integral part, appears to have developed a civilizational death wish. Hence, I would not be too surprised to see an Israeli government acquiesce in the near future to pressure from President Obama (especially with so many American Jews continuing to be under the thrall of his left-wing-cool persona) and accept essentially the terms summarized by Derek Blades, above. But those who, ingenuously or disingenuously, claim that this will resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will soon find that the old dictum that "weakness invites attack" holds true; and, no matter how one parses the situation, a country only 9 miles wide, with hostile armies perched on an indefensible border, is weak, whatever the martial virtues of its inhabitants. Many will be dismayed, but some, at least (and I suspect President Obama is among them) will be pleased. Oh, and as for those security guarantees that are supposed to forestall this eventuality, look to the historical record since 1948 to determine just how effective they are likely to be this time around, especially with Mr. Obama in charge of enforcing them. If peace comes, it will come at the expense of Israel's destruction, with all of its attendant horrors. So much for the "Peace Process."

P. Brand

It is indeed a tragedy to see Alan Dershowitz the most prolific defeder of Israel engage in clasic denial of the truth. The sad fact about Dershowitz is that he loves his version of the truth more then he loves Israel and the Jewish people.

Derek BLADES

A genuine peace requires good faith on both sides - something that neither side has shown hitherto. But listing the sins of the Arabs and Israelis is a pointless exercise. More to the point is this question for Carlos Perera.

If you do not support President Obama's two-state proposal what is your preferred solution? Could I ask you for a clear statement of what you think Israel, Palestinians and Americans should now do in which you refrain from castigating Arabs for what they have or have not done in the past.

Michael B

A vision and a hope for a responsibly conceived two state solution - in the medium to longer term future - is not the same thing as imposing a two state "solution" in current circumstances, wherein absolutely no Sunni or Shi'a Muslim quarter evidences even the least amount of good faith.

In 2000 it was Ehud Barak and Arafat, under Bill Clinton's guidance, and it was Arafat who rejected the offer of a two state solution. Sharon in 2005 forced the withdrawal of all Jews from Gaza, rendering all of Gaza Judenfrei, due to the stipulations and designs of Hamas and Fatah, and the effect has been to reject that overture as well. Indeed, decidedly to the contrary, since Hamas has fired thousands of rockets and mortars and other munitions from Gaza, into Israeli civilian population centers. In 2007 it was Ohlmert and Abu Mazen meeting under Pres. Bush's guidance and the result was still another rejection, by Abu Mazen.

Likewise, the "two state solution" was first offered in 1947/8, by the U.N. Israel accepted the offer, the surrounding Arab potentates did not, in fact they declared and executed war against Israel.

Likewise again, whenever Israel has withdrawn, from the Sinai, from Lebanon, from substantial quarters in the West Bank, from Gaza, that withdrawal has - always and without a lone, solitary exception - been met with further and newly established militant redoubts by Hamas, by Fatah, by Palestinian Islamic Jihad, by Hezbollah, by Syrian, Iranian, Iraqi (under Saddam & Sons) and Saudi, etc. financial, armaments and jihadist/militant training and still other forms of support.

So no, Derek Blades, your formulation is ahistorical, counter-factual and is in fact delusional, in full-bore Carteresque mode.

John A. Davison

Obama is terrified at the prospect of another democracy in the middle east. The Iranis want what the Iraqis now have. It is only natural to want to be free. Obama hates democracy and seeks absolute power for only himself. He hates the nation he now governs. He always has. His only goal is to destroy the entrepeneurial class that made the United States great. I know that sounds harsh. It was meant to be.

Remember that Obama bowed before Saudi Royalty, the Royalty that controls the nation that spawned Osama bin Laden. Obama is basically a Muslim at heart. He is no friend of Israel.

Rob-NY

What distinguishes Dershowitz is that he is a liberal AND a staunch defender of Israel. He spends more time defending Israel than most of his fellow liberal Jews and they ignore or attack him and join him in voting for Obama. He will be attacking Obama like he does Carter in the years to come.

Derek BLADES

Michael B, June 13, tells me "So no, Derek Blades, your formulation is ahistorical, counter-factual and is in fact delusional, in full-bore Carteresque mode."

In fact I have not formulated anything. I have simply expressed my support for the Obama/ Mitchell/ Clinton proposal for a two-state solution.

Michael B responds with the usual list of Arab wrong-doings ignoring, as is customary on this blog-site, the wrongs committed by the Israelis. Also, as is usual he makes no proposal for an alternative to the Obama plan. I can only assume that the poor fellow actually favours the status quo.

Not that it matters very much. As he and others waffle on about Arab wrongdoing, George Mitchell is now, behind the scenes, talking with the people who quite soon will announce a framework agreement for the two-state solution. Thank God for Obama.

Adam B.

Derek, you come to the problem with two misguided principles. Firstly, you suggest that both sides have done wrong, and are consequently as bad as each other (although in previous posts you distinctly voice a pro-Arab and anti-Israel slant). Such equvalency is both intellectually and morally lazy.

Secondly, you assume that there is always an answer, always a way forward. In current circumstances, I don't believe there is. One has to examine what this conflict is really about. In my view, it isn't about Gaza, or Judea and Samaria, or the status of Jerusalem or settlements. This is all scenery, and a distraction to the real fundamental problem, which is that the Arab and wider Islamic worlds do not accept a Jewish state in their midst. If this conflict was about exact borders, why was there a conflict before 1967? I ask you this question directly. What drove the repeated Arab attempts to drive the Jews into the sea? What exactly has changed since 1967? Has the Arab world become more tolerant? You see, if Israel withdrew to its 1967 cease fire line (not a border), removed every settler, and gave up their holiest sites in Jerusalem to a so-called "Palestinian" state, I don't for a second believe there would be peace - because all these conditions existed not so long ago, and there wasn't peace then. The rhetoric coming from the Palestinian leadership and the wider Arab world is just as hateful and inflammatory as it was pre-1967. So Derek, again I ask, what has changed since?

Obama has placed the entire emphasis for "progress" on Israel. What exactly are the demands made of the Palestinians, and have they met them? Why is it up to the victim of genocidal aggression to make peace, and not the instigator?

Peace will come to the region when, and only when, the Arab and Islamic worlds accept a Jewish state in the Middle East - when they accept pluralism and difference. We are very far from that happening. And no bits of paper signed by politicians like Obama will solve it. In fact, such agreements simply disguise the problem and prolong the conflict. Remember, every time Israel has made concessions, it has been met with more violence and terrorism. Why should they do it again?

Bob

"In 2000 it was Ehud Barak and Arafat, under Bill Clinton's guidance, and it was Arafat who rejected the offer of a two state solution."

A little disingenuous. He did not reject the two-state solution as such. The proposal put forward by Clinton and Barak included the division of the West Bank, a proposal that no Palestinian would have accepted. Therefore it could hardly be described as a 'rejection' of the two state solution.

Furthermore, in terms of rejecting the two state solution, repeated UN resolutions were put forward in the Security Council and the General Assembly on this matter, some proposed by states in the Middle East (Syria in 1976 for example). Sadly, these resolutions were rejected by the US and Israel, despite overwhelming support by other members. There is a list of all resolutions rejected by the US and Israel (amongst others) here:

http://www.krysstal.com/democracy_whyusa03.html

So, America rejectes the rights of the Palestinians, Israel rejects the rights of the Palestinians and yet the Palestinians are blamed for the failure of a two-state system. Who'd be a Palestinian?

Derek BLADES

Adam B, July 14, writes «Derek, you come to the problem with two misguided principles. Firstly, you suggest that both sides have done wrong, and are consequently as bad as each other Such equvalency is both intellectually and morally lazy."

I am sure I said nothing that suggested a "moral equivalency". That is pure imagination on Adam B's part. However, since he has raised an issue that appears to be troubling the poor fellow, let me answer it.

My own “morality” assigns equal worth to every human being whether they are white, black, yellowish or just well tanned, whether they are men, women or children, and whether they happen to have been born to parents who tell them they are Moslem, Hindu, Christian, Buddhist, Jewish or belong to any other of the lunatic religions that infest this poor planet. As regards "equivalency" I put my trust in statistics.

Combining my view of “morality” with my concept of “equivalency”, I reach the conclusion that there is indeed no “moral equivalency” between the Israeli's who, since the foundation of their country, have killed many thousands of Arabs living in neighbouring countries while suffering casualties themselves in the low hundreds. Note, Adam B., that I reach this conclusion because I assign an equal weight to both an Arab and an Israeli death.

Adam B.

That's very interesting Derek Blades - and revealing. It is simple statistics which leads you to your view of the rights and wrongs of the Middle east. So because more Arabs have been killed than Jews, your sympathies lie with the Arab side.

Let me ask you this then; as many more Germans died in WWII than British (inclding ten times as many civilians), do your sympathies lie with Nazi Germany - in light of the fact that every life is as important as the other? If not, why not?

The problem with your reasoning is that it ignores context. It ignores intent and it ignores the reasons which lead to war. Context is everything Derek - and, for me, it determines morality. The fact that an aggressor can suffer greater casualties does not suddenly turn him into the victim.

Is there any chance you would address the question I put to you in my previous post - namely, what has changed since pre-1967?

Derek BLADES

Adam B writes "So because more Arabs have been killed than Jews, your sympathies lie with the Arab side."

That is not my position at all. The grotesque discrepancy between the Arab and Israeli casualty figures is relevant to the “equivalency” issue that I was addressing but is not the reason I have sympathies with the Palestinians. My sympathy for the Palestinians stems from the fact that they had their farms and homes seized to make way for Israel. They and their children now live as refugees in Palestine and Lebanon where they are periodically attacked by deadly weaponry from the land, sea and air. It is a classic case of the victims being presented as the aggressors.

You go on to write "Is there any chance you would address the question I put to you in my previous post - namely, what has changed since pre-1967 [that now makes peace more likely]?" Happy to oblige old Chap!

What has changed are first a massive shift in opinion about Israel following that country's deranged wars on Lebanaon and Gaza and publication of the Mearsheimer and Walt book exposing the workings of the Isrtaeli lobby in the United States. The West has woken up to the true nature of the state it helped to create after WWII.

The other significant change is the election of an intelligent President in the United States. President Obama understands that the ongoing hostility between Israelis and Palestinians is a major threat to world peace. He accepts that both sides have grievances that need to be addressed in a genuine peace process and he sees that the Oslo accords and the Arab peace plan provide a framework for a viable peace.

Carlos Perera

In response to Derek Blades:

First, one cannot ignore the long and bloody history of Moslem aggression against the Jews of what is now Israel, starting well before the founding of the State of Israel and continuing unabated to the present. The television service of the Palestinian Authority (you know, the "moderates") persists in broadcasting, quite shamelessly (but in Arabic), anti-Israeli and anti-Semitic hate propaganda that would have made Herr Göbbels squirm; check out some of the translated videos archived by memri.org. Quite simply, as long as this is the mentality of the Palestinian leadership and a goodly part of their people, no amount of tweaking of this or that peace plan will do any good whatsoever. If, instead of by Palestinian Moslems, Israel were surrounded by Danes, or Swiss, or Costa Ricans, any peace plan, or no peace plan at all, would be equally satisfactory, and whether Israel were 9 or 900 miles wide at its narrowest point would be immaterial.

Concerning the two-state solution(s), none such will be possible as long as the Palestinians--and their many patrons in the Moslem world--remain determined to make what is now Israel _Judenrein_.

So, what do I think is possible? I think the best possible solution, for the Israelis, is an armed truce, in which they concede as much autonomy as is compatible with their military security to the Palestinians, but without compromising tangible security in exchange for an illusory, nebulous, and unenforceable promise of peace. And, when Israel must use military force to defend itself, it should, as much as possible, resist external pressures to accept early and ineffective cease-fires--as was the case in Lebanon against Hezbollah in 2006 or just six months ago against Hamas. Israel must convince its enemies that they have been and will stay defeated, just as the Allies convinced the Germans and the Japanese at the end of World War II. Until the Palestinians--and their sponsors--are so convinced, Israel will not have lasting or secure peace.

Note that I said I thought the above scenario was possible, not likely. Anti-Semitism, newly re-emergent as a phenomenon of the left, combined with the civilizational death wish that seems to have possessed the opinion-molding elites of the West, have left Israel in a precarious position. This was, until recently, mitigated by the faithful support of the U. S., but with President Obama in power and the Democrats controlling both houses of Congress by wide margins, I think that Israel's prospects for survival as a Jewish state are increasingly remote. As I have advised before, if you deal in Israeli securities, sell short.

Adam B.

Derek Blades, I cannot agree with your ahistoric reading of the situation. The Arabs rejected the two state solution back in 1948 (the solution you now espouse, which was accepted by the Jews), and it was precisely this rejection, along with a military attempt by all of Israel's neighbours to kill the Jewish state at birth, (and their subsequent unexpected defeat) which has led to the current reality.

However, be that as it may, my question about changes since 1967 remain unanswered.Is there a shred of evidence about a change in the mentality of the Arab states or the Palestinian terror groups towards Israel, the same mentality which led to war BEFORE there was any so-called "occupation" (which you have blamed for Palestinian violence in previous posts)? If war existed in the conditions pre-1967, why would there be peace now if we returned to the same situation of 1967?

Instead, you simply lay more blame at Israel, as if it is the very existence of Israel, and not the Arab rejection of Israel, which is the cause of conflict. Demonstrably untrue.

Jaslsmh

I'm astounded! Dershowitz should know that Obama is really anti-Israel, as his entire past associations prove it as they have all been virulently against Israel in every way. Dershowitz just won't admit the truth about Obama because he is a liberal at any cost.

Rose

Dershowitz and other clever academics may realise soon why some that are religious believe that the Almighty has at this time sent to the Tribe of Judah, and others one of his greatest spirits in Melanie Phillips.

Kay

Obviously, Mr. Dershowitz is unaware that for 3 years during the Bush administration, Britain, France and Germany carried on diplomatic negotiations with Iran. According to John Bolton, these consisted of more "carrots" than "sticks" and the only accomplishment was providing Iran with more time to improve its nuclear capacity. Sadly,liberal social issues far-outweigh the security of Israel and the US with Mr. Dershowitz and the vast majority of Jews in the US. The very thinking that has destroyed families, our cities and our once-excellent education system.