by David Krusch
Defense attorney and Harvard
Law Professor Alan Dershowitz is back on
the case, this time putting both Israel's
detractors and the enemies of peace in the
dock of world opinion. Building off the highly
successful volume, The
Case for Israel,
where Dershowitz refuted dozens of claims
against Israel, The Case
for Peace outlines the steps both Israel
and the Palestinians must take to reach
a final status peace agreement. While writing The Case for Israel, Dershowitz wished he could have written a
book about peace instead, but did not believe
peace was possible while Yasser
Arafat was
alive and directing a campaign of terrorism against Israelis. Now that Arafat is out
of the picture, and Israel has disengaged from the Gaza
Strip and the northern West
Bank, he believes that genuine peace can
be achieved.
Dershowitz gives his own
version of the Bush Administration's roadmap
plan, which he says should be “obvious
to all reasonable people.” The solution
will look something like this:
1. Two states based on Israeli withdrawal
from the Gaza Strip and West Bank, and based on Security
Council Resolution 242 and facts on the ground (ie, settlement blocs which Israel intends to keep).
2. Some symbolic recognition
of the rights of Palestinian
refugees, including
a compensation package and some family reunification,
but no absolute “right of return” for
descendants who claim refugee status.
3. Jerusalem must be divided, with
the Arab part becoming the capital of Palestine, and
the Jewish part recognized as Israel's capital.
4. A renunciation of terrorism, along
with the Palestinian Authority disarming terrorist groups,
just as Israel has taken steps to disarm and punish
Jewish terrorists who commit violent acts against Palestinians.
5. An end to the demonization of Israel
by international organizations, academics, and other
leading public figures, which will end a culture of
hatred against the Jewish state and create an opportunity
for peace and acceptance by the international community.
The purpose of The
Case for Peace is twofold: to outline a plan for reaching
a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict,
and to call outl extremists on both sides
as the real enemies of peace. Dershowitz
surely realizes he has stepped into a highly-charged
political minefield, and acknowledges that
“extremists on both sides will reject
my ideas, but moderates on both sides will,
I hope, welcome them.” Whether
or not Dershowitz's ideas will be accepted
by moderates, he certainly has some creative
(though not always practical) solutions
to the issues surrounding the conflict.
The book itself is separated
into two parts. The first and largest section
is titled “Overcoming the Geopolitical
Barriers to Peace,” while the
second part is named “Overcoming the
Hatred Barriers to Peace.” Part I suggests
many solutions to geopolitical and security
related questions surrounding the conflict.
For example, it is in this section where
Dershowitz addresses the issue of dividing
Jerusalem into two capitals, one for Israelis
and one for Palestinians (to be known as
Al-Quds). In the Dershowitz plan, the Palestinians
would have complete religious autonomy over
the Temple
Mount with an area set aside
for Jews to pray at the Western
Wall. However,
it is also here that Dershowitz exhibits
shaky logic. According to David Bedein, the
bureau chief of the Israel Resource News
Agency, it is almost impossible to divide
Jerusalem along Dershowitz's proposal. In
his review of The Case for Peace,
Bedein states:
When you drive from
the Israeli neighborhood of Gilo to Katamon,
you travel through the Arab neighorhood
of Beit Tzfafa. And when you travel from
the Israeli neighborhoods of Neve Yaakov
to French Hill, you traverse the Shuafat
and Beit Hanina. And when you travel from
Mount Scopus to the center of town, you
traverse Wadi Jose. Imagine what it would
be like to have to negotiate a PLO army
base in the middle of Jerusalem. In other
words, his suggestion would mean that PLO
armed forces would be placed at the edge
of every Jewish neighborhood in Jerusalem...sovereignty
means guns in the hands of the PLO in Jerusalem,
and that if his suggestion were implemented,
it would be life-threatening to Jews throughout
Jerusalem.
Dershowitz also discusses
the Palestinian refugee problem, and his
controversial suggestions could make supporters
of Israel uncomfortable with the possible
outcomes. Although he is against the absolute
“right of return” for Palestinian
refugees and their descendants, which number
around 3-4 million people, he believes that
there should be a “resonable” number
of refugees allowed to return to what they
claim used to be their homes inside Israel.
However, Dershowitz does not give the number
he considers “reasonable.” He also fails to mention that by even allowing
a small percentage of Arab refugees to settle
in Israel, this translates into hundreds
of thousands of people hostile to its existence
living between its borders.
The second part of the book
discusses the extremists on both sides who
are obstacles to peace. The anti-Israel
academics throughout Europe and the United
States who demonize Israel and the Jews contribute
to the world-wide promulgation of anti-Semitism.
In other words, they are “more Palestinian
than the Palestinians.” According to
Dershowitz, “It is fortunate that
Israel must make peace with the Palestinians
and not with the professors.” For example,
Professor Edward Said of Columbia University,
the academic credited with revolutionizing
the anti-Israel movement on college campuses,
“was not only a believer in violence
and bloodshed, he was himself a practitioner
of violence.” Said threw rocks at Israeli
soldiers on the Lebanese border, and refused
to condemn Palestinian terrorist attacks
that killed dozens of Israeli civilians.
Also appearing in this section
is a chapter about those who are “more
Israeli than Israelis,” or who are
against any type of settlement with the Arabs.
Although Dershowitz acknowledges that the
number of these people is far less than their
anti-Israel counterparts, he is equally as
adamant in labeling them as anti-peace extremists.
He states, “How dare
a rabbi from Brooklyn of New Jersey...choose
land over life — and then blame that
immoral choice on Jewish law...these rabbis
should be relegated to the dustbin of history.”
Although Dershowitz's controversial
ideas have sparked intense criticism from
both sides, The Case for Peace does contain
some gems that help put a different perspective
on the conflict. In one of the harshest
condemnations of anti-Israel academics I
have heard, Dershowitz says that those that
teach a message that “encourages continuing
terrorism, these ivory-tower spectators
— who live, write, and lecture far
from the killing fields
— have blood on their
hands. They bear some responsibility for
the continuing terrorism that their support
encourages.”
Another excellent passage
is from the chapter titled “Is a Noncontiguous
Palestinian State a Barrier to Peace?” This
chapter effectively refutes the false claim
that Israel is giving the Palestinians a
series of “Bantustans” for a
state, similar to the mini-homelands given
to black Africans in apartheid-era South
Africa. Dershowitz goes further by saying
that in today's world of high-speed internet
and cheap air and rail travel, states do
not require continguity to be viable and
sustainable. He casually reminds the reader
that many nations, including the United States,
have areas that are noncontiguous (i.e.,
Alaska and Hawaii). This claim is nothing
more than an attempt to pressure Israel into
giving up more territory while it is already
making painful concessions for peace.
The Case for Peace does
put some creative solutions to the Arab-Israeli
conflict on the table. By identifying and
discussing the obstacles to peace, it is
possible to find ways to overcome them and
reach an agreement. Pro-Israel critics of
the book have said that if some of Dershowitz's
proposals were implemented, such as his
plans to divide Jerusalem or allow Palestinian
refugees to settle inside Israel, it would
put the lives of millions of Israelis on
the line, and rightly so. Many of Dershowitz's
ideas are controversial, or even radical,
but as he says in the book's conclusion,
“Peace is both a radical and traditional
solution.”
|