ALAN DERSHOWITZ is at it again.
Dershowitz, portrait of the pop culture intellectual, is a regular guest of primetime TV, eagerly opining on everything from Monica Lewinsky, the pro-life movement and even Jewish theology (for which he regularly receives a thrashing from real theologians). He is perhaps most famous for his circus-like legal exploits -- the tenured Harvard professor's most (in)famous clients include Patty Hearst, Jim Bakker and Mike Tyson. Dershowitz was even a prominent member of O.J. Simpson's "Dream Team" murder trial defense. There's no question that professor Dershowitz loves the spotlight that iconoclasm draws, which may in part help explain the breathless vehemence he brings to bear on one of the touchiest issues of our time -- that of the Middle Eastern conflict. "The Case for Israel," just released in August of this year, is Dershowitz's latest attempt to use his talk-show media visibility to press Israel's "side" of the ongoing debate. In his sharp-looking, snappy 244-page hardcover book, the author categorically responds to "thirty-two separate slurs, slanders, and misrepresentations" toward Israel, many so extreme or volatile one wonders if they didn't emanate from Hamas itself. In his steadfast reliance on exaggeration, willful omission and simplistic reasoning, professor Dershowitz has once again lowered the bar for pro-Israeli zealotry.
"The Case for Israel" presents and responds to 32 supposed "claims" of the pro-Palestinian movement. Most of them are plainly and overtly offensive, but are nonetheless exhibited as coherent, mainstream criticisms leveled at Israel, and not as the caricatured, loaded statements they are. Dershowitz handpicks sentences from the most vehement critics of Israel -- including Saddam Hussein, an obscure South African imam and authors of anti-Semitic Web sites -- and mixes them in with statements taken out of context by serious academics like professors Edward Said and Noam Chomsky (who, despite being important and prominent intellectuals, are nonetheless more extreme in their criticism of Israel than most). While couching his "defense" of the Jewish state with the suggestion that he is a moderate and occasional critic of Israel himself, Dershowitz nevertheless betrays his own hardliner agenda by refusing to squarely address the more basic, substantive and timely critiques of Israeli public policy -- for example, why the Israeli government hasn't complied with the dozens of U.N. resolutions it currently defies, why it allows illegal settlements and outposts to expand even while it publicly criticizes them and how closure and occupation of the West Bank and Gaza directly contribute to instability and violence.
Nevertheless, Dershowitz showcases a central theme often brought up by devout supporters of Israel that deserves serious mention. He concludes that Israel's status as "the Jew among nations" has drawn to it an unreasonably high level of scrutiny of its policies. Consequently, he argues that the fact that the same criticisms are not as strongly brought against other (often worse) governments in the Middle East and elsewhere is proof that most critics of Israel are merely disguised anti-Semites. This notion -- that to be specifically critical of Israel is a sign of anti-Semitism -- is an overused and tired accusation by fanatically pro-Israel types like the Anti-Defamation League and the American-Israeli Political Action Committee.
In fact, the circumstances of the Israel-Palestinian conflict are unique in the world and deserve the level of scrutiny they receive on their own merits. But additionally, something the pro-Israel lobby -- Dershowitz included -- should recognize is that differently situated countries do actually deserve to be treated differently. We rightly expect higher standards and better conduct on the part of wealthy, liberal democracies like Canada or Japan than we do of poorer, less democratic governments like Bangladesh, Malaysia or Jordan. For example, one can hardly hold Saudi Arabia's population strictly accountable for the conduct of its unelected, corrupt and theocratic regime. While not the Middle East's only "democracy," Israel clearly has the best-functioning government (although one might dispute its true devotion to democracy, as Israel's rejection of the right of return for refugees it displaced rests primarily on the basis that too many Arabs would corrupt the country's primarily Jewish character). Israel has a per-capita income roughly equal to Spain or South Korea's, and despite its recent economic slump, maintains a stable government, economy and institutions both public and private. Much of this is due to the tremendous and unmonitored U.S. subsidy that has bathed Israel's economy and government, and today makes up a full third of the entire American foreign aid budget. Conversely, the Occupied Territories boast a per-capita income akin to that of Ethiopia, few, if any, stable institutions due to Israeli demolition and closures and only basic educational institutions that struggle to even remain open. In this atmosphere, achieving liberal democracy is a much more distant goal than providing basic services for its struggling population.
Demanding that Israel live up to its obligations as a rich, democratic nation by respecting human rights and putting peaceful, practical government before religious fanaticism disguised as Zionism is not unreasonable. While most supporters of Israel are eager to expound on its qualities as a state and society, few are apparently willing to accept the responsibilities that being a wealthy democracy brings. Good faith advocates who are willing to accept imperfection on either side are necessary to make sense of the ongoing conflict and, some day, to find a solution. Using flawed history, platitudes and disingenuous arguments, Dershowitz has proved that he is more interested in waving the Israeli flag than he is in contributing towards a mutual understanding. Hopefully, his readers will take exception.
(Blair Reeves' column appears Mondays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at breeves@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
EDITORIAL: Carla Williams deserves her seat at the table
By Editorial Board | 6 hours agoLooking beyond basketball and football reveals that Virginia Athletics is, in many ways, thriving.
UPADHYAYA: The Great and not-so-Good sides of U.Va.’s 2030 housing plan
By Apal Upadhyaya | 2 days agoInstead of improving the dire state of existing infrastructure, however, the University has shifted attention away from it and chosen to expand.
EDITORIAL: Support low-barrier shelters in Charlottesville
By Editorial Board | 3 days agoInvesting in low-barrier shelters now will pay off in increased stability for the homeless, which will undoubtedly improve the safety of shelters and the community writ large.
