BLOGS

Blogs

Long Live People's Albania! Long live The Boston Globe!

November 17, 2005

In News

Editor’s note: Misha Langec, cultural commissar for The Great Leader, Enver Hoxha of the People’s Republic of Albania, was recently sighted in Boston, MA. Indeed, a content and style analysis reveals that he is currently writing book reviews for the Boston Globe. Reports from the newsroom indicate that a major turf battle has erupted between Langec, a.k.a. Michael Langan, and official Globe hagiographer Jonathan Dorfman. Dorfman alleges that Langan broke into his computer and stole his hackplate. He points to the phrase in his review of Alan Dershowitz’s The Case for Israel, “Dershowitz…goes after Israel’s enemies…with the punch and thrust of courtroom debate” (Boston Globe, 26 November 2003), noting its close verbal proximity to Langan’s phrase in his review of Dershowitz’s new book, The Case for Peace, “There is a parry and thrust in Dershowitz’s presentation.” Newsroom opinion is said to be split on whether the allegation is true or whether Dershowitz simply writes his own reviews for the Globe.



BOOK REVIEW
Dershowitz makes a compelling ‘Case for Peace’
By Michael D. Langan, Globe Correspondent | The Boston Globe
November 15, 2005

The Case for Peace: How the Arab-Israeli Conflict Can Be Resolved, By Alan Dershowitz,
John Wiley & Sons Inc., 256 pp., $22.95

After writing his earlier book ”The Case for Israel,” Alan Dershowitz, the Felix
Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, planned to write a sequel titled
”The Case Against Israel’s Enemies” focusing on radical academics. In the interval,
Yasser Arafat died and tentative steps toward peace have been taken. Dershowitz,
therefore, changed his focus to a more positive theme in his new book, ”The Case
for Peace.”

Dershowitz begins by noting that the elements of the peace process that mainstream
Israelis and Palestinians agree on are in place. These include an Israeli withdrawal
from the Gaza Strip and most of the West Bank; symbolic recognition of the ”rights”
of Palestinian refugees but no absolute ”right of return”; a division of greater
Jerusalem, with the Arab part becoming the Palestinian capital and the Jewish part
the capital of Israel; and a renunciation of violence by the Palestinian state and
the dismantling of terrorist groups.

But, the author writes, one thing has not changed: Israel’s enemies. They continue
to work for the nation’s destruction and are opposed to the two-state solution
that is part of the ”road map” for peace. Who are they? Hard-line academics,
religious leaders, and politicians who ”. . . prefer the deadlock of ideological
purity to the slow but steady progression toward an achievable compromise peace.”
His view is that some cannot accept ”normalcy for Jews.”

There is righteous anger in Dershowitz that burns to right wrongs against the
Jewish state. Among the leaders of the enemies of Israel, according to him, is
Noam Chomsky, whose recent work, ”No Chance for Peace: Why It Is Impossible to
Establish a Palestinian State With Israel and the U.S.,” is the equivalent of a
”one-state non-solution” to problems in the Middle East. Other enemies are
academe, Europe, the United Nations, the Arab world, and some religious groups
that oppose Israel. Among individual enemies are Norman Finkelstein, Alexander
Cockburn, and Edward Said.

The author’s advocacy skills are well-honed and incisive. In fact, one is reminded
of the logical argumentation used by Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica, a
13th-century summary of Catholic theology. There is a parry and thrust in
Dershowitz’s presentation that, notwithstanding a different faith perspective,
reminds one of Aquinas’s style: laying out basic questions for analysis, exploring
arguments that appear reasonable, and concluding with an equivalent of Aquinas’s
famous ”I answer that . . .,” which gives the ”correct” answer.

Dershowitz touches all the bases as he characterizes aids or impediments to peace.
These include making peace and preventing terrorism at the same time; a
Palestinian State as a launching pad to terrorism; and whether civil wars will
be necessary to bring about peace. Some chapters, such as one on the Geneva
Accords, seem too spare.

”The Case for Peace” argues forcefully for compromise in resolving the Arab-Israeli
conflict. There’s a good deal of Dershowitz’s ego driving the book, but that’s not
a bad thing. He writes, ”. . . I am pro-peace because I am pro-Israel and
pro-Palestinian.”

The author quotes Amos Oz, the Israeli writer and philosopher, in developing an
acceptable ending to the conflict. Oz does not expect old enemies ”to fall in
love” with each other. ”Let’s not be sentimental.” He sees the conflict as a
”tragedy in the exact sense of the word — a collision between one very powerful
claim and another no less powerful.”

Dershowitz offers the Arabic word, taarradhin, as a talisman for hope on both
sides. Taarradhin, according to William Safire, ”suggests the resolution of a
conflict that involves no humiliation; our closest definition is a ‘win-win outcome.’ ”



Readers’ comment(s)

Subject: Boston Globe runs PR piece for Dersh’s ‘Case for Peace’, Nov 15, 2005

Dear Norm,

As I’m reading your book, I almost can’t believe the
Boston Globe just published the content of this book
review: “Dershowitz makes a compelling ‘Case for Peace'” (By Michael D. Langan, 11.15.2005,
Boston.com)

“Dershowitz offers the Arabic word, taarradhin, as a
talisman for hope on both sides. [It]… ”suggests
the resolution of a conflict that involves no
humiliation; our closest definition is a ‘win-win
outcome.’ “”

In the same article Dershowitz’ “win-win” outcome is
outlined:

[1]These include an Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza
Strip and most of the West Bank; [2]symbolic
recognition of the ”rights” of Palestinian refugees
but no absolute ”right of return”; [3]a division of
greater Jerusalem, with the Arab part becoming the
Palestinian capital and the Jewish part the capital of
Israel; [4] and a renunciation of violence by the
Palestinian state and the dismantling of terrorist
groups.”

The Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and B’Tselem statistics and Israeli historical and media sources you quote in Beyond Chutzpah make some of Dersh’s “no humiliation”/”win-win” recipe items look kind of “one-sided”:

[4] Dersh’s demand for renunciation of violence by the Palestinian state without any similar mention for the
Israeli state in regard to the Palestinians (not in general) does not seem very “win-win” or “no humiliation”. For example, one may want to look at the B’Tselem numbers comparing the 3:1 ration of Palestinians killed to Israelis killed from September 2000 to November 2003 (p.96,97,98) or the HRW, AI & B’Tselem reports (Table 4.1, p. 101,). Perhaps, one can also casually browse through Gideon Levy’s Haaretz (17 October, 2004) article entitled “Killing Children Is No Longer A Big Deal” on p.115 of Beyond Chutzpah. The article quotes B’Tselem to show a 5:1 (557 to 110) ratio of Palestinian children killed by the IDF to Israeli children killed by armed Palestinians and says: “The plain fact, which must be stated clearly, is that the blood of hundreds of Palestinian children is on our hands. No tortuous explanation by the IDF Spokesman’s Office or by the military correspondents about the dangers posed to soldiers by the children, and no dubious excuse by the public relations people in the Foreign Ministry about how the Palestinians are making use of children will change that fact.”

[2] “symbolic recognition” but “no absolute right of return”? How is this a “win-win” for Palestinians if
even Israeli historian Benny Morris, “pathological in his hatred of Palestinians”(Beyond Chutzpah, p.14), admits that Israelis conducted some form of ethnic cleansing against the Palestinians in 1948?

[1] If Israeli settlers are allowed to stay in the West Bank, why aren’t Palestinians allowed the full right of return to Israel proper? How is this a “win-win”?

Ofcourse, you “academics” (article specifically names Chomsky, Said, Finkelstien, Cockburn), as always, are the source of Dershowitz’ “righteous anger that burns to right the wrongs against the Jewish State.” you’re the “bad guys”, working for “the nation’s destruction”, unable to “accept normalcy for the Jews”:

“But, the author writes, one thing has not changed:
Israel’s enemies. [1]They continue to work for the nation’s destruction and [2]are opposed to the two-state solution that is part of the ”road map” for
peace. Who are they? [3]Hard-line academics,… prefer the deadlock of ideological purity to the slow but
steady progression toward an achievable compromise
peace.” His view is that some cannot accept ”normalcy
for Jews.”

[1][2]Opposed to the 2 state solution? Working for “the nation’s destruction”? P.18 of the Introduction to Beyond Chutzpah says: “I hope this book will also provide impetus for readers to act on the basis of truth so that, together, we can achieve a just and lasting peace in ISRAEL AND PALESTINE.” Chomsky, along with the former heads of Israeli Shin Bet (General Security Service), has stated that he respects the international consensus opinion that a 2 state solution is what should happen at this point (March 30, 2004 Z Net interview,
chomsky.info/interviews/20040330.htm)
He usually goes on to say that the gov’ts of the US and Israel have been staunchly
in the way of a 2 state solution which has been possible since at least the
1970s when Egypt offered full pan-Arab recognition to the State of Israel
in exchange for an end to the Occupation.

[3]As far as the nonsense claim that academics, ie “Israel’s enemies”, do not want “normalcy for the Jews”, I would refer the review writer to p.85 of Beyond Chutzpah where you state your vision of how to fight real anti-Semitism. I would also refer him to Noam Chomsky’s talk released as an AK Press CD called “The Emerging Framework of World Power” where he clearly states, strip away ideological constraints and take a look at the facts, take a look for yourself, look at the actual maps of the so called “peace process”. That doesn’t sound like ideological purity to me. Or perhaps Dersh and his Boston Globe fanclub think that by openly supporting a 2 state solution Chomsky’s once again advocating his favorite radical philosophies like anarcho-syndicalism or anti-statist bi-national version of political Zionism that inspired him in his youth
(Imperial Ambitions, 2005 book of interviews with D.Barsamian).

Just some random thoughts as I read (and very much
appreciate) your book. I hope Georgetown went well.

– Tamu