Alan M. Dershowitz

This book was written over 20 years ago, during the second intifada, but a surprisingly and depressingly amount of it is just as relevant today. A lot of the arguments are still in wide circulation, even the ones that are easily debunked.

Each chapter presents an argument attacking Israel, often in the form of direct quotes by Israel's harshest critics, followed by what Dershowitz sees as the real story, and a defense for that position. Many of them end up being legalistic arguments which may show more be technically correct but aren't likely to change anyone's mind. Also, by focusing on intellectuals like Edward Said, Noam Chomsky, et al. he runs the risk of ignoring what's actually happening on the ground in favour of lofty pronouncements.

In a few places, he deliberately chose the most inflammatory phrasing of an argument, then cynically used this strawman version as the basis for his defense. He also could have done a better job with the more valid complaints. At times he resorted to hand waving and stating controversial assertions as "obvious," or disputed items as if they were established facts.

But the biggest problem is his reluctance to admit fault on Israel's part, which made the entire book feel less like an honest search for the truth, and more like a sleazy defense attorney pulling every trick to exonerate an obviously guilty client. By refusing to accept the validity of even a single Palestinian grievance or Israeli misstep, he undermines all of the good work that he put into this project. Which is really too bad, because most of it is quite good and rather prescient, and had he been able to make the case in a less biased manner more people might have listened and we wouldn't be in the current mess. show less

This is a valuable and much-needed book, if for no other reason than its author (although there are other reasons). Alan Dershowitz, probably the most famous attorney in America, and unquestionably one of our greatest Constitutional scholars, has been a genuine liberal Democrat throughout his career, and has made no secret of his support (sometimes tepid, usually enthusiastic) for every Democratic president in his lifetime. At the same time, he has drawn the ire, and sometimes the fury, of show more today's "progressives," for two reasons: his support for Israel, and his opposition to the impeachment of President Trump — or any president, excepting Nixon, who dodged impeachment by resignation. Right-wingers dislike him for other reasons, including his defense of O.J. Simpson, Mike Tyson, Patty Hearst, and Julian Assange. His liberal bona fides were always accepted by the left, until he opposed the Trump impeachment.

And that's the problem he addresses in this book. American politics has become so hideously polarized, at both extremes, that there seems to be no room for an old-fashioned liberal, or even an old fashioned conservative: both Dershowitz and William F. Buckley Jr. (were he still alive) would be dismissed as irrelevant and "politically incorrect" by the Antifa/BLM crowd on the one hand, and by the so-called "Proud Boys" on the other. This kind of intolerance might be endurable if it was merely the grouchiness and fanaticism of a few fringe groups. But now it reaches into government itself: think AOC and "the Crew," for example. Such people as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Rand Paul are shining lights, and tend to be more libertarian than anything else, but such lights are few and far between (and Kennedy isn't even a part of the government). Extremism is the order of the day.

Dershowitz here makes the case for old-fashioned liberalism of the FDR-LBJ stripe. He devotes an entire chapter to John Stuart Mill, who he regards as the father of genuine liberalism, and another chapter to the question of "what is the source of our rights?" He rejects the idea that our rights are God-given, which he finds untenable in a religiously pluralistic society, and also dismisses the concept of "natural rights" (or "natural law") as inadequate. Instead, he puts forth his own theory, which I would call a radical democratic (small "D") view, saying that our rights come from the people themselves, and from human experience. I disagree with this view; in fact, I disagree with much of what Dershowitz says and writes. But it's better than Marxism or fascism, both of which Dershowitz fears might be looming on the horizon if today's extremism(s) go unchecked.

This book is a plea for what used to be a commonplace: centrist liberalism, instead of the radical "progressivism" of today's left, or what is often called the "populism" of President Trump or Bernie Sanders. I don't think that his "sensible liberalism" is the answer to our problems, but in this book he displays the intellectual and ethical rigor which has long defined his philosophy. The book is a tonic, in a time of great political sickness.

Hardly a perfect book, but highly recommended. show less

I suppose I should like this book, like the rest of those who believe that justice was not served in the Bush v. Gore decision, but I found it unpleasant and in some places, downright nasty. There was even one point where it appeared the author's conclusions led to removal of human rights from one group of people (women who would leave a bad marriage). Overall, there are much better books written on the topic. This author's attitude smacks too much of superiority and self-righteousness for show more his arguments to be compelling. show less

Finally, a book by Dershowitz I can stand

To say that I have not been a fan of Alan Dershowitz would be an understatement. Time and again, his views have differed from mine, and he has expressed those views in the most strident, and sometimes offensive, terms possible. But several reviewers mentioned this book as a useful complement to Yaacov Lozowick's _Right to Exist: A Moral Defense of Israel's Wars_, a book I thought was excellent, so I decided to give _The Case for Israel_ a try.

Well, show more I'm not sure that I learned a lot from Dershowitz that I didn't learn from Lozowick, but this book is an easy read, fairly well-organized, and, for the most part, competently done. At times I wished Dershowitz would have addressed an issue more deeply rather than (what seemed like) giving it a surface treatment. And there was some annoying repetition within _The Case for Israel_. I don't know if this is a style Dershowitz has developed for arguing to juries, who can't be counted on to be paying close attention the first time a point is made, or maybe it's a consequence of the book having its genesis in notes Dershowitz has been assembling over the course of 40 years, but I find it aggravating for an author to present a quote for the second or third time as if he's presenting it for the first.

The reaction to this book by Dershowitz's prominent critics has been interesting. The focus of their counterattack seems to be to impugn Dershowitz's integrity by charging him with plagiarism, in particular with improperly citing primary sources rather than citing the secondary sources they say he relied upon. That may (or may not) say something about Dershowitz's character or the care with which he assembled this book, but it's not clear what it says about Dershowitz's argument. Some of his critics go on to assert that the secondary source he relied upon has allegedly been discredited, but when challenged to give examples of inaccuracies that Dershowitz's book inherited from that secondary source, few or none seem to be forthcoming. When Dershowitz offered to give Norman Finkelstein $10,000 if he would point out an inaccuracy in the book, the best Finkelstein came up with is that a couple of figures are too low by a factor of 100, but these are figures that would strengthen Dershowitz's case if they were higher! This example may benefit Finkelstein financially (if Dershowitz pays up), but it's hard to see it as more than a Pyrrhic victory when it comes to substance. It reminds me of the gang-at-Cheers' response when they learned that Gary (of Gary's Oldtown Tavern) had tricked them into "pants"ing their hero, Wade Boggs: "Look at the bright side. We've got Wade Boggs' pants! We're number one! We're number one! . . ." For those of you who remember it, I think the comment that the barfly Al made about this "victory" celebration applies in this situation as well. show less