This book is a perfect example of twisted, convoluted logic and obfuscation of fact that is used to defend the indefensible.

Nothing can justify the on-going oppression, racial discrimination and genocide the state of Israel employs against the indigenous Palestinians under its control.

Dershowitz does not make any 'case' for Israel. There are no excuses, no extenuating facts nor extrapolation of facts that can excuse the behavior of this racist, apartheid state and the author's attempts to do so via this book remind me of a similar individual who met his end at Nuremberg - Julius Streicher. Both The Case for Israel and Der Sturmer share the same, infamous logic.

Israel does have a right to exist. That is only fair as it is too late for any other solution but it must exist as a pluralistic, egalitarian society that includes indigenous Palestinians. It must also peacefully evacuate the occupied territories and East Jerusalem by voluntarily returning to its pre-1967 frontiers.

That a man as brilliant as Alan Dershowitz fails to understand these fundamentals to peace and prosperity in which all groups can partake is testimony to his narrow-mindedness.

Did European Jews displace Palestinians in the land that is now called Israel? Or did European Jews acquire the land from absentee landlords or immigrate to uninhabited lands in the region?

Have the Jews Always Rejected a Two-State Solution? Or was such a solution favorably proposed from the early stages of the Zionist movement in the Chaim-Weizmann Agreement to the recent Barak-Clinton peace proposal?

Did Israel create the Arab refugee problem? Or does the fact that Egypt and Jordan refuse to admit Palestinian refugees for political purposes have something to do with their refugee status?

Did Israel start the Six-Day War in 1967? Or was this war fought as a courageous act of self-defense against five armed nations, all of whom wanted nothing less than the total destruction of Israel.

This book contains many other common charges against Israel along with a compelling argument against each charge. Although Alan Dershowitz is not the most objective party on this matter, he still has compiled a timely and persuasive defense of Israel. This book is written in a question and answer format that makes it an excellent resource.

Although this certainly is not the most comprehensive source for a defense of Israel, it is an excellent place to start for an individual seeking to read about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict from a pro-Israeli perspective.

I read Dershowitz's Case For Israel and originally was impressed. I still believe there are many truths to it, but Dershowitz claims that Israel outlawed torture in 1999 and that those protesting Israeli torture and human rights abuses, including Amnesty International, are bias and/or ignorant of the Israeli Supreme Court decision banning torture. And then I read a 2002 CBS News interview, (two years after the Israeli banning of torture and one year before this book was written) of Dershowitz supporting torture! Then reading Finkelstein's book, Beyond Chutzpah, I read three separate reports from three separate organizations, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and B'Tselem which report excessive force and killings against unarmed civilians and believe that Dershowitz has officially been debunked.

There is much more to say on this book, but most in heavy critical assessment. I am only sorry this book were not all truth, with its unfair statements and dishonesty, which is the reality of this sad state of affairs.

I read Dershowitz's Case For Israel and was highly impressed. I still believe there are truths to it, but his book claims that Israel outlawed torture in 1999 and that those protesting Israeli torture and human rights abuse, including Amnesty International, are bias and/or ignorant of the Israeli decision banning torture. And then I read a 2002 CBS News interview, (two years after the Israeli banning of torture and one year before this book) of Dershowitz supporting torture! Then reading Finkelstein's book, Beyond Chutzpah, I read three separate reports from three separate organizations, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and B'Tselem which report excessive force and killings against unarmed civilians and believe that Dershowitz has been officially been debunked.

There is much more to say, both in validity of this book, but also in critical assessment. I am only sorry this book were not all truth.

A well needed book among all the critical and unfair accounts, and a very much needed book to understand the other side of the story from all the attacks, personal smears and one-sided writings. While this account lacks neccessary criticism, it is still very honest, open and a neccessary read if one wants to see beyond just the Palestinian viewpoint, propoganda and personal smears attacks of opponents. In many ways, this debunks much of the current unjust accusations. I am very grateful to have read this book and highly recommend this in Israel-Palestine studies.

Finkelstein's book Beyond Chutzpah amounts to a personal smear accusation of plagiarism from using the secondary sources of Joan Peter's book, From Time Memorial, which not only I find invalid, but detracts from the real and important issues.

This is a good read for someone who wants to gain an understanding of why there is still not an independent Palestinian state and it reminds us why we shouldn't solely rely on media or academics to determine who is the bad guy and who is the victim in any conflict.

Dershowitz uses plain English and provides many statistics to argue against the accusations that are regularly fired against Israel. At times, the evidence he uses and responses provided are a little short on detail but still eye opening and valid enough to reject an accusation or to at least go seeking more information. Furthermore, he shows that we truly live in a world of political double standards and that in our own lifetime, aiming for a compromised outcome may be better (more realistic) than trying to achieve a utopian ideal.

Whether you are a first year politics student or just someone who is preplexed by all the anti-Israel rhetoric that exists then you will find this book hard to put down and to not refer back to in the future.

Also recommended is The Case For Peace. While it repeats some of the barriers to peace mentioned in The Case For Israel, it does give a basic idea of what a future noncontiguous Palestinian state could look like, and Dershowitz also responds to some of his most passionate critics. Why Blame Israel? by English academic Neill Lochery is also worth a read. Lochery comes across as being less generous towards Israel than Dershowitz but he does still point out how criticism against Israel has often been misplaced.

This is a good read for someone who wants to gain an understanding of why there is still not an independent Palestinian state and it reminds us why we shouldn't solely rely on media or academics to determine who is the bad guy and who is the victim in any conflict.

Dershowitz uses plain English and provides many statistics to argue against the accusations that are regularly fired against Israel. At times, the evidence he uses and responses provided are a little short on detail but still eye opening and valid enough to reject an accusation or to at least go seeking more information. Furthermore, he shows that we truly live in a world of political double standards and that in our own lifetime, aiming for a compromised outcome may be better than trying to achieve a utopian ideal.

Whether you are a first year politics student or just someone who is preplexed by all the anti-Israel rhetoric that exists then you will find this book hard to put down and to not refer back to in the future.

Also recommended is The Case For Peace. While it repeats some of the barriers to peace mentioned in The Case For Israel, it does give a basic idea of what a future noncontiguous Palestinian state could look like, and Dershowitz also responds to some of his most passionate critics. Why Blame Israel? by English academic Neill Lochery is also worth a read. Lochery comes across as being less generous towards Israel than Dershowitz but he does still point out how criticism against Israel has often been misplaced.

This book has been thoroughly dismantled on its evidentiary basis by Norman Finkelstein (see his 'Beyond Chutzpah') There is no doubt that the book consists of large swaths of lifted quotes, shoddy scholarship, and misinformation.
Mr. Dershowitz is certainly articulate and bright, but it is inexcusable to write such a piece of work and then engage in an ad hominem campaign against the scholar who exposes the non-existent scholarly edifice supporting it.

In my opinion, it would be best to ignore this work (as we should all fraudulent work- Frank Sullaway's 'Born to Rebel' being another well known example) and instead to focus on the serious scholarship. Shlomo Ben-Ami, Tom Segev, Benny Morris, Ilan Pape, and many others have written SERIOUS and studious accounts of events in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. While they do not agree, they are reasonable. This subject requires seriousness, honesty, and courage. We should not hesitate to open debate, but we should not waste our time with disingenuous scholarship.

It is shameful to compare the reputation of Mr. Dershowitz to that of Mr. Finkelstein. This comparison is emblematic of the continuing errosion of public discourse in the United States post 9/11.

Good book, but can be difficult to follow in places.
Explains some facts very well.

Inaccurate and tendentious throughout. For example, he writes "historians believe that the Hebrews arrived in present-day Israel sometime in the second millennium B.C.E. Under Joshua, and later King David and his successors, independent Hebrew kingdoms existed." In fact, no respected Christian, Jewish or secular historian argues that an independent Hebrew kingdom ever existed under Joshua. Not even the Bible claims that Joshua was a king or had a kingdom! We have no demographic data to support his claim that Jews formed the main part of the population for most of the sixteen hundred years between 1000 BCE and 636 CE.
This cavalier disregard for truth and historical accuracy is typical. Dershowitz is after all a lawyer, not a scholar, trained to make the best possible case for his client, not to investigate the truth. Read instead Avi Shlaim's The Iron Wall.

When you first read this book a lot of the claims made seems convincing, but if you read another side of the argument his argument begins to fall apart. First his heavy reliance of Joan Peters "From Time Immemorial" speaks volumes about the sources he uses. Joan Peters book has been regarded by most serious scholars as a hoax. It was initially reviewed well but after some time (specifically after the doctoral thesis of NOrman Finkelstein) The book was denounced as nothing more than a threadbare hoax. But dershowitz regards Peters book as the rule of law.
Secondly Dershowitz claim that during the 1948 war most refugees left at the exhortations of Arab leaders is simply false. For example he quotes BEnny Morris extensively during this chapter, but Benny Morris was actually one of the New Historians and the central thesis of his book runs counter to dershowitz's claims. Specifically the New HIstorians came out to refute what dershowitz actually said. Read The ethnic cleansing of Palestine by Ilan Pappe (a fellow new historian) to find out what really happened during the 1948 war. Third Dershowitz claims that Israel has never been accused of war crime by human rights organizations, but infact they have been accused of that many times. If you read beyond Chutzpah it reveals all of the war crimes committed by Israel. Even Btselem the Israeli human rights group is highly critical of Israels record. BUt according to dershowiz he believes that those reports aren't true. COuld n't he have stated that they are accused of war crimes then proceed to say why he believes all these mainstream human rights organizations are false, instead of simply denying it altogether without giving the reader an informed view. Another point related to this is that he says more noncombatants have been killed on the israeli side since 2000 but when you check the ststistics this turns out to be false. He responds to this by stating that these humans rights organizations should redefine the concept of civilianality. I think that is being extremely disingenuous to distort the records and then claim that the statistics dont fit your definition of a war crime. One should report all these war crimes and the number of noncombatants killed by humans rights organizations and then if you dispute them go on to say why. Frankly i dont know how he can dispute the allegations of a consensus of humans rights groups and claim they are false, and in his book act as if these groups never existed. So these concerns raise questions about dershowitz's ability to produce a non biased piece of work on such a contentious issue

An excellent, scholarly report, one that should be read by anyone interested in the middle east conflict.

Read "Beyond Chutzpah" by Norman G. Finkelstein. Norman Finkelstein debunks nearly all the claims that this books states with actually data from prestigus human rights groups. I would recommend reading "Beyond Chutzpah" before making any further judgements about this book and what is claims to be "true".

The Case for Israel

Absolutely the best book on the subject. Good reading for reasonable,intelligent readers who desire to know the facts behind the stories and spins we hear on what is actually happening in the Middle East.

There is nothing wrong with presenting one side of a debate with passion and intensity, and this is what Dershowitz has done in this useful handbook. It is digestible in easy, short chapters, and it will give Israel supporters useful information for arguing their side of the story. The book is not, however, a balanced reflection on Israel's successes and failures. It fails to describe the extent of the inequalities facing Arab citizens and generally comes up roses when the reality is more complex. So while I'd recommend this book for college students who encounter anti-Zionist zeal on their campuses, I'd point them elsewhere for a more thorough analysis of Israel's democratic experiment.

Mr. Dershowitz presents us with a thorough refutation of most of the myths and hysteria reagarding the on-going Arab-Isreali conflict.

Mr. Dershowitz presents us with a thorough refutation of most of the myths and hysteria reagarding the on-going Arab-Isreali conflict.

A sampling of the topics within:

-Did Israel create the Arab refugee problem?
-Has Israel made serious efforts at peace?
-Does Israel torture Palestinians?
-Has Israel engaged in genocide against Palestinian civilians?
-Is targeted assassination of terrorist leaders unlawful?
-Is Israel the prime human rights violator in the world?

In fact, in 1948, enormous numbers of Palestinian men of fighting-age fled Israel. Most of them did not even aid their fellow Arabs from Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria, when those nations sent a massive military force to slaughter the Israelis.
The Jews have never forbade Arabs from living in Israel, there continue to be a significant number residing there.

In fact, the true question should be, "Have the Arab entities made ANY attempts at peace?" NO. Israel is the only party willing to make ANY concessions!

In fact, Israel's neighors/enemies DO torture people, and those are most often their own citizens.

In fact, Israel's enemies have attempted at least six times to inflict genocide on the Israeli people. However, Israel has a far tougher, professional, and proficient military, and this was averted.

In fact,Islamic terrorists carry out assassination more than any other such entity. Terrorists should be destroyed.

In fact, an Arab who lives in Israel, regardless of religion, is far better off than his neighbors in the surrounding countries. Israel actually recognizes and enforces human rights. They are an island of Western civilization in a hostile sea. What manner of human rights are protected in any given Islamic nation?

Does Israel have a right to exist? Alan Dershowitz answers this and many more controversial questions in the book The Case for Israel. He goes over 32 different misrepresentations, and outright lies about the state of Israel which have been allowed to exist for many years, including:
* Israel is a colonial, imperialist state
* Israel started the Six-Day War
* The Jews have always rejected the two-state solution
* The moral equivalence between Palestinian terrorists and the Israeli responses
* Israel's targeted assassinations of terrorist leaders
* Israel is the prime human rights violator in the world

The Case for Israel is clearly different than other books dealing with the same topic. Instead of using the raw emotions, and faulty facts of most of his contemporaries, Dershowitz logically presents each argument in a concise and easy to understand manner. Dershowitz goes through each accusation as if it were a legal brief. He clearly states the accusation, who said it, and what proof they have. He then counters each position with his own facts. These facts are backed up with reliable sources. In fact, most of these sources would not be considered "friendly" to the State of Israel, or Jewish persons. To mention just a few of his "unfriendly" sources, he uses Nazi's war records, and the memoirs of Husseini. He also uses notable authors such as Mark Twain, which is easily recognizable for the American reader.
Dershowitz is able to establish the Jewish presence in the area by using ancient records, and well-accepted historical facts. He not only defines the level of presence they had, but also the level of persecution they suffered. He does this by using excerpts from letters sent out from the area, detailing the crimes committed against the Jews. These crimes range from massacres of entire villages to the singling out of a particular Jew, for being in the wrong place, at the wrong time, worshiping God in the wrong way.
Dershowitz also makes the reader understand that it is not only the Arabic world that poses a danger, but also the Muslim world as a whole. He eloquently portrays the fact that the Jews will never again be able to live under Muslim rule as a Dhimmi minority. He gives historical and contemporary examples of the Jews role as a second-class citizen, stripped of basic rights and protections. You easily understand that despite the protests of the leaders of the Arabic and Muslim worlds, that once the Jews no longer have the protection of Israel, they will become be an easy target for everyone.
By using these facts, Dershowitz is able to build a strong case for the existence of Israel, and the need for it's continued survival. He shows that the past is never far behind us, and that the Middle East has some of the longest memories around. He demonstrates that should Israel cease to exist, so will the Jews under its protection. He realizes that genocide on a mass scale would occur, and then be swept under the rug. He also understands that the United Nations would be powerless to stop the genocide, should they even realize it is happening.
Dershowitz is also frank in admitting the fact that Israel is not perfect. He clearly states what were some of the problems with the creation of the State of Israel, including the fact that only the Jewish side has accepted the two-state solution. He realizes that trying to force the Palestine's into something they do not want will only make the fight harder. He also accurately portrays the fact that when the two-state option was offered, Palestine did not want its independence. He uses historical documents that show they wanted to be a part of Jordon. In fact, he makes it seem as if no one wanted independence from an overbearing state, but from a Jewish one. Like a child that cannot be satisfied with watching someone play with something, the Palestine's would like to steal it back, and then discard it, as they never really wanted it in the first place. Dershowitz's key point is that Palestine never wanted the Jews to rule, but they did not want to rule themselves. It makes the arguments that the Palestinians have put forth more childish and spitefully argumentative in nature.
Dershowitz also clearly identifies the fact that terrorism is being used as a way to halt the progression of peace, not to bring it about. He mentions that when there are pace talks, or a candidate more willing to concede terrorist for peace is to be elected, there are far more terrorist attacks. He then clearly states in his conclusion the fact that the price of peace is worth many concessions, including a Judenrein Palestine, along with a Judenrein Jordon. However, he does make the point that the world should recognize that fact, and be willing to let Israel pay the price and retain its sovereignty.
This books contribution to the State of Israel is immeasurable. It clearly defines Israel's right to exist, and why the two-state option is the only option. The book also makes it clear and easy to understand the historical events in play at all times, without having to be educated about the area beforehand. The book is able to stand alone without any other research or reading in order to understand the conflict in its entirety. The books organization and sectioning also lends to the ability to look at one argument at a time, without having had to read the book in its entirety. This would be an excellent tool for teachers to use, as the concise nature of each article lends itself to the classroom forum. You could easily pair up a history event, and it's consequences, with the debate today by simply introducing one or two articles. While clearly written by the highly intelligent, it is an easy read which is not too full of itself. It does not become pompous or overbearing at any point. Nor does it assume that you know anything about the area, or it's history. The order of the articles is logical, and makes it easy to follow the "story" of Israel from conception to today. He also carefully puts ancient and more recent history in an excellent juxtaposition, so that it is easy to understand the entirety of the situation. The only fault with the book would be the fact that it was published in 2003. Due to the rapidly changing political climate in the area, an amended version, or extra article available on his website would make it much easier to make the four year leap to present day. More maps, both ancient and modern, would also be helpful. While the author has made some concessions to the American public, he has not accommodated our weak grasp of geography and topography.

Dershowitz's book is worthwhile because it is not a polemic.

He just does a masterful job of researching and laying out the issues and the evidence. He is a skilled lawyer, marshaling a well-documented case supporting Israel's right to exist, right to have secure borders and right to enjoy the same peace and prosperity as any other nation. Most anybody who is objective on the Israel/Palestinian subject believes there should be a two state solution, (I do!) with both states in secure borders and assured of their right to exist. Dershowitz effectively makes that case.

This is a potent and long-needed counterattack against those who would vilify Israel.

Dershowitz presents a secular, logical set of arguments for the existence of the state of Israel. He does not allege that it is perfect, and does not refuse to grant concessions to the Palestinians. He directly addresses the inaccuracies and problems in many of the arguments of Israels most staunch and respected opponents while giving them their due respect and acknowledging the strong points in their cases. An absolute must read.

This book written by "whomever," also gets an F- for absurd misrepresentations, including 'who' wrote it!? How do you reward a book of extreme falsehoods and distorted facts within the book, and the mystery of who wrote it? How does one reward a book like this filled with deceit and lies in "present" America? You give the person behind a false book like this a lifetime tenure at Harvard Law School. Welcome to "America today."!!! This book is not worth the read; just too much "nonsense." For truth and 'REAL' scholarship, why not spend your reading time with substative matter, read: "THE ISRAEL LOBBY" AND U.S. FOREIGN POLICY," By John J. Mearshiemer and Stephen M. Walt.

the author is so intent at defending Israel that does not hesitate to distort the truth.
Unfortunately this issue stirs the emotions of fanatics on both sides and it is difficult to read an objective analysis(except for the book of president Carter).

This book provides some insightful views and provides a fairly balanced (if you believe in the middle of the road, two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict) view. Dershowitz is up front with his liberalism and social libertarianism and how he disagrees with much of the policies of the Israeli government, but he believes that disagreement of policies has warped into anti-Israeli/anti-Semitic views. He points to a point system for distinguishing the two (disagreements with Israeli policy vs anti-Semitism) but fails to go into depth which would have strengthened his argument.

While it is interesting to see the accusations he refutes, too many of the refutes are aimed at the same people (most notably the many references against Edward Said). Irregardless of whether they were justified or not, a larger panel of accusations would have improved this book.

Additionally some of the chapters are very bland and repetitive and could be merged into one or two chapters.

Despite the weaknesses this is a good read for those uninformed. It does a good job of refuting claims made against Israel by radical uninformed college students and professors (I am currently in attendance at the time writing this).

Pick this up if you want to learn more about Israel, or are tired of the anti-Israeli rhetoric in academia.

As countless other reviewers have noted, this book borrows heavily from Joan Peters's long-discredited From Time Immemorial. While Dershowitz has denied plagiarizing Peters, Dershowitz's use of source material in two chapters about pre-1948 Israel is nearly identical to Peters's - down to quotation errors and the placement of ellipses in long quotes.

Peters's extreme conclusions flow naturally from her extreme presentation of cherry-picked source material. That Dershowitz would pretend to disavow Peters's conclusions, while for multiple chapters recycling her "research", suggests his true agenda: paying lip-service to moderation while tacitly advocating extremism.

For the open-minded who want to read a detailed debunking of Peters's work, see the second chapter of Finkelstein's Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict. For a careful dissection of Dershowitz's unconscionable use of Peters's material, and his amateurish defense of Israel, see the second part of Finkelstein's Beyond Chutzpah.

As countless other reviewers have noted, this book borrows heavily from Joan Peters's long-discredited From Time Immemorial. While Dershowitz has denied plagiarizing Peters, Dershowitz use of source material in a section about pre-1948 Israel is nearly identical to Peters's -- down to quotation errors and the placement of ellipses in long quotes.

Peters's extreme conclusions flow naturally from her distorted and selected presentation of cherry-picked source material. That Dershowitz would pretend to disavow Peters's conclusions, while for multiple chapters recycling her "research," suggests his true agenda: to pay lip-service to moderation while tacitly advocating extremism.

Dershowitz's extremism is apparent. In detailing Israel's human rights record, he ignores the reports of B'Tselem, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International.

For the open-minded who want to read a detailed debunking of Peters's work, see Finkelstein's Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict. For those wanting to understand Dershowitz's unconscionable use of Peters's material to try to score points in a sensitive and vital political debate, see Finkelstein's Beyond Chutzpah.

Alan Dershowitz has compiled a great law case for the defense of Israel amid all the anti-Isaeli sentiment, most of which is blind to the facts. He refutes such so called "academics" as Noam Chomsky and Edward Said as Dershowitz exposes and then counters thier lies and distortions of the real facts. I recomend this book to anyone, regardless of how they feel on the subject.

You'd think such a leftist as Alan Dershowitz would get some credit from his compatriots. But ideology knows no friends, only co-conspirators.

From the end of the Romanovzs with the 10-day revolution to the internationalizing of fascist Nazism and communism, there has been a concerted effort to--mostly with great myopia and prejudicial blindness--romanticize the plight of any class of any people (minority) that are perceived to be without a lifeline, living in any region of the world. Unfortunately, for the most part, the romanticism only applies to the Palestinians in Israel and the working proletariat that are exploited by the capitalist "other" in various Western nations. Those in the West Bank and Gaza are no exception, but actually epitomize this concept in our modern world. The book's main theme is that though Israel is light years ahead of any Arabic country regarding tolerance, diversity, economics, and human rights, we expect absolute perfection and no mistakes whatsoever from them, creating perhaps the most monstrous double-standard in history.

The hypocracy of this is obvious as we gladly overlook the blackest of wholesale deeds from their neighbors, who actually implement upon coercion the negation and denial of even a fraction of the above-mentioned Western values. We've romanticized the Arabs and sympathize with them that the 1 and only minority in their vicinity is a lash against their pride. AFter all, before the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Jews were always second-class citizens under their rule.

Mr. Dershowitz not only has researched, but has used liberal journalists and historians as his sources. The New York Times has been a large contributor to his text, as well as The Washington Post. Benny Morris, an erstwhile vehement critic of the state of Israel, is quoted and sourced many times. Prince Bindar of Saudia Arabia said to Arafat after the PA terror master rejected a state alongside Israel, "You have doomed the Palestinians." I don't see any Heritage Foundation, Brookings Institute, The Washington Times, The New York Post or other varied "right-wing" nouns being used in his book, only scantly.

Another myth is the ol' "inappropriate use of force" canard. I would like any person with a modicum of history-sense to tell me when nations who won overwhelming victories against aggressive nations surrounding them on all sides (The War of Independence, The Six Day War, The Yom Kipper War) sued for peace and held on olive branch, at a post-war U.N. summit, out to those who lost, pleading them to recognize their right to exist peacefully among them.

The Palestinians have been on the losing side of WWI, WWII (when al-Husseni collaborated with Hitler himself), The Six Day War, The Yom Kipper War, and the subsequent Intifadas launched after being offered statehood and division of Jerusalem. They have rejected statehood itself 3 times with the Partition Plan in 1917, The Peel Commission of 1937, and the Camp David/Taba negotiations in 2000. When Arafat denied the offer of statehood, he prounounced no counter-offer or any negotiative variable aside from 97 percent of the West Bank, Gaza, and billions in reparations for refugees caused largely by Jordan's belligerency.

The death count may be high, but there's accounting in the book (as well as a myriad of others) of different elements that have contributed to these deaths. One is a lack of efficient hospitals, even though the U.S. and the U.N. have given billions in aid to create more open markets and intstitutions critical to the basic survival of any group of people. Another is the suicide bombers that either succeeded in their missions or failed upon detonation. Many Palestinians denied the offer to be cared in Israeli hopistals, where medical care is almost second-to-none in the Western world. There are targeted uprootings of terrorists in residential housing that create the moral dilemma of either going after the terror leaders or not, and thereby waiting for more terror attacks upon civilian centers.

So it is that the UN overlooks real genocide in Africa and gross human rights violations (at least referring to internationally-recognized basic rights) in the greater Middle East, whose implentation of Sharia law (to varying degrees) negates women basic rights, Jews any rights possible from Israel, and religious and secular intolerance. It is overlooked because Israel has all these rights implemented--the protection of Arabic mosques, 1-plus million Arabs (relatives of those who engaged war against their host, or are decendants of them)residing in Israel, religious diversity, and intellectual diversity. Some of the harshest critics come from the Leftist circles in Israeli academia and journalists. But the only thing we can focus on is that Arabic citizens can only vote in municipal elections. But there are legal loopholes that can cut around this, and even recently an Arab was Acting Prime Minister for a week, and there are anti-Israeli Knesset members in that parliament who speak and vote against any military action or security.

If the war in Lebanon of 2006 were to be included, it would expose the deception of the Western and Arabic press (Reuters, Al Jezeera) and make a good contribution to the whole subject matter. If this book is denounced, then it is sad, but not an enormous loss. Just look at Joan Peters' exhaustingly-researched From Time Immemorial, or Myths and Facts, by Mitchell Bard, Phd, which is also very well researched. I would highly recommend all of them.

This book is a great primer for getting interested in the subject, and goes to show that there can be fairness from the left side of Harvard. The author has critizized Israel for many things, but has always reasserted what we all in the Western world should not have a problem doing (unless you're an unrepentant romantic) : Declaring the sovereign right of a democracy to survive who had to earn what they had, and fight hard for it almost every year of their now 59-year inception. It's just too bad so many of us don't have Prince Bindar's clear-eyed insight that the Arab world (largely Jordan and Syria) holds most of the blame for the plight of the Palestinians. But with the recent events in Gaza as of late, it goes to show that the inculcation of suicidal and hating education in the PA, and the refusal to consider anything other than tribal-warfare and Islamic-suppressional imperatives (backed and led, of course, by Iran and Syria), are the real harbingers to their people.

And, hey, to all anti-Israelites out there: I thought you were for minorities?? What would the creation of a Palestinian State be other than the 23rd Arabic totalitarian theocracy bent on reversing this last century's progress towards freedom and human rights? Hmmmm....let's do the "diversity" and "human rights" calculus: 22 total Arabic states, and 1 diverse, democratic Jewish state in the Middle East. I see an "inproportionate" number here--Pretty unfair! Any person with a singular standard on this issue would deduce that we need to create 21 more Jewish states to just even the minority-status odds!

You'd think such a leftist as Alan Dershowitz would get some credit from his compatriots. But ideology knows no friends, only co-conspirators.

From the end of the Romanovzs with the 10-day revolution to the internationalizing of fascist Nazism and communism, there has been a concerted effort to--mostly with great myopia and prejudicial blindness--romanticize the plight of any class of any people (minority) that are perceived to be without a lifeline, living in any region of the world. Unfortunately, for the most part, the romanticism only applies to the Palestinians in Israel and the working proletariat that are exploited by the capitalist "other" in various Western nations. Those in the West Bank and Gaza are no exception, but actually epitomize this concept in our modern world. The book's main theme is that though Israel is light years ahead of any Arabic country regarding tolerance, diversity, economics, and human rights, we expect absolute perfection and no mistakes whatsoever from them, creating perhaps the most monstrous double-standard in history.

The hypocracy of this is obvious as we gladly overlook the blackest of wholesale deeds from their neighbors, who actually implement upon coercion the negation and denial of even a fraction of the above-mentioned Western values. We've romanticized the Arabs and sympathize with them that the 1 and only minority in their vicinity is a lash against their pride. AFter all, before the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Jews were always second-class citizens under their rule.

Mr. Dershowitz not only has researched, but has used liberal journalists and historians as his sources. The New York Times has been a large contributor to his text, as well as The Washington Post. Benny Morris, an erstwhile vehement critic of the state of Israel, is quoted and sourced many times. Prince Bindar of Saudia Arabia said to Arafat after the PA terror master rejected a state alongside Israel, "You have doomed the Palestinians." I don't see any Heritage Foudation, Brookings Institute, The Washington Times, The New York Pist or other varied "right-wing" nouns being used in his book, only scantly.

Another myth is the ol' "inappropriate use of force" canard. I would like any person with a modicum of history-sense to tell me when nations who won overwhelming victories against aggressive nations surrounding them on all sides (The War of Independence, The Six Day War, The Yom Kipper War) sued for peace and held on olive branch, at a post-war U.N. summit, out to those who lost, pleading them to recognize their right to exist peacefully among them.

The Palestinians have been on the losing side of WWI, WWII (when al-Husseni collaborated with Hitler himself), The Six Day War, The Yom Kipper War, and the subsequent Intifadas launched after being offered statehood and division of Jerusalem. They have rejected statehood itself 3 times with the Partition Plan, The Peel Commission, and the Camp David/Taba negotiations. When Arafat denied the offer of statehood, he prounounced no counter-offer or any negotiative variable aside from 97 percent of the West Bank, Gaza, and billions in reparations for refugees caused largely by Jordan's belligerency.

The death count may be high, but there's accounting in the book (as well as a myriad of others) of different elements that have contributed to these deaths. One is a lack of efficient hospitals, even though the U.S. and the U.N. have given billions in aid to create more open markets and intstitutions critical to the basic survival of any group of people. Another is the suicide bombers that either succeeded in their missions or failed upon detonation. Many Palestinians denied the offer to be cared in Israeli hopistals, where medical care is almost second-to-none in the Western world. There are targeted uprootings of terrorists in residential housing that create the moral dilemma of either going after the terror leaders or not, and thereby waiting for more terror attacks upon civilian centers.

So it is that the UN overlooks real genocide in Africa and gross human rights violations (at least referring to internationally-recognized basic rights) in the greater Middle East, whose implentation of Sharia law (to varying degrees) negates women basic rights, Jews any rights possible from Israel, and religious and secular intolerance. It is overlooked because Israel has all these rights implemented--the protection of Arabic mosques, 1-plus million Arabs (relatives of those who engaged war against their host, or are decendants of them)residing in Israel, religious diversity, and intellectual diversity. Some of the harshest critics come from the Leftist circles in Israeli academia and journalists. But the only thing we can focus on is that Arabic citizens can only vote in municipal elections. But there are legal loopholes that can cut around this, and even recently an Arab was Acting Prime Minister for a week, and there are anti-Israeli Knesset members in that parliament who speak and vote against any military action or security.

If the war in Lebanon of 2006 were to be included, it would expose the deception of the Western and Arabic press (Reuters, Al Jezeera) and make a good contribution to the whole subject matter. If this book is denounced, then it is sad, but not an enormous loss. Just look at Joan Peters' exhaustingly-researched From Time Immemorial, or Myths and Facts, by Mitchell Bard, Phd, which is also very well researched. I would highly recommend all of them.

This book is a great primer for getting interested in the subject, and goes to show that there can be fairness from the left side of Harvard. The author has critizized Israel for many things, but has always reasserted what we all in the Western world should not have a problem doing (unless you're an unrepentant romantic) : Declaring the sovereign right of a democracy to survive who had to earn what they had, and fight hard for it almost every year of their now 59-year inception. It's just too bad so many of us don't have Prince Bindar's clear-eyed insight that the Arab world (largely Jordan and Syria) holds most of the blame for the plight of the Palestinians. But with the recent events in Gaza as of late, it goes to show that the inculcation of suicidal and hating education in the PA, and the refusal to consider anything other than tribal-warfare and Islamic-suppressional imperatives (backed and led, of course, by Iran and Syria)to their people.

And, hey, to all anti-Israelites out there: I thought you were for minorities?? What would the creation of a Palestinian State be other than the 23rd Arabic totalitarian theocracy bend on reversing this last century's progress towards freedom and human rights? Hmmmm....22 total Arabic states, and 1 diverse, democratic Jewish state in the Middle East. I see an "inproportionate" number here--Pretty unfair! Any person with a singular standard on this would deduce that we need to create 21 more Jewish states!

You'd think such a leftist as Alan Dershowitz would get some credit from his compatriots. But ideology knows no friends, only co-conspirators.

From the end of the Tzars with the 10-day revolution, to the internationalizing of fascist Nazism and communism, there has been a concerted effort to always--mostly with great myopia and prejudicial blindness--romanticize the plight of any class of any people (minority) that are perceived to be without a lifeline, living in any region of the world. Unfortunately, for the most part, the romanticism only applies to the Palestinians in Israel and the working proletariat that are exploited by the capitalist "other" in various Western nations. Those in the West Bank and Gaza are no exception, but actually epitomize this concept in our modern world. The book's main theme is that though Israel is light years ahead of any Arabic country regarding tolerance, diversity, economics, and human rights, we expect absolute perfection and no mistakes whatsoever from them.

The hypocracy of this is obvious as we gladly overlook the blackest of wholesale deeds from their neighbors, who actually implement upon coercion the negation and denial of even a fraction of the above-mentioned Western values. We've romanticized the Arabs and sympathize with them that the 1 and only minority in their vicinity is a lash against their pride. AFter all, before the fall of the Ottoman Empire, Jews were always second-class citizens under their rule.

Mr. Dershowitz not only has researched, but has used liberal journalists and historians as his sources. The New York Times has been a large contributor to his text, as well as The Washington Post. Benny Morris, an erstwhile vehement critic of the state of Israel, is quoted and sourced many times. Prince Bindar of Saudia Arabia said to Arafat after the PA terror master rejected a state alongside Israel, "You have doomed the Palestinians." I don't see any Heritage Foudation, Brookings Institute, The Washington Times, The New York Pist or other varied "right-wing" nouns being used in his book, only scantly.

Another myth is the ol' "inappropriate use of force" canard. I would like any person with a modicum of history-sense to tell me when nations who won overwhelming victories against aggressive nations surrounding them on all sides (The War of Independence, The Six Day War, The Yom Kipper War) sued for peace and held on olive branch, at a post-war U.N. summit, out to those who lost, pleading them to recognize their right to exist peacefully among them.

The Palestinians have been on the losing side of WWI, WWII (when al-Husseni collaborated with Hitler himself), The Six Day War, The Yom Kipper War, and the subsequent Intifadas launched after being offered statehood and division of Jerusalem. They have rejected statehood itself 3 times with the Partition Plan, The Peel Commission, and the Camp David/Taba negotiations. When Arafat denied the offer of statehood, he prounounced no counter-offer or any negotiative variable aside from 97 percent of the West Bank, Gaza, and billions in reparations for refugees caused largely by Jordan's belligerency.

The death count may be high, but there's accounting in the book (as well as a myriad of others) of different elements that have contributed to these deaths. One is a lack of efficient hospitals, even though the U.S. and the U.N. have given billions in aid to create more open markets and intstitutions critical to the basic survival of any group of people. Another is the suicide bombers that either succeeded in their missions or failed upon detonation. Many Palestinians denied the offer to be cared in Israeli hopistals, where medical care is almost second-to-none in the Western world. There are targeted uprootings of terrorists in residential housing that create the moral dilemma of either going after the terror leaders or not, and thereby waiting for more terror attacks upon civilian centers.

So it is that the UN overlooks real genocide in Africa and gross human rights violations (at least referring to internationally-recognized basic rights) in the greater Middle East, whose implentation of Sharia law (to varying degrees) negates women basic rights, Jews any rights possible from Israel, and religious and secular intolerance. It is overlooked because Israel has all these rights implemented--the protection of Arabic mosques, 1-plus million Arabs (relatives of those who engaged war against their host, or are decendants of them)residing in Israel, religious diversity, and intellectual diversity. Some of the harshest critics come from the Leftist circles in Israeli academia and journalists. But the only thing we can focus on is that Arabic citizens can only vote in municipal elections. But there are legal loopholes that can cut around this, and even recently an Arab was Acting Prime Minister for a week, and there are anti-Israeli Knesset members in that parliament who speak and vote against any military action or security.

If the war in Lebanon of 2006 were to be included, it would expose the deception of the Western and Arabic press (Reuters, Al Jezeera) and make a good contribution to the whole subject matter. If this book is denounced, then it is sad, but not an enormous loss. Just look at Joan Peters' exhaustingly-researched From Time Immemorial, or Myths and Facts, by Mitchell Bard, Phd, which is also very well researched. I would highly recommend all of them.

This book is a great primer for getting interested in the subject, and goes to show that there can be fairness from the left side of Harvard. The author has critizized Israel for many things, but has always reasserted what we all in the Western world should not have a problem doing (unless you're an unrepentant romantic) : Declaring the sovereign right of a democracy to survive who had to earn what they had, and fight hard for it almost every year of their now 59-year inception. It's just too bad so many of us don't have Prince Bindar's clear-eyed insight that the Arab world (largely Jordan and Syria) holds most of the blame for the plight of the Palestinians. But with the recent events in Gaza as of late, it goes to show that the inculcation of suicidal and hating education in the PA, and the refusal to consider anything other than tribal-warfare and Islamic-suppressional imperatives (backed and led, of course, by Iran and Syria)to their people.

And, hey, to all anti-Israelites out there: I thought you were for minorities?? What would the creation of a Palestinian State be other than the 23rd Arabic totalitarian theocracy bend on reversing this last century's progress towards freedom and human rights? Hmmmm....22 total Arabic states, and 1 diverse, democratic Jewish state in the Middle East. I see an "inproportionate" number here--Pretty unfair! Any person with a singular standard on this would deduce that we need to create 21 more Jewish states!

You'd think such a leftist as Alan Dershowitz would get some credit from his compatriots. But ideology knows no friends, only co-conspirators.

From the end of the Tzars with the 10-day revolution, to the internationalizing of fascist Nazism and communism, there has been a concerted effort to always--mostly with great myopia and prejudicial blindness--romanticize the plight of any class of any people (minority) that are perceived to be without a lifeline, living in any region of the world. Unfortunately, for the most part, the romanticism only applies to the Palestinians in Israel and the working proletariat that are exploited by the capitalist "other." Those in the West Bank and Gaza are no exception, but epitomize this concept in our modern world.

Mr. Dershowitz not only has researched, but has used liberal journalists and historians as his sources. The New York Times has been a large contributor to his text, as well as The Washington Post. Benny Morris, an erstwhile vehement critic of the state of Israel, is quoted and sourced many times. Prince Bindar of Saudia Arabia said to Arafat after the PA terror master rejected a state alongside Israel, "You have doomed the Palestinians." I don't see any Heritage Foudation, Brookings Institute, The Washington Times, The New York Pist or other varied "right-wing" nouns being used in his book, only scantly.

Another myth is the ol' "inappropriate use of force" canard. I would like any person with a modicum of history-sense to tell me when nations who won overwhelming victories against aggressive nations surrounding them on all sides (The War of Independence, The Six Day War, The Yom Kipper War) sued for peace and held on olive branch, at a post-war U.N. summit, out to those who lost, pleading them to recognize their right to exist peacefully among them.

The Palestinians have been on the losing side of WWI, WWII (when al-Husseni collaborated with Hitler himself), The Six Day War, The Yom Kipper War, and the subsequent Intifadas launched after being offered statehood and division of Jerusalem. They have rejected statehood itself 3 times with the Partition Plan, The Peel Commission, and the Camp David/Taba negotiations. When Arafat denied the offer of statehood, he prounounced no counter-offer or any negotiative variable aside from 97 percent of the West Bank, Gaza, and billions in reparations for refugees caused largely by Jordan's belligerency.

The death count may be high, but there's accounting in the book (as well as a myriad of others) of different elements that have contributed to these deaths. One is a lack of efficient hospitals, even though the U.S. and the U.N. have given billions in aid to create more open markets and intstitutions critical to the basic survival of any group of people. Another is the suicide bombers that either succeeded in their missions or failed upon detonation. Many Palestinians denied the offer to be cared in Israeli hopistals, where medical care is almost second-to-none in the Western world. There are targeted uprootings of terrorists in residential housing that create the moral dilemma of either going after the terror leaders or not, and thereby waiting for more terror attacks upon civilian centers.

So it is that the UN overlooks real genocide in Africa and gross human rights violations (at least referring to internationally-recognized basic rights) in the greater Middle East, whose implentation of Sharia law (to varying degrees) negates women basic rights, Jews any rights possible from Israel, and religious and secular intolerance. It is overlooked because Israel has all these rights implemented--the protection of Arabic mosques, 1-plus million Arabs (relatives of those who engaged war against their host, or are decendants of them)residing in Israel, religious diversity, and intellectual diversity. Some of the harshest critics come from the Leftist circles in Israeli academia and journalists. But the only thing we can focus on is that Arabic citizens can only vote in municipal elections. But there are legal loopholes that can cut around this, and even recently an Arab was Acting Prime Minister for a week, and there are anti-Israeli Knesset members in that parliament who speak and vote against any military action or security.

If the war in Lebanon of 2006 were to be included, it would expose the deception of the Western and Arabic press (Reuters, Al Jezeera) and make a good contribution to the whole subject matter. If this book is denounced, then it is sad, but not an enormous loss. Just look at Joan Peters' exhaustingly-researched From Time Immemorial, or Myths and Facts, by Mitchell Bard, Phd, which is also very well researched. I would highly recommend all of them.

This book is a great primer for getting interested in the subject, and goes to show that there can be fairness from the left side of Harvard. The author has critizized Israel for many things, but has always reasserted what we all in the Western world should not have a problem doing (unless you're an unrepentant romantic) : Declaring the sovereign right of a democracy to survive who had to earn what they had, and fight hard for it almost every year of their now 59-year inception. It's just too bad so many of us don't have Prince Bindar's clear-eyed insight that the Arab world (largely Jordan and Syria) holds most of the blame for the plight of the Palestinians. But with the recent events in Gaza as of late, it goes to show that the inculcation of suicidal and hating education in the PA, and the refusal to consider anything other than tribal-warfare and Islamic-suppressional imperatives (backed and led, of course, by Iran and Syria)to their people.

And, hey, to all anti-Israelites out there: I thought you were for minorities?? What would the creation of a Palestinian State be other than the 23rd Arabic totalitarian theocracy bend on reversing this last century's progress towards freedom and human rights? Hmmmm....22 total Arabic states, and 1 (mainly, not totally) diverse, democratic Jewish state in the Middle East. I see an "inproportionate" number here--Pretty unfair!

This book is an attempt to show that Israel's human rights record is exemplary. But the rest of the world (except of course America) knows this not to be true. This book is poorly researched and poorly presented. I mean its ridiculous. its as if the author knows nothing about what he's talking about. He claims that israel's actions are proportional to the terrorist attacks, but since last time i checked the Btselem (an ISRAELI human rights group) since the start of the intifida there is a difference of about 2500 deaths between the palestinians and the israelis. These are innocent deaths not the deaths of Palestinian terrorists or israeli soldiers. I'm not an antisemite (in fact im jewish) but its clear to me that this book is merely propoganda to cover up what happens in the middle east. For a good response read Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History Forget what Dershowitz says about Finkelstein, Finkelstein is an excellent scholar and does a much better job at documenting the Israeli Human rights record. Alan Dershowitz is an excellent lawyer, but he is apparently isn't a very good scholar. One would expect better.

This book is an attempt to show that Israel's human rights record is exemplary. But the rest of the world (except of course America) knows this not to be true. This book is poorly researched and poorly presented. I mean its ridiculous. its as if the author knows nothing about what he's talking about. He claims that israel's actions are proportional to the terrorist attacks, but since last time i checked the Btselem (an ISRAELI human rights group) since the start of the intifida there is a difference of about 2500 deaths between the palestinians and the israelis. These are innocent deaths not the deaths of Palestinian terrorists or israeli soldiers. I'm not an antisemite (in fact im jewish) but its clear to me that this book is merely propoganda to cover up what happens in the middle east. For a good response read Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History Forget what Dershowitz says about Finkelstein, Finkelstein is an excellent scholar and does a much better job at documenting the Israeli Human rights record. Alan Dershowitz is an excellent lawyer, but he is apparently either a very bad scholar or a liar.

This work was highly regarded when it was published. Unfortunately, since then, many scholars such as Norman Finkelstein have pointed out the glaring factual inaccuracies and ommissions.
Dershowvitz is an apologist for human rights abuses. He has let his staunch zionism interfere with his ability to conduct accurate scholarship.

Instead of sticking to citing mainstream organizations and groups, Dershowitz fails to cite proper authorities. Norman Finkelstein and others have caught this man time again publishing absolute tripe. There is no need to be an apologist for Palestinian terrorism to reject the blatant copying of Joan Peter's hoax. Say no to academic forgery and fakers.

Alan Dershowitz's The Case For Israel is just the book I've been looking for! As a young democrat and Jewish American, I constantly find myself on the defense- at the nail salon, at parties, with dinner guests, in class- tiresomely justifying the actions of Israel and my support for them. I am not the least bit shocked, but saddened by the response I receive even from my peers at school when expressing such beliefs. Venting about my concern for Israel quickly turns into an exchange of personal and political attacks leaving me feeling helpless and very frustrated.

I live in Los Angeles- one of the most "we're-liberal-for-the-sake-of-being-trendy" cities in the country, and I've gotten a lot of flack for expressing my support for what is apparently a "Republican platform." But I know support for Israel has nothing to do with being a republican or a democrat, a Jew or a gentile, or even a Bush lover or Bush basher. Support for Israel is at the least about being an American and standing up for one of the few countries in the world whose moral and political foundation parallels ours.

Dershowitz's book is not only a beacon of hope and incredible tool for Zionists such as myself, but a fantastic resource for all cynics of Israel's past and future role in the Middle East, employing hard core facts, quotes, and thorough analysis to make his case.

Best of all, The Case For Israel is written in 32 distinct chapters regarding Israel, each clearly identifying a question, an accusation, an accuser(s), "the reality," and the proof- and it is this format that makes Dershowitz's case most accessible to every reader. The Case For Israel has allowed me to better articulate my thoughts and feelings and my own case for Israel. Truly a must read for anyone remotely concerned with world affairs.

Since I am scientific-minded in my approach to learning, I tend to question everthing, I am skeptical, and I want proof, sources, and documentation. This book gave me that in a straight-forward, no-nonsense format.

Dershowitz uses neutral (which I appreciate), historical, first-hand accounts. Since I wasn't there in early 20th-century Palestine, I will consider very carfeully the words of those who were.

If you like this book, delve further into some very interesting historical archives in Joan Peters' book From Time Immemorial. This is a more in-depth look at the history, focusing less on the present and more of the actual ROOTS of the conflict. It's worth noting that Joan Peters had no agenda when she set out to write her book. Actually, I take that back...she was actually working for The Carter Foundation and sympathized with the Palestinians, and set out to write a book that would legitimate their claim to the land. It was only when she started doing the research and digging through archives and first-hand accounts from British officers when they occupied Palestine that Ms. Peters realized she had stumbled upon something far more surprising...the real history of Palestine.

I strongly recommend both books to anyone serious in their research of the conflict in the Middle East.

For anybody who wants to understand today's Arab-Israeli conflict, they must read Dershowitz's book. It is factual, simple and brilliant.

Dershowitz copies wholesale and verbatim from the universally discredited hoax by Joan Peters (product link intentionally omitted). Prof. Norman G. Finkelstein has taken this book apart in Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History.

Dershowitz et al. have mounted any number of ad hominem attacks on Prof. Finkelstein (trotting out the by now usual phrases "self-hating Jew", "Holocaust Minimizer" etc. etc.) but nothing that attacks the substance of Prof. Finkelstein's analysis.

Dershowitz nowhere cites Peters while borrowing wholesale from her hoax. Instead as Finkelstein points out, he cites and mis-cites exactly as Peters does the supposed original sources, right down to misplaced ellipses. Dershowitz claims that thats all right, because he consulted the "original sources", and while this is contrary to accepted norms of scholarly writing, manages to misquote and misconstrue the Chicago Manual of Style to try to support his view.

Dershowitz's claim to have consulted the original sources appears false. In one egregious instance pointed out by Finkelstein, Dershowitz copies verbatim a mis-quote from Peters that runs together two separate paragraphs of Mark Twain's Innocents Abroad: in the original the two paragraphs are separated by 80+pages.

Dershowitz isn't even clear on his primary source, the Peters hoax. He mis-attributes Peters clunky neologism "turnspeak" to Orwell! Called on this, he later mis-attributed it to Aldous Huxley. One shouldn't make any assumptions about the erudition of Harvard Law professors, it seems.

For why this hoax continues to be in print. To acknowledge Dershowitz's book as a hoax would have the serious political consequence of also undermining Israeli/Zionist mythology (perpetrated in print in America by, for example, Leon Uris, Peters, and now Dershowitz).

For much more detailed analysis of this hoax and why hoaxes such as this are allowed to be published, with encomiums on the book jacket even, see The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering, New Edition.

For an accurate, albeit less flattering view of Israel and its policies and human-rights record in the Occupied Territories, see Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, New and Revised Edition.

(Comments: keep them to yourself! Or write your own review. This is MY review. Abusive comments will be reported.)

Dershowitz copies wholesale and verbatim from the universally discredited hoax by Joan Peters (product link intentionally omitted). Prof. Norman G. Finkelstein has taken this book apart in Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History.

Dershowitz et al. have mounted any number of ad hominem attacks on Prof. Finkelstein (trotting out the by now usual phrases "self-hating Jew", "Holocaust Minimizer" etc. etc.) but nothing that attacks the substance of Prof. Finkelstein's analysis.

Dershowitz nowhere cites Peters while borrowing wholesale from her hoax. Instead as Finkelstein points out, he cites and mis-cites exactly as Peters does the supposed original sources, right down to misplaced ellipses. Dershowitz claims that thats all right, because he consulted the "original sources", and while this is contrary to accepted norms of scholarly writing, manages to misquote and misconstrue the Chicago Manual of Style to try to support his view.

Dershowitz's claim to have consulted the original sources appears false. In one egregious instance pointed out by Finkelstein, Dershowitz copies verbatim a mis-quote from Peters that runs together two separate paragraphs of Mark Twain's Innocents Abroad: in the original the two paragraphs are separated by 80+pages.

Dershowitz isn't even clear on his primary source, the Peters hoax. He mis-attributes Peters clunky neologism "turnspeak" to Orwell!

For the many reasons why hoaxes such as these are allowed to be published, with encomiums on the book jacket, see The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering, New Edition. For an accurate, albeit less flattering view of Israel and its policies and human-rights record in the Occupied Territories, see Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, New and Revised Edition.

(Comments: keep them to yourself! Or write your own review. This is MY review. Abusive comments will be reported.)

Dershowitz copies wholesale and verbatim from the universally discredited hoax by Joan Peters (product link intentionally omitted). Prof. Norman G. Finkelstein has taken this book apart in Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History.

Dershowitz et al. have mounted any number of ad hominem attacks on Prof. Finkelstein (trotting out the by now usual phrases "self-hating Jew", "Holocaust Minimizer" etc. etc.) but nothing that attacks the substance of Prof. Finkelstein's analysis.

Dershowitz nowhere cites Peters while borrowing wholesale from her hoax. Instead as Finkelstein points out, he cites and mis-cites exactly as Peters does the supposed original sources, right down to misplaced ellipses. Dershowitz claims that thats all right, because he consulted the "original sources", and while this is contrary to accepted norms of scholarly writing, manages to misquote and misconstrue the Chicago Manual of Style to try to support his view.

Dershowitz's claim to have consulted the original sources appears false. In one egregious instance pointed out by Finkelstein, Dershowitz copies verbatim a mis-quote from Peters that runs together two separate paragraphs of Mark Twain's Innocents Abroad: in the original the two paragraphs are separated by 80+pages.

Dershowitz isn't even clear on his primary source, the Peters hoax. He mis-attributes Peters clunky neologism "turnspeak" to Orwell!

For the many reasons why hoaxes such as these are allowed to be published, with encomiums on the book jacket, see The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering, New Edition. For an accurate, albeit less flattering view of Israel and its policies and human-rights record in the Occupied Territories, see Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, New and Revised Edition.

(Comments: keep them to yourself! Or write your own review. This is MY review. Abusive comments will be reported.)

is still [...]. As is propaganda.

Dershowitz copies wholesale and verbatim from the universally discredited hoax by Joan Peters (product link intentionally omitted). Prof. Norman G. Finkelstein has taken this book apart in Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History. Dershowitz et al. have mounted any number of ad hominem attacks on Prof. Finkelstein (trotting out the by now usual phrases "self-hating Jew", "Holocaust Minimizer" etc. etc.) but nothing that attacks the substance of Prof. Finkelstein's analysis. Dershowitz nowhere cites Peters while borrowing wholesale from her hoax. Instead as Finkelstein points out, he cites and mis-cites exactly as Peters does the supposed original sources, right down to misplaced ellipses. Dershowitz claims that thats all right, because he consulted the "original sources". This is given the lie by his own book. In one egregious instance pointed out by Finkelstein, Dershowitz copies verbatim a mis-quote from Peters that makes two separate paragraphs of Mark Twain's Innocents Abroad contiguous: in the original the two paragraphs are separated by 80+pages.

(Comments: keep them to yourself! Or write your own. This is MY review. Abusive comments will be reported.)

Dershowitz's writing is refreshingly clear, concise and like a logical scalpel. He is not an uncritical supporter, and I can't agree with some of his foundational assumptions, but his book is heartily recommended.

He cites verbatim the allegations of his opponents - on Israel's 'racism', its 'unlawful' attitude to Palestinians, its 'persistent occupation of conquered territory' - then addresses them with references, dates, places and names.

Bristling with facts often not encountered before - the intimate affinity between WW2 Palestinian chief Mufti Hajj Al Amin and the Nazi high command, the massive differences between UNHCR and UNRWA, the fate of the 100,000s of Jewish refugees from Arab countries - it's a pacy, sharp and definitive response to the tidal wave of anti-Zionism which is rapidly mutating into another species of anti-Semitism.

If only those who opposed Israel showed a quarter of the respect for Dershowitz does for detail and documenatation, their case would be stronger (although I suspect they would have to abandon too many cherished prejudices to do it).

I bought this book hoping to better understand the origins of the persistent mideast conflict. It provided that and more in an easy to read and understand format.

Although that book was criticized in a hard way by some other authors caused by conflict with inte