The case for Israel |

The case for Israel

Attorney Alan Dershowitz’ defense against the “willful” distortions of the historical record being made on university campuses, in the media, and throughout the world against “The Case for Israel” is an excellent resource for those wishing to get at the truth of the Arab-Palestinian-Israeli conflict. It also provides valuable insight into the greater Islamist threat to our own nation.Dershowitz clearly establishes the existence of a Jewish community in Palestine as a matter of right. He asserts that there has always been a Jewish presence in Israel, particularly in the holy cities, especially Jerusalem where there has been a majority for centuries. Their European cousins who joined them at the end of the 19th century, during the First Aliyah, had an absolute right to seek refuge in the land of their ancestors. As they immigrated, they did not displace local residents by conquest or fear, but lawfully and openly bought land – much of it thought to be nonarable – from absentee landlords.Through their own hard work and perseverance, they built a flourishing multiethnic democracy that has provided its citizens with far better lives, as measured by any accepted criteria, than their more resource-rich neighbors.Israel gave back the only oil fields it ever had to make peace with Egypt.The product of freedom and a dedication to the rule of law, Israel “… stands out,” according to Professor Amnon Rubenstein, “as a singular democratic, first-world island in a sea of Arab and Moslem poverty and backwardness” – and tyranny I would add. A 2000 poll of Arab-Israeli residents of Umm el-Fahm revealed that 83 percent were opposed to including their city in a Palestinian state. The majority stated that they enjoyed a good quality of life and wanted to remain under democratic rule.Could this be the real reason that from the very beginning, the Arab strategy has been not only to eliminate any Jewish state but also any significant population of Jews from the entire region?Their tactics have included the complete revision of the history of Jewish immigration and Arab demographics of the region; deliberately targeting the Jewish civilian population; support for Hitler and Nazi genocide; and the exacerbation and exploitation of the Palestinian refugee crisis.Palestinian leaders have rejected a two-state solution in 1917, 1937, 1948 and again in 2000 when Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak “shocked the world” by offering the Palestinians virtually everything they had been demanding. Arafat walked away from the Camp David-Taba peace negotiations without even making a counterproposal and instructed the P.A. to immediately prepare for the current intifada as “a complementary stage.”The Palestinian people have certainly suffered, albeit mostly at the hands of their own corrupt leadership and that of the other Arab nations. The right of self-determination by Israelis as well as Palestinians is the only reasonable path to peace. When you consider the fate of Anwar Sadat is it conceivable that any courageous Arab leader who would publicly compromise with the Jews could survive the response of rejectionist organizations such as Hamas, Hezbullah and Islamic Jihad?

Support Local Journalism

Support Local Journalism

As a Summit Daily News reader, you make our work possible.

Now more than ever, your financial support is critical to help us keep our communities informed about the evolving coronavirus pandemic and the impact it is having on our residents and businesses. Every contribution, no matter the size, will make a difference.

Your donation will be used exclusively to support quality, local journalism.


Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.

User Legend: iconModerator iconTrusted User