Dershowitz and peace

BAILA LAZARUS

When I was the editor of the Bulletin, I used to often get cornered at community events or drawn into conversations on the phone by people who knew how to "solve" the Middle East conflict. It is amazing how many readers believe that if only the newspaper would print "the facts of the matter," anti-Israel advocates would see the light, shake their heads at their own obtuseness and pick up the phone to make a reservation for the next fund-raising event for Israel.

So it was with great anticipation that I picked up Alan Dershowitz's latest book, The Case for Peace: How the Arab-Israeli Conflict Can be Resolved (Wiley, $29.99). As one of the foremost scholars on Middle East affairs, I expected the prolific writer and Harvard law professor to have insights not yet seen or heard in the media; insights more profound than, "here are the facts."

Succinctly and immediately, Dershowitz sets up his view of the path to a resolution of the conflict: a two-state solution, with Israel withdrawing from all of Gaza and almost all of the West Bank; a symbolic recognition of the right of return; the division of Jerusalem; renunciation of all forms of violence; and an end to singling out Israel for "demonization and deligitimization."

Dershowitz admits that the solution is "obvious to all reasonable people." And therein lies the rub. While it is possible to take some steps toward peace by changing the political geography of the region, getting anti-Semites and anti-Israel advocates to change their attitudes is another matter entirely. Take, for example, Dershowitz's discussion about disarmament and whether or not it is a barrier to peace. Dershowitz states that, "A major reason why some cannot accept Israel is their unwillingness to accept normalcy for Jews.... Unless and until the entire world comes to accept normalcy for the Jewish state ... Israel cannot be expected to lower its guard."

But how does one get "the entire world" to do anything? Even if Dershowitz can prove (which he does) that normalcy for Israel will benefit the rest of the world, it's a moot point. Human beings, we know, allow impressions and judgments to color any logical arguments that can be made for the case for peace. Anti-Semitism, racism, homophobia, etc., are born of fear, not logic. They can only be changed if generation upon generation is brought up in an open-minded, unbiased learning environment where they are taught respect for all cultures – something that is not going to take place any time soon in "the entire world."

Dershowitz himself admits that as long as Israel's detractors are more comfortable seeing Jews as victims, rather than a self-determined society with the right to defend itself, they will always see Israel's defence policies as being somehow illegitimate. But Dershowitz makes no move to suggest how that view of Jews can be changed.

Another problem in Dershowitz's writing seems to be his belief that simply asserting something means it will be accepted as fact. Take, for example, Dershowitz's discussion of those who compare Israel's actions against Palestinians to the Nazis' targeting of Jews during the Holocaust.

"Israel's goal is to protect its civilians from Palestinian terrorism, whereas the Nazi goal was to genocidally murder every Jewish baby child, woman and man so as to eliminate the Jewish race. The analogy is obscene...."

Unfortunately, many people do believe that Israel's goal is to destroy the Palestinians and no matter how many times Dershowitz (or Israel or Bulletin readers) says otherwise, people are going to believe what they want to believe. And with as much rhetoric as there is coming out of Israel, where Palestinians are referred to as "rats" and "animals" that should be destroyed, there's enough ammunition on the anti-Israel side of the argument to gain support for that belief.

While Dershowitz does a fair job of addressing all those elements he thinks can be a barrier to peace, his forte lies only in the realm of the geopolitical - signing of cease-fire agreements, releasing prisoners, ceasing house demolitions, withdrawing from the Gaza Strip, for example. But when it comes to addressing the intangible and inscrutable nature of anti-Semitism, he has no answer. He even acknowledges that steps to address this world-wide problem, through education and the reduction of hate-speech have failed. His solution? "A different tact might be tried: zero tolerance for anti-Semitism and its various permutations."

That's it? "Zero tolerance"? And with all the anti-Semitic (disguised as anti-Israel) rhetoric coming out of every corner of the globe, including the United Nations, European scholars and religious leaders, who does he think is going to uphold this "zero tolerance"?

"If you, the readers, want to help promote peace ... refuse to become complicit in this bigotry," Dershowitz suggests. I doubt that this directive will have much of an effect. No matter how you slice up Jerusalem or how many states you create, anti-Semitic and anti-Israel sentiment will continue to prosper. This, in the end, is the true barrier to peace.

Baila Lazarus is a freelance writer, photographer and illustrator living in Vancouver.

^TOP