An Interview with Alan
| Q. |
As many are aware, this book comes from years of research and a subject close to your heart. What made you write The Case for Israel? Was there a specific event or issue that made you decide that now is the time?
|
|
| A. |
I have been defending Israel's right to exist, and to defend itself against terrorism, for many years - on college campuses, in television appearances and in debates. I decided to write this book after witnessing the recent spate of unthinking attacks on Israel on so many college campuses around the United States and throughout the world. I was especially upset at the way so many academics responded to the recent suicide bombs that killed more than 800 Israelis, mostly civilians. These bombings were a carefully calculated attempt by Palestinian extremists to shift the blame away from Yasser Arafat for walking away from the generous peace offer made by former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and former American President Bill Clinton at Camp David and Taba in 2001.
|
|
| Q. |
In The Case for Israel you note that there are certain facts everyone must agree to as starting points to argue "the case for Israel." I'm sure there are many people out there who take these "factual' starting points as false. What do you tell them?
| |
| A. |
Facts are facts and they cannot be reasonably disputed. Part of the reason I wrote this book is to set the record straight. For example, it simply cannot be disputed that for decades the Palestinian leadership was more interested in there not being a Jewish state than in there being a Palestinian state. In 1917, 1937, and 1948, and between 1948-1967, the Palestinians could have had a state, if they were prepared to recognize Israel's right to exist. Most recently in 2000 and 2001 they could have had a state if they were prepared to stop the violence. Even Professor Edward Said, the prominent spokesman for the Palestinian cause in America, has acknowledged that "the whole of Palestinian nationalism was based on driving all Israelis out of the Middle East." This is a simple fact not subject to reasonable dispute.
|
|
| Q. |
You are not just a cheerleader for Israel, you offer a fair look at the facts and are even critical of certain Israeli policies and past actions. Can you please explain?
|
|
| A. |
Not only I am not a cheerleader for Israel, I am extremely critical of certain Israeli policies, as I am of certain American, British, and French policies. As a strong supporter of the right to criticize, I encourage reasonable comparative and contextual criticism of all countries.
|
Q. |
You stress that being critical of Israel is not being anti-Semitic but that there is a fine line from "fair to foul, from acceptable to anti-Semitic." What is that line?
|
| A. |
What I strongly oppose is the singling out of Israel for unique criticism not leveled at other countries with far worse records. This double standard is bad for peace, for the rule of law, and for universal concepts of human rights. The line between acceptable criticism and anti-Semitism is when the Jewish state is subject to unique criticisms not directed to other nations whose records are far worse in every respect.
|
|
| Q. |
You teach at one of the country's most prestigious universities, if not the most prestigious university. The Israeli-Palestinian debate often arises and rallies are staged to encourage divestment from Israel and the boycott of Israeli scholars. Can you address why this is so prevalent on college campuses? Do you think opinions outside of academia differ?
|
|
| A. |
It's important to recall that the campaign for divestment and boycott of Israel had failed on every single college campus in the United States. The voices seeking such unfair remedies are shrill and unrepresentative of opinions in the academy. Very few students or professors for example support the bigoted agenda of solidarity organizations which opposes "the existence of the apartheid colonial settlers state of Israel" and supports "the total liberation of all of the historical Palestine" which includes Israel before it existed before 1967. But these shrill voices are among the loudest on campuses.
|
|
| Q. |
In The Case for Israel you provide facts in an attempt to put the two sides on an equal playing field before real advances can be made toward peace. Do you think the ?accusers' in your book already feel that they are on equal ground?
|
|
| A. |
Israel's rabid opponents know that they cannot prevail if the true facts are known. That is why they are afraid of my book. They prefer to present false information to college students. I think that is an insult to the intelligence of students especially since the facts are so easily available to those who care to learn them.
|
|
| Q. |
Your preferred solution to the crisis in the Middle East, and the premise on which The Case for Israel is based, is a two-state solution. If the desired accepted starting point is reached, what do you think the next step to reaching this solution is?
|
|
| A. |
The only realistic resolution of the Arab-Israeli dispute is the two-state solution, long advocated by most Israelis: a predominantly Jewish state in what is now Israel; and a predominantly Muslim state on the West Bank and Gaza. The Palestinians could have had their state many times over if they had been willing to accept the Jewish state. The first and most important step therefore is for the Palestinian leadership to do what even Mahmoud Abbas has been unwilling to do, to declare in Arabic that Israel has the right to exist as a Jewish state.
|
|
| Q. |
Is the U.S. role in the conflict between Palestine and Israel strong enough? Ideally, what would you like to see the U.S. do to help bring peace in the Middle East?
|
|
| A. |
Israel and the Palestinians must resolve their own differences. The United States can play an important role as facilitator and guarantor.
|
Q. |
I don't want to get too deep into specifics, but one accusation you address is the fact that more Palestinians than Israelis have been killed during the recent rise of terrorism (September 2000 to present). How can you defend Israel when that is what the statistics show?
|
| A. |
Many more innocent Israeli civilians have been killed during the recent spate of suicide bombings than innocent Palestinians civilians. Even more important, the Israeli civilians who have been killed have been largely women and children who were specifically targeted by Palestinian terrorists. The Palestinian civilians who were killed were not targeted by Israelis, but were killed during legitimate Israeli self-defense actions against Palestinian terrorists. In my book I have detailed the evidence supporting this reality.
|
To schedule an interview with Alan Dershowitz please contact Ellen Silberman at 201-748-6249 or esilberm@wiley.com
