Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
Dennis Prager :: Townhall.com Columnist
A Question for My Friend Alan Dershowitz
by Dennis Prager
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



Harvard Law Professor Alan M. Dershowitz is that rare individual who is both a highly respected academic and well known to the general population.

But in another regard he is even rarer. He regards himself as a man of the left, yet on one of the defining moral issues of our time, attitudes toward Israel, he has nothing in common with the left. He is not only one of Israel’s staunchest supporters, he spends much of his time defending Israel. He has written innumerable articles and four books defending Israel: “The Case against Israel's Enemies: Exposing Jimmy Carter and Others Who Stand in the Way of Peace,” “The Case for Peace: How the Arab-Israeli Conflict Can Be Resolved,” “The Case for Israel,” and “What Israel Means to Me: By 80 Prominent Writers, Performers, Scholars, Politicians, and Journalists.”

This past week, Dershowitz wrote two eloquent columns defending Israel’s attack on Hamas in Gaza. One was titled “Israel, Hamas, and Moral Idiocy,” published in the Christian Science Monitor and the other, “Israel's Policy Is Perfectly ‘Proportionate,’” was published in the Wall Street Journal.

In his Monitor column, Dershowitz describes “three types of international response to the Israeli military actions against the Hamas rockets” -- “Iran, Hamas, and other knee-jerk Israeli-bashers,” “the United Nations, the European Union, Russia, and others who, at least when it comes to Israel, see a moral and legal equivalence between terrorists who target civilians and a democracy that responds by targeting the terrorists,” and “the United States and a few other nations that place the blame squarely on Hamas.”

It is relevant to the question I will pose that he omits any mention of the world’s left, even when mentioning the European Union. Who exactly in the European Union is condemning Israel? Its conservatives? Who in America is condemning Israel? Conservatives? Who in Australia or Canada? Conservatives? Of course not. As regards Israel (and America and much else), the Western world’s moral idiots, to use the term in the title of the Dershowitz column, are virtually all on the left, including and especially many of his colleagues in academia.

So, I have a question for my friend Dershowitz. (I say ‘friend’ because we’ve known each other for years and debated and dialogued together.)

Given that Israel’s security is so important to you, given that you believe that the ability to morally distinguish between Israel and its enemies is tantamount to the ability to distinguish between good and evil, and given that those who condemn Israel for its “disproportionate” response to Hamas terror-rockets are almost all on the left in America and Europe, why do you continue to identify yourself as a man of the left?

Everyone who thinks sometimes differs with one’s ideological compatriots. But when one’s ideological compatriots are morally wrong on the greatest moral issue of the moment and perhaps the very clearest as well, don’t you at least suffer from cognitive dissonance?

It seems that to avoid this cognitive dissonance, Dershowitz engages in some intellectual denial. Just as he avoids any mention of the left in his column on the world’s moral idiots at the present moment, he does criticize the right for having its anti-Israel moral fools. In his book “The Case against Israel's Enemies,” he has a chapter on the far left and a chapter on the far right, as if there is any equivalence of impact. And as if the existence of anti-Israel voices on that insignificant “far right” somehow balances the staggering number of anti-Israel voices on the huge left, whether far or not so far.

Dershowitz himself repeatedly acknowledges how inverted moral thinking reigns on American campuses.

To cite just two examples: In 2005 Dershowitz wrote, “It’s no coincidence that so many of the professors leading the campaign against Harvard President Lawrence Summers for his recent comments about women in science also were in the vanguard of the campaign to divest from Israel and boycott Israeli academics.” And in 2007: “The only people who tremble on campuses are students at Columbia and Berkeley who are worried that they'll be graded down for being pro-Israel.”

Now which part of the American political spectrum dominates the universities, the left or the right? The former, of course. But Dershowitz won't put two and two together, at least publicly, and conclude that there is something fundamentally and morally flawed about the left and its values.

Dershowitz undoubtedly reads the New York Times and Boston Globe editorials as well as those of the Wall Street Journal. So he knows that only the conservative editorials of the Wall Street Journal routinely defend Israel.

He knows that with few exceptions, there are no pro-Israel left-wing journals as there are right-wing pro-Israel journals, such as the Wall Street Journal, the Weekly Standard, and National Review.

He knows that Israel is routinely bashed on left-wing talk radio (including, though more subtly, on NPR) and that Israel is constantly defended on right-wing talk radio.

He knows that on the Internet, the most virulent attacks on Israel are on the left, while the most pro-Israel websites are nearly all conservative and right wing, from Townhall.com to LittleGreenFootballs to NationalReviewOnline.

But none of this matters. Dershowitz still morally equates left and right and considers himself a man of the left.

Why?

I welcome Dershowitz’s response. Here is mine.

One reason, I believe, is that to acknowledge the moral failure of the left, especially the secular left, on most of the great moral issues of the post-World War II era -- the Cold War, the Middle East, confronting (or even acknowledging the existence of) the Islamist threat -- is very difficult for a person on the left, even one as analytical as Dershowitz. Secular leftism is analogous to Arthur Koestler’s “god that failed.” And few people want to confront the fact that the ideal, the god they bet their lives on, is a false god.

Second, to acknowledge the broken moral compass that guides the left is to implicitly endorse the right, especially the religious right. But that is very difficult for anyone on the left to do because the essence of the secular left is a rejection of the Christian right. That it is conservatives, especially religious conservatives, who are the most stalwart supporters of Israel, must greatly disturb Dershowitz.

And, it is precisely among those who most reject Judeo-Christian values that anti-Israel moral idiocy prevails. How does Dershowitz explain that? That’s my question.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Dennis Prager is a radio show host, contributing columnist for Townhall.com, and author of 4 books including Happiness Is a Serious Problem: A Human Nature Repair Manual.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Dennis Prager's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Please!
Dershowitz is a political cross dresser. His stubble and adams apple regularly show. He is giving the left a bad name, please take him from us... please.

Is Dershowitz up to the Challenge?
Dennis Prager poses a question that would cut to the core of Alan Dershowitz, if he were strong enough to confront it. If the Israeli conflict defines morality, then what does that say about the kind of people that Dershowitz feels the strongest bonds of kinship with?

This is a question that would turn Alan Dershowitz's world upside down if he would only open up his eyes to the implications of such a large percentage of of his colleagues failing on the fundamental question of good and evil of this age.

Prager:
The difference between Dershowitz and most of the rest of the world (including probably a
majority of Jews, certainly a large portion of
them) is that Dershowitz believes that Israel
takeover of the land was honorable, while most
of us do not. It skips 1000 years of history.

As long as Israel officially ignores this 1000
years of history, it will never have peace,
or deserve it.

right vs. left?
Why does everything have to be right vs. left? The world is NOT ideologically black and white. It takes a little bit of intelligence to understand the nuances on either side of an issue, and Dennis Prager obviously does not have it. Why don't you talk about something with some substance and some relevance?

Mr. Flaming
To quote myself: "Ok, Mr. Flaming. I'm done playing with you." I cannot spend all of my time engaging ideologues unless someone starts paying me to do so. So, let's just let your latest 3 rants stand uncorrected. As far as I'm concerned, you can keep the last word, since that seems important to you, and I do not believe that you can be made to understand what I am saying within an amount of time that I am unwilling to spend. Have a good life.

Dr.Alan ,Israel & liberals
is hard for Liberal to be consistent thinkers because their morality is based on feelings & not truth

Israel & Liberals
Bravo

1.b (Original too long?)

Pheebor:
"Given that the Ottoman Empire ceased existence as of WWI, there is no way
to verify those 'deeds', and anyone can simply create one from whole cloth.
"

This kind of lawyerly hypocrisy reinforces all the worst stereotypes
about Israel and Jews in general. These are the same deeds pointed to by
those who claim that all of Israel was purchased, bit by bit, from the
original inhabitants. (I never understood how that group gets along with the
other one that says the land was uninhabited.)

1.a again (original too long?)
Pheebor:
"Ok, Mr. Flaming. I'm done playing with you. By all means, go back to your
leftist friends..."

Pheebor:
"Ok, Mr. Flaming. I'm done playing with you. By all means, go back to your
leftist friends..."

It's interesting that you end each of your nasty, insult-filled
messages to me with a command to "go away". Do you fear confronting ideas
that aren't your own or clones thereof?

me:
"..Palestine ..., was 'deeded' to the Palestinian people by the UN..."

Pheebor:
"It was the Arabs who rejected that partition plan (which Israel had
accepted) and responded with an unprovoked attack in 1948."

As I asked earlier (and you ignored); was not this 'unprovoked attack'
in fact precipitated by the success of the Irgun and other Israeli terrorist
groups in driving out the Mandate Authority? Do you really think that the
resulting civil war could have occured otherwise?

No one ever addresses this disconnect. The cynic in me says that the
Israelis must have confident of their ability to seize as much of an 'Eretz
Isael' as they wanted in the bloodbath that was sure to follow the kicking
out of international supervision a decade or so too soon. I'm open to other
explanations, indeed I wish I could imagine a more pro-Israeli one, but
nobody ever even addresses this question.

And frankly, the actions of the surrounding Arab countries are
irrelevant to the rights and fate of the indigenous non-Jews. Would you lump
together for example, all Black People in the United States like you do 'the
Arabs'?


Still Here Pt II
Pheebor:
"Peace Now group...lies have been duly exposed in a court of law, and they have been ordered to pay damages"

The Peace now group has no doubt published many articles and claims uncomfortable to Israel. By the percentages in the Israpundit article, they seem to be referring to a different one than that reported two years earlier in the NY Times.

You seem to have no problem believing that every single land deed that might otherwise wake up your conscience is made from "whole cloth". You'll pardon me if I doubt that Peace Now is a fraud.

Jews have no better allies . . .
. . . than those on the Right. I am a conservative Christian Republican, and I support Jews and Israel wholeheartedly -- even though I know good and well that most Jews do not vote my way.

Israel today; Israel tomorrow; Israel forever! is a motto by which I live. Indeed, though Christian in faith, I'll always be a Jew in my heart!!!

Postmodernism-pure and simple..
The real issue in my view is based on faulty 1st principles.The fact is the far left sees a scorecard in place with # of lives lost and counts that up and if your side has delivered more deaths then you are the moral bad guy= a new Hitler etc. But if you are a totalitarian on the left and claim less lost lives and better conditions - ie: Chavez, Iranian tyrant or Castro- well then you go uninvestigated, taken at face value and above the fray. It's also about being UNWILLING to die for anything. It's usually (not always) secular and with no belief in Providence or an afterlife. It fits perfectly with evolution, abortion and sexual immorality. It lives for the now, and believes Government should meet most needs and considers long term consequences as something to sweep under the rug. In other words it is purely self centered and self preserving in the temporal sense. Morality to the far left = moralism and religion = repression. For a society to exist and persevere with this set of 1st principles equates to government control and FORCED equality of result which ultimately = less and less true freedom. Postmodernism is the belief that truth is ultimately non existent or at least so subjective to be of little value. Not all leftists adhere to such strict dogma, but the spectrum of such thought has led us to this place where black is white, falsehood is truth and facts are as malleable as a piece of playdo. Welcome to the brave new world!

More Replies to Replies
Or could you be referring to those properties that were left behind by the Arabs in 1948 when the Arabs tried to eradicate the Jews? If you could find one other instance in the history of warfare, in the history of mankind, when a nation defending against aggressors felt bound afterwards to compensate those aggressors for their losses in battle, I would love to hear it. Please. Take your time.

In case your mind cannot comprehend this, compensating aggressive parties is simply not done, because it would create a moral hazard by strongly encouraging future aggression.

"I refer to the separation of a farmer from his fields (which are then considered to be his no longer, since he isn't working them),"
Wrong. They are his unless he sells them by Israeli law.

"and the separation of families via settlements and protected transportation corridors connecting settlements."
This meant that, in some cases, Palestinians had to circle around protected areas to reach the other side. I'm sorry, but if a population is regularly producing terrorists who dream of killing as many civilians as possible; if that population is naming streets after their suicide bombers and setting up jihad summer camps for kids, I tend to not find it quite as urgent that, in the course of defending oneself, these people not be inconvenienced.

Ok, Mr. Flaming. I'm done playing with you. By all means, go back to your leftist friends and complain about how we right wingers are all so pro-Israel. But don't expect us to be very impressed with your brilliance. Try mythsandfacts.com, you might learn something. But in your case, probably not.

Replies to Replies
"Well, the entire Nation of Palestine, including the West Bank & Gaza, was 'deeded' to the Palestinian people by the UN in a manner identical to that which gave Israel to the Israelis. It seems to me that one is as lawful as the other."

It was the Arabs who rejected that partition plan (which Israel had accepted) and responded with an unprovoked attack in 1948. During the course of that, Jordan solidified its borders to include the West Bank, and Egypt to include Gaza. Given this, its difficult to imagine how Israel can be to blame for the Palestinians not having a nation. Yet, to you, this is theft.

"On a less macroscopic level, here's a reference showing that much of the West Bank land stolen via the Israeli settlement process is privately owned and deeded to Palestinain Arabs:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/world/middleeast/21land. html?_r=1&hp&ex=1164171600&en=2e03da87b76e6581&ei=5094? ner=homepage"

You certainly have a lot of chutzpah bringing up the claims of the Peace Now group, which is what the NYT was reporting on. Their lies have been duly exposed in a court of law, and they have been ordered to pay damages: http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=6709

"Palestinian families all over Israel, Gaza, the West Bank and the surrounding refugee camps can show you deeds, often dating back to Ottoman times, to lands in Israel and/or the occupied terrirories. "

Given that the Ottoman Empire ceased existence as of WWI, there is no way to verify those 'deeds', and anyone can simply create one from whole cloth. Someone who presents unverifiable deeds from a century ago, and yet cannot find any from the intervening Mandate period; by what possible legal standard can these deeds be considered binding today? Are you really that stupid?


Of course he's a lib.
...that is a HYPOCRITE. That's what they ARE.

Bits & Pieces of Reply
Pheebor:
"Please produce one case where land that was lawfully deeded to a Palestinian Arab was stolen by Israel."

Well, the entire Nation of Palestine, including the West Bank & Gaza, was 'deeded' to the Palestinian people by the UN in a manner identical to that which gave Israel to the Israelis. It seems to me that one is as lawful as the other.

On a less macroscopic level, here's a reference showing that much of the West Bank land stolen via the Israeli settlement process is privately owned and deeded to Palestinain Arabs:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/21/world/middleeast/21land. html?_r=1&hp&ex=1164171600&en=2e03da87b76e6581&ei=5094&part ner=homepage

Palestinian families all over Israel, Gaza, the West Bank and the surrounding refugee camps can show you deeds, often dating back to Ottoman times, to lands in Israel and/or the occupied terrirories. It's hilarious (if only as a defensive mechanism against appalling levels of hypocrisy) the way the Israel-is-always-right folks dance around the settlement issue.

Pheebor:
"Bulldozing?...Separation? Again, you'll just have to be more specific."

I refer to the separation of a farmer from his fields (which are then considered to be his no longer, since he isn't working them), and the separation of families via settlements and protected transportation corridors connecting settlements.

Cont'd

"No matter how much I've heard it, I never could understand how the continuing theft of land, the bulldozing of houses, the separation of families from each other and from their livelhoods that is continually inflicted on the Palestinians to this day, is of their own doing."

Theft? Please produce one case where land that was lawfully deeded to a Palestinian Arab was stolen by Israel. Or do you mean the whole land? In that case, please name the unit of currency of the previous land of Palestine. Or perhaps you mean the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which were lost to Jordan and Egypt respectively when both engaged in unprovoked and genocidal attacks against Israel during the 6 Day War? Sorry, you'll just have to be more specific.

Bulldozing? Explain how bulldozing in response to weapon caches and smuggling tunnels represents something NOT of the Palestinian's own doing, you twit. Or should Israel simply have allowed these activities?

Separation? Again, you'll just have to be more specific.. are you referring to the separation of imprisoned terrorists from their families, or to the physical separation of Gaza from the West Bank? Or perhaps to the security checkpoints between these regions and Israel proper? Do you have a theory as to why those checkpoints might exist?

Actually, don't bother to answer me - figure it out yourself. I cannot be bothered to continue this discussion until you learn something about the facts and history of the situation.

Flaming again
Ok, Mr. Flaming. Since you strangely bring up JMO51 to prove that cannot satisfy all of those on the 'right', let's quote the fellow:

"It is difficult to admit this as one who is moderate to left leaning politically and yet finds it offensive ...."

Get it? Back to you then.

"We Patriots of the American Left criticize Israel much like we criticize our own country because we see both nations as more enlightened than most, and have higher expectations of them."

Having heard the likes of Chomsky and Zinn, having known many leftists and even dated a few, I'd have to sadly report that if word got out that you considered the US or (especially) Israel to be more 'enlightened' than most, you won't be invited to any more of their functions. Just think about how happy those poor beleaguered Palestinians could be in the Sharia paradise if only Israel did not stand in the way! Kumbiyaa!

"Long ago it occured to me that the 'Right' ... treats America (& Israel) in much the same manner as you accuse us Leftists of treating our children. (... My (child/country) is a perfect angel...')"

And yet, my most recent post to you described an Israeli action as idiotic. I disagree with most Israeli actions these days. But as we have established with respect to JMO51, you are not exceptionally good at picking up on what people are actually -saying-.

Lon again
"Israel can't formally annex the territories because it does not want to annex the people living on them." There is a difference between what one cannot do and what one does not wish to do. Annexing the territory does not necessarily imply granting full citizenship to the denizens of the area.

".. until Gaza was given its independence in the form of a military seige." Simply untrue.

"And it is hard seeing how a more intrusive occupation would have better results." Why? I thought I mentioned what a more 'intrusive' occupation could productively accomplish in a previous post.

"But we should be encouraging a unity Palestinian government that could make it a reward for diplomacy instead of a reward for terrorism. It has been foolish to make Abbas' position an untenable one with his people." I do not follow why we should encourage ANY Palestinian government at this time. Such a government is bound to be hostile to Israel. Abbas is no angel; he is the successor to Arafat. That sort of 'diplomacy', we don't need.

"Palestinians have been willing to sacrifice their children only since they have had a hopeless situation in which to raise them." This is not borne out by the facts, or history. It is a leftist delusion that it is poverty or hopelessness that fuels this war, as opposed to Islamism and triumphalism. If you were correct, you would expect that the more self determination and less restrictions on the Palestinians, the less they would want to resort to violence. The track record not only does not support this, but it tells the opposite story. It is Israeli weakness that invites attack. The Lebanon withdrawal, the Gaza withdrawal, even going back to the Hebron withdrawal; each precipitated more attacks. Why doesn't it sink in that there were far more attacks after Oslo than before? Seriously, do facts have any relevance anymore?

I really need....
I really someone to explain to me why disagreeable responses to this article (and most liberal responses in general to articles they disagree with) never address anything in the article nor expound upon main points.

For example: AynRandLives immediately starts off the commentary with an ad hominem attack followed by a false or phony metaphore. How it relates to the article is beyond comprehension.

Folks, especially disagreeable folks, please be sure to argue your position and why it is better. Otherwise, as most correctly point out, you come off looking foolish and not worthy of any consideration.

AynRandLives of 8:52, Jan 6
Talk about gobbledegook. That "analysis" was hilarious. Obfuscation of message taken to expert length. Reminds my of the circling KiKi bird who flies faster and faster in ever decreasing circles until he flies up his own...

America & Israel As Seen By The World
How many countries hate George W. Bush and America because he and Judeo-Christians and other Americans believe that we need to protect Israel from a takeover by Israel's enemies? In fact, America voted for Obama, yet he's fairly silent on this serious issue. It was disturbing to see immigrants from the Middle East shouting obscenities and becoming violent on American soil against American Jews in Florida. Although, our laws allow for peaceful protests, our country's laws don't allow for violent protests or hate crimes against any American citizens and therefore, it's frightening to think that Obama would appoint Panetta into a position that requires a VERY experienced and qualified leader to head up any Intelligence agency rather than depend on others to guide his appointee while Americans are living in a world of volatility and threatened by terrorists from foreign countries who boldly state that they will dominate our country and force us to accept their political agendas under the guise of religion. Furthermore, public places aren't for religious services, so why are they allowed to hold prayer services on public sidewalks in America while everyone else is arrested, including the American citizens who might sleep on a public sidewalk?

A Question

A Question (or two) For the Israel-Is-Always crowd:

(1) Why did the Jewish terrorists drive the war-weary and bankrupt British Authority from Palestine in 1947? Why did they wage a years-long campaign of insurrection and terror to accomplish this? Did they not anticipate that the surrounding Arab states and the Arab population of Palestine would almost certainly attack and try to exterminate them?

(2) Do you think that Israel would welcome a massive international presence in the West Bank and Gaza, say something in between the sizes of the U.S. presences in Afghanistan and Iraq, in order to ensure the safety and security of Israel during thee construction of a viable, stable, and peaceful Palestinian state?

Reply to Pheebor
Pheebor:
"Actually, Mr. Flaming, we non-Libs generally expect leftists to be in favor of any self-destructive, enemy-favoring action Israel takes."

Not that I see Israel's withdrawal from Gaza as anything but the best step they've taken towards security and stability since 1948, but you seem to be at odds with Mr. JM051.
Sorry, I can't please both of you. (Gee, it sounds like the 'Right' monolithic stance is as fictional as the 'Left' one.

Pheebor:
"What we also expect is furious protestations from leftists that they are not anti-Semites, while continuously condemning Israel, ignoring (except in the most 'window-dressing' or 'morally equivalent' ways) the provocations against her people..."

We Patriots of the American Left criticize Israel much like we criticize our own country because we see both nations as more enlightened than most, and have higher expectations of them.
Long ago it occured to me that the 'Right' (oh dear, I'm starting to sound like Dennis Prager in photographic negative) treats America (& Israel) in much the same manner as you accuse us Leftists of treating our children. (Ex: 'How dare you say that about my (child/country)! My (child/country) is a perfect angel...')


Pheebor:
"..You will never come to grips with the fact that most of the horrible problems afflicting the Arab Palestinian population are self-inflicted."

No matter how much I've heard it, I never could understand how the continuing theft of land, the bulldozing of houses, the separation of families from each other and from their livelhoods that is continually inflicted on the Palestinians to this day, is of their own doing.

....................
Loopy Lon #31,

That quote by Orwell is from his work Notes on Nationalism. The nationalism he's referring to is the type reminiscent of the National Socialist German Workers Party, otherwise known as the nazis. Nothing remotely similar to the American right. Orwell does however sum up his article with a warning towards falling prey to a particular mindset. Unfortunately liberals from academia to the media to the methadone clinics to the gay bathhouses of San Francisco, have embraced this mindset. It's a shame they don't realize they can get help; there are medications for them.

“If you hate and fear Russia, if you are jealous of the wealth and power of America, if you despise Jews, if you have a sentiment of inferiority towards the British ruling class, you cannot get rid of those feelings simply by taking thought. But you can at least recognise that you have them, and prevent them from contaminating your mental processes. The emotional urges which are inescapable, and are perhaps even necessary to political action, should be able to exist side by side with an acceptance of reality. But this, I repeat, needs a moral effort, and contemporary English literature, so far as it is alive at all to the major issues of our time, shows how few of us are prepared to make it............George Orwell”

Another quote from Orwell........

"All left-wing parties in the highly industrialized countries are at bottom a sham"

Religion of Peace
To the contrary of what was maintained in one post, peace absolutely can be achieved with Muslims. You just need to know that their definition of peace is for everyone to peacefully submit to being converted, enslaved, tortured, and/or killed.

Insanity
1. Jews are astute business people and yet support socialism (government owned schools) and fascism (excessive controls on Big Oil).
2. Jews were disarmed and then almost exterminated in Nazi Germany and yet support gun control.
3. Jews somehow perceive a difference between left-wing tyrants such as Stalin and right-wing tyrants such as Hitler.
4. Jews are a frequently oppressed minority yet they support democracy (mob rule) over the constitutional republic (rule of laws) mandated in Article 4, Section 4.

Mr. Dershowitz has a lot of questions to answer about the insanity of the bulk of the Jewish people.

Pheebor
Israel can't formally annex the territories because it does not want to annex the people living on them. Occupying the territories without formally annexing them is the failed policy in place for the great majority of the last 40 years until Gaza was given its independence in the form of a military seige. Not surprisingly it did not work very well. And it is hard seeing how a more intrusive occupation would have better results.

As I siad, I don't think that the Israelis can just pull out a la Gaza. One does not want the pull out to be a reward for terrorists. But we should be encouraging a unity Palestinian government that could make it a reward for diplomacy instead of a reward for terrorism. It has been foolish to make Abbas' position an untenable one with his people.

The hate the jews more than the love their children is a pointless bit of nonsense. They are ready to sacrifice some of their children because their present situation represents no hope for them. That is a very different thing. Palestinians have been willing to sacrifice their children only since they have had a hopeless situation in which to raise them.

Many Kudos to you Dennis Prager
Great article.
It is very difficult to understand how any one can be so blind to the truth.
I believe most Jews and a good many of the Christian Community in this nation have this attitude, "If God so cares about this small nation of Israel, let Him save it."
Sad to say. God will bring man to his knees. It is occurring all over the world now.
The old saying, The tip of the iceberg, if you will. No matter what the left and left leaning world would have it.

Funny to me
That the group that claims to be the most moral are the ones who commit the most crimes of theft and murder and not to mention their other sins and supports such people who do. They are liars.

It is HATE!
Posters here can intellectualize all they want. The bottom line is that...., the Palestinians HATE the jews.

They deny the right of Israel to exist.No government can negotiate a peace when the hate is so great!

People here have the luxury of opinionizing.It does nothing. If your enemy will be satisfied with nothing less than your annihilation,how do you negotiate a ceasefire?

The patience and compassion of the Israelis is amazing to me.

The founding of Israel after the holocaust is deserved, is valid, and right! The world is a better place because Israel exists.

Precisely...
Precisely, what prevails is…”what is perceived to be a lie is actually the truth and what is perceived to be the truth is actually a lie?” Depending on who is saying “WHAT”… and “WHEN”? Both the “far left” and the “far right” are the grotesque losers; and those in the fringe areas are just alluring losers. The real winners are those in the “CENTER”. Of course this is a lie….WE THE PEOPLE are the real losers…My question…Is anyone a “WINNER”?


Queston for Alan D.
Great article, Dennis -
I have often wondered about this split behavior in Alan Dershowitz...I enjoy his books on Israel, but gag on almost all his other political pronouncements. I think the real sore nerve in this fellow is the apparently desperate need to serve as a beacon of separation of church and state and an ardent civil libertarian -- it would seem the pride in this factor requires opposing fundamentalist Christian bogeymen at every turn... Thus, his partnering with a fictive left. Still, it is AMAZING that at his age he still does not get it (i.e., how betrayed Jews are by the Left). It is an astonishing case of denial. Thanks for spelling this out so clearly!

PS -- YOu might follow up with what the Left thinks of him? I havent checked it, but i am guessing that it is unrequited love (i.e. the Nation and other leftist mags probably trash him left and right...)

Alan Dershowitz...

The Left self-hates. Alan is obviously unstable and suicidal.

Notice how often Liberals kill themselves, or murder others.


Is this the Best Time?

Is this the best time for that sort of thing Dennis? An ally is at war with a mutual enemy. Maybe we should consider hanging together for a few weeks lest we hang separately. There will be time for sniping at each other later.

Addendum
I said " Until they can learn to accept Israel's existence, I'm sorry to say, they do not deserve their own. " I meant their own nation, not their own existence. Reading it back, I realized that this might be unclear.

Lon
You make some very good points, but I feel that you miss the forest for the trees. I do agree that the 'status quo' is not acceptable either; I think my point of contention is that giving Palestinians more sovereignty at this time would be a move in the wrong direction, and would tend to make a bad situation even worse. It strengthens the hand of Israel's enemies, just as Hezbollah was strengthened when Israel left Lebanon, and it also encourages them to keep up the fight for ultimate victory.

While it is true that (at least in missile form) the strategic reach of Israel's enemies is improving, it is also undeniably true that Israel is better off with the enemy further from her population centers than it would be if they were closer. The thin waist of Israel is a strategic problem even if the Palestinians are not positioned to take advantage of it yet. It is not an acceptable risk.

You say that Iran is not that close to a nuke - I say that it is an unacceptable risk for Israel's leaders to foist on her people. What if you're wrong? And I find it strange that you could be so sanguine that Iran would not WANT or be ABLE to give, say, a suitcase nuke to their Hezbollah proxies. They can do this via Syria. Remember the chemical attack on Amman?

And as for the linking of the two sides; you say it is not a disadvantage to Israel. I say that it would become one. How does it advantage Israel to take the risk?

I think it would be better if, at least temporarily, Israel were to do the opposite; formerly annex both lands, remove enemy factions in both by force, rename all the terrorist-named streets, expunge all the anti-Semitic 'textbooks', close the terrorist 'summer camps', and generally impose a decent and lawful society on them until, as a people, the Palestinians grow up and learn to love their children more than they hate Jews. Until they can learn to accept Israel's existence, I'm sorry to say, they do not deserve their own.

Pheebor to FLM 5:23pm
Wow! Perfect!

Kyle
I think you are wrong about the left. They cannot see Israel as the victim because they have a world view that see Westerners as Imperialists dominating the third world. Since Israel is seen as a surrogate for the US. The Hatred of the US is tranferred to Israel. Then you have Muslims on Campus who know where their bread is buttered and use the pulpit to promoate a one sided view of the conflict. Then you have Black Liberation radicals who see jews as whites and Arabs as kindred spirits.

Isreal is seem as racist and the Palistinians as victims.

In Iran the protesters are yelling death to Israel and the US and here in the US the left is standing shoulder to shoulder with them calling for peace and an end to racism. Yea, like Hamas wants peace.

The Palistinians can have peace and their own state anytime they want all they need do is collectively sue for peace based upon a two state solution. In other word if they give up their desire to destroy Israel.

BTW if the Arabs care so much about their palistinian brothers Jordan, Syria and Eqypt can collectively yield on mile of land in their own country for each current mile Gaza and the West Bank.

If Egypt for example gave to the Palistinians 10% of the land that Israel returned to them in exchange for peace think about how far that would go to yield a lasting peace in the region.

Pheebor
6) (I know there didn't used to be a 6) what keeps Syria from attacking is that Syria has something to lose. Currently the Palestinians have little to lose from attacking. The twisted background to the dispute is that Sderot at its least safe is still a better place to be than Gaza at its most safe in recent times. The death rate in Gaza increases much faster than in Israel in this conflicts. But the difference in the quality life is worse in Sderot than in Gaza. Sderot goes from a top tier place to be, to a place full of fear. Gaza goes from a hellish place to be to a really hellish place to be. The result is that the people in Sderot feel the difference more sharply.

Israel's best risk, one that it has never really tested, is that the Palestinian people will turn on any leadership that tries to take away a reasonable existence once it is obtained. So far that has not really been tried.

The mistake in leaving Gaza (which was still better than just staying) was that it was not done as part of a deal with Abbas that showed the virtues of peace. It was done as a thumb in the eye to Abbas that was a victory for Hamas. Israel needs to make the Palestinians believe they will benefit from peace. So far they have done more to show that it is easier to take land from a peaceful Palestinians than a rebelling Palestine.

Pheebor
5) On the last point your risk analysis fails because you seem to be taking the status quo to be risk free. It is silly to take the fact that there are risks in following one path as showing that that path shouldn't be followed without considering what the risk is in not following that path.

I mentioned some of the risks in continuing the status quo above. Sharon ultimately switched to the two state side for the additional problem of the demographic time bomb.

Conflict Spilling Over into Europe
The AP has reported incidents in europe involvng attacks on Jew Synogues is increasing. It is only a matter of time before it reaches New York.


Pheebor
Iran is some time off from having a nuke, and it is unlikely that once they get one they will want to, or be able to, give it away to whom they like so easily.

But if this is wrong, occupation is not going to make things better. I read a couple of months ago that someone had started a zoo in Gaza. It may have since been destroyed. But he did it by smuggling the animals through the tunnels one at a time. If a civilian can smuggle a giraffe into Gaza, Hamas is not going to have any special problem smuggling a suitcase bomb in (besides the difficulty it will have in getting anyone to give them a suitcase bomb).

Again this is an issue that shows how stupid it is for Israel to think the status quo is in its advantage.

3) The issue is not just that there are ways to avoid the crossing derailing the program, but that the proposals are designed with security in mind. This really does not seem to be a serious issue here.

Pheebor
1) The thin size of Israel is a military danger to the degree it can be used to bisect the country and break supply lines and coordination. This is what the Israelis have done in Gaza. The Palestinians do not, and are not going to in the near future, have the kind of army to do this to Israel. And Syria does not even have the army to back up an objection to Israel bombing its territory.

The problem you are really pointing to is one of having cities near the border (however fat the country). But this is a diminishing issue because better rockets will make these advantages negligiable. It made sense to hold the Golan Heights to prevent Syrian rockets of the time. Now Syria could hit Israel without using the Golan Heights, they don't because they have too much to lose.

In the long run (and probably not that long at this point) having a solution in place will be more significant than this distance issue. Hamas has already shown they can reach Beersheba despite occupation. The fact that they did not do so before the Israeli response is significant (although I am not sure what that exact significance is).

But it makes no sense for Israel to follow policies that make them safe in the very short term but in more danger in even the middle term.

FLM
Actually, Mr. Flaming, we non-Libs generally expect leftists to be in favor of any self-destructive, enemy-favoring action Israel takes. Far from destroying our world view, your celebration of Israel's idiotic act of leaving Gaza to Hamas confirms our view of you and your fellow travelers.

What we also expect is furious protestations from leftists that they are not anti-Semites, while continuously condemning Israel, ignoring (except in the most 'window-dressing' or 'morally equivalent' ways) the provocations against her people, and a strange lack of parity of condemnation for atrocities committed by any countries that are not Israel or the US.

If we are proven wrong, great! Please prove us wrong.

While you chew on that, ask yourself this: The UN was not asking for a cease fire when Hamas was shelling Israeli civilian cities well inside the blue zone. This did not bother you in the least. In fact, I am quite confident that you and your friends were still going on about how unjust Israel is for continuing the "occupation" of the West Bank. I bet that not one of you mentioned the lesson of Gaza, and that this might be a perfectly legitimate reason why Israel might be reluctant to do the same thing again.

Here is the reality, Mr. Flaming. You and your other leftist friends will condemn Israel so long as she takes any action to defend herself. You will never come to grips with the fact that most of the horrible problems afflicting the Arab Palestinian population are self-inflicted. Attacks against innocent Israeli Jews are justifiable: they are understandable angry reactions against the occupiers. Israeli self defense, on the other hand, is "perpetuating the cycle of violence". You do not, and never will, understand the deep cynicism behind this double standard. And you will probably never be intellectually honest enough to see the Jew hatred that lies at the base of it.

To Put Words in Dershowitz' Mouth:
Prager:
"But Dershowitz won't put two and two together, at least publicly, and conclude that there is something fundamentally and morally flawed about the left and its values."

To the extent that either of these two absolutist fictions exist in reality, the stereotypical 'Left' and 'Right' moral positions both have fundamental flaws. Take your pick...

We DID SO Applaud, JMO51

JM051:

"People on the far left should have applauded that (Sharon's decision to withdraw from Gaza) but they did not."

Yes we did! Lots of us. But then, to see that spoils your comic-book worldview...


RW
Yes, actually I DO have an argument with CONSERVATIVES who make that same argument as liberals do that the Jews should just leave Israel and everyone would be better off, including the Jews (although I question whether many conservatives who come to this board consider YOU a conservative).

Paul Craig Roberts is one such conservative who has been making this argument for years. Although Roberts started drinking the liberal Kool-Aid several years ago; he's one of those who actually takes seriously the crackpot notion that the Bush Administration, not Al Qaeda, blew up the World Trade Center.

You believe that the Jews would be better off elsewhere than in Israel? Well, let's see if the governments of the "elsewhere" Jews are living now OUTSIDE the Middle East - in this case, Europe - are prepared to treat them as full citizens, meaning just as much deserving of the protection of their public safety apparatus as their non-Jewish Anglo countrymen.

If the European governments fail their Jews at this present time of threat - AGAIN - it will only re-inforce my already concrete conviction that the Jews can't count on any government not their own to come to their aid - or even meet its OWN statutory obligations to them as citizens - when they are targeted for violence. I'm not saying INDIA's government falls into this category, but as I said before, the Jews in Mumbai weren't looking for a fight with Muslims; India is a mostly HINDU nation. Muslims came there at Thanksgiving last year looking for a fight with THEM.

As Mona Charen once commented, the attitude of pretty much the whole world toward the slaughter of Jews is, "You say that Jews have died? Well, they've died before: we'll just build them another monument."

So you'll pardon the Jews if too many centuries of bad history THROUGHOUT the world have ingrained in them the attitude that if they're going to die, they might as well die for their OWN country, not someone else's.

***
Excellent article!

Palestinian State
Gestel

Siding with the "victimized should, and to Dershowitz and Prager it clearly is, siding with th Israelis. They were victimized in WWII. They have been the subject of "hate crimes" for centuries. In their fledgling state, they were "victims" of concerted attacks by Arab states. Now that they have survived and turned the desert into a blooming garden (which exports food to other Arab nations), they are "victims" of unwarranted attacks by Palestinians.

The problem with "siding with moderate Palestinians" means you are still aligning with people who advocate the end of Israel and death to all Jews. At BEST, Abbas advocates an interim truce between a Palestinian and Israel state until the Muslims can aggregate sufficient power to deswtroy them outright. And Abbas does not (and said he is unwilling to) side with Israel on any issue of dispute between Hamas and Israel. Abbas has repeatedly provided "cover" for the actions of Hamas, and condemned Israeli responses to repeated shelling. Basically, you are asking Israelis to "choose their executioner", rahter than giving them an option to survive.

As for the "connection" between Gaza and West bank, we solved that problem with a "connection" between Berlin and West Germany following WWII.

I agree with you Darth Vector
I've given up trying to figure out the liberal mind. It really is a mental pathology.

Heck, I was a liberal for many, many years and I couldn't tell you what I was thinking (or not thinking)!

It's like a reformed alcoholic. When he finally sobers up, his thinking becomes much more clear. He gives up the old (dark) ways.

When I was immersed in the liberal mindset, I was in the dark, but finally came into the light, thanks be to GOD.

Trying to argue with a liberal is like trying to describe color to a blind man. No matter how hard you try, he just cannot see.

there can be no peace...
When Islam is involved. End of story.

Leftism teaches suicidal "altruism"
Most diaspora Jews, at least those in the West are on the Left, not passively but strongly supporting leftist parties and institutions such as unions with votes and money.

It appears crucial to the self-image of especially secular Jews to think of themselves as champions of the underdog. They therefore consistently support leftist agendas that are presented as "helping" the less privileged. There are many self esteem bonus points the more "other" those aided appear to be up to and including the Muslim other whose primary goal is to remove Israel and as many Jews as it takes from the Mid-East as a preliminary to a juden-rein world. Supporting this extreme other is some kind of test leftist Jews make of their own altruism.

For a people undeniably intellectually gifted, Jews are also the champions of intellectual dissonance, making them perfect liberal/leftists. In their personal lives they achieve great success by being hard-headed realists. In their spiritual lives, secular Jews maintain their illusions that they are moral benefactors against all objective evidence.

This pathologic need to think well of themselves (to be seen to do good rather than actually do good since leftist policies invariably make things worse for their chosen benficiaries) trumps even the survival of Israel and Jews who disagree with them politically it seems.

In other words, socialism trumps Jewishness for most. Dershowitz is trying to service both sides and ends up looking intellectually incoherent.

Jack again.
This one was not worthy of a lengthy reply, so:

1. See my reply to Lon.

2. "Your sense that Israel would no longer be able to exercise adequate surveillance is absurd." ... Try again.

3. See my reply to Lon.

4. Hezbollah's power base lies with Iran/Syria and in Lebanon. I'm not sure how you figure Egypt into this; Egypt is not even contiguous with Hezbollah holdings. If Hezbollah fears an Egyptian/Israeli intelligence axis, they can surely keep Egypt out of the loop. But considering that Egypt is arguably the most anti-Israeli country in the entire world in terms of popular sentiment, I don't imagine that Hezbollah has much to fear.

"Therein lies the key. Israel need to support moderate, secular arab movements and isolate Hamas and other extremists." As if there were Arab movements that would accept Israeli support.

"One of the best approaches is to create a state with which one can negotiate. Or, as the case may become, upon which one can declare war." Its hard to imagine how that improves Israel's security stance, so I'll just assume that you mean that that is the only way that dedicated leftists such as yourself would consider Israeli self defense "justified".

Pheeble
See, it's easy to address real issues.

1. Israel would be in no greater danger from a Palestinian state than it is now from Syria, Egypt, or Jordan. You geographic awareness is more limited than you think. Virtually nothing would change.

2. If Iran is of a mind to provide a nuclear weapon to Hamas, (which it isn't) the lack of a Palestinian state will do nothing to deter that. The best hope of avoiding that outcome would be to strengthen Fatah and marginalize Hamas. Both goals are best achieved by investing the PA with statehood and having the PA battle Hamas.

Your sense that Israel would no longer be able to exercise adequate surveillance is absurd.

3.The issue of travel between Gaza and the West Bank has been a knotty one for some time. But plans have been in the works for years to create a secure passage. It's not an insurmountable problem.

4. The situation on the Northern border is actually more stable than you describe. All the more or less secular states are wary of the religioous fervor of Hamas. Hezbollah is more concerned about Egypt than Israel, at the moment. Also, you seem to be implying that Hezbollah has been attacking Israel in the north. That hasn't really been the case for some time. In fact, Egypt has indicated it will warn Israel if Hezbollah is likly to attack.

Therein lies the key. Israel need to support moderate, secular arab movements and isolate Hamas and other extremists. One of the best approaches is to create a state with which one can negotiate. Or, as the case may become, upon which one can declare war.


Lon, cont'd

5) "A new Palestinian state is likely to be dysfunctional unless it gets (and accepts) serious outside help. But the West Bank's main border is with Jordan not Syria." You may want to pick up a copy of "Six Days of War" by Michael Oren. This situation has occurred already, and the West Bank was used as a Syrian proxy to attack Israel even when the region was directly under Jordanian sovereignty! This situation was LESS favorable to Syrian control over that region than a "Palestinian" state there would be by any stretch of the imagination, and yet that is precisely what happened. And it became clear that Israeli's perceived weakness in not confronting Syria directly, given these provocations, was one of the primary factors that led to the Six Days War.

Israeli leaders cannot morally risk the lives of her citizens on such a gamble.

Lon
Hi Lon! I found your post to be interesting and thought provoking, and so I think it deserves a reply:

1) "The very thin width of Israel was a serious problem when the arabs were militarily comparable to the Israelis." Not entirely true; it is a problem even if the Palestinians cannot field a serious army, because a) the land can be used as a launching pad for other nearby powers to war with Israel and b) even a weak military force can wreak considerable damage in the time it takes to mobilize a defense in the event of a surprise attack if they are very close to civilian population centers.

2) Iran will likely get a nuke if things continue as currently. Israel cannot ignore this possibility. And Hamas could create havoc with a "suitcase nuke" or dirty bomb - it doesn't have to be a traditional a-bomb.

3) ".. but this is not an issue that is going to derail things." But derailing things is not the problem - the problem is one of maintaining national security when members of a hostile nation have that sort of access.

4) "Occupying is much more costly than the rocket fire that has followed." I'd be interested in hearing how you can support that statement.

Gestel
"Prager doesn't understand that independence of thought is a traditional liberal (and certainly not a conservative) value."

I think most conservatives would disagree that independence of thought is not a traditional conservative value. I do agree that there are closeminded people on all ends of the political spectrum. But please consider: which side of the political spectrum tends to favor politically correct speech codes on campus, and which side opposes?

With that said, I applaud you and other liberals who are in favor of independence of thought!

Pheebor
There are obvious problems with simply saying two states and pulling out as if the groundwork had been laid out. But your case for it is not particularly strong.

1) The very thin width of Israel was a serious problem when the arabs were militarily comparable to the Israelis. But the idea that the Palestinians from their two states will be able to hold that territory is ludicrous today. The difference in military power is simply too great.

2) Iran does not have a nuke, and Hamas is unlikely to want to drop one on the territory it is trying to gain. The idea of a nuclear strike by either of these neighbors on the other seems to reflect a lack of seriousness on the size of the region.

3) The question of how to deal with the separation between Gaza and the West Bank is an interesting one, but not one that has not been covered in peace talks. Some kind of train or regular bus connections seem to be the obvious choice, but this is not an issue that is going to derail things.

4) Giving full sovereignty was only a disaster if one doesn't compare it with continuing to occupy Lebanon. It is not a conincidence that Israel insisted throughout the Lebanon invasion that it has no intention of reoccupying (or that they do the same with Gaza now). Occupying is much more costly than the rocket fire that has followed.

5) A new Palestinian state is likely to be dysfunctional unless it gets (and accepts) serious outside help. But the West Bank's main border is with Jordan not Syria. And it is doubtful that Syria would have a pretext to invade or a desire to deal with the consequences. And again it is far from clear why this would be worse than the status quo.

The dysfunctionality of a Hamas government is the biggest worry here. Another is the lesson that each side would take from such a move if done too rushed.

It's easy to explain Dershowitz
Prager professes not to understand why Dershowitz still considers himself to be a liberal. That's easy to understand. Dershowitz is clearly a liberal on virtually all major issues of the day, and he knows that he does not agree with conservatives on them, so why should he have any cognitive dissonance? Prager doesn't understand that independence of thought is a traditional liberal (and certainly not a conservative) value. Dershowitz supports Israel because Israel is a liberal democracy and Dershowitz is a Jew. He knows that the enemies of Israel would destroy Israel if they could. As a liberal and a Jew, he wants Israel to survive by prevailing against its enemies. Conservatives should have no trouble understanding such motives.

The real question is whhy is so much of the Left, including much of the Jewish Left, hostile to Israel? Many-not all--on the Left reflexively support the 'underdog,' the 'poor,' the 'victimized,' against whatever is held to be responsible for these conditions. This means siding with the Palestinians against Israel. Unfortunately, many Leftists really believe that if only Israel ceases to be a Jewish state and surrenders its land to the Palestinians, peace will break out. This is a self-delusion, but a powerful one. Dershowitz knows better.

No doubt about it
Anti-Israel sentiment is far more prevalent among the secular left.

My sister is a die-hard leftist. She was utterly dismayed that Hamas and the Israelis "both insist they are right." She lamented that neither side "can see the elephant in the room." But since she is an "enlightened progressive" she is above all this silly talk about good versus evil.

I was sorely tempted to suggest she go live with the Hamas for six months and then if she got out of there with life and limb, to then go live with the Israelis for 6 months. Of course, she's so screwed up she'd probably still insist that there were no fundamental differences.

Moral relativism is alive and well among the looney left.

Of course Dershowitz is confused!
He has been at Harvard too long! He became a full professor at 28.He's been walking the "IVY" halls ever since.

The fact that he was a legal advisor to "The Dream Team" in O.J.'s FIRST trial should give you an idea that he has trouble discerning right from wrong.I lost all respect for him during that debacle.

Yes...,he defends Israel. That's good. But how does he feel about the Patriot Act?

Standshisground
"For those liberals who have come here to TownHall and argued that it would just be so much easier for everyone, including Jews themselves, if the Jews would just leave Israel...and go to other parts of the world where they would presumably be "safe""

Glad to see that you have no argument with us Conservatives who've been counseling that.


sjpatejak
It isn't the right "vociferously claiming" that America is a Christian nation--it is, by and large, the right recognizing that America WAS FOUNDED as a Judeo-Christian nation with uniquely Judeo-Christian values, and it is the right which also asserts to keep these values as an integral part of our society. Whether the left wants to recognize historical truth or not is irrelevant.

O'Reilly is a conservative who favors certain gun control measures and is against capital punishment. On those 2 positions he sides with the left. Hitchens is a liberal who agreed with the Iraq War. On that he sides with the right. So what? All the illustrations prove is that not every person on the right or left can be categorized as such on every single position. It doesn't negate the fact that there are right and left wing positions. Is that nuanced enough for you? ;)

HITCHHIKER
Your question, "will they ever be given another chance", does make me pause to reflect often on what is now occurring in this country. Not that I want to turn back the clock to the age of the 1950's, but at this time I see a threat to the solid values that made this country grow and prosper for 200 years. Social changes occur with every generation, but a society loses it's foundation when it destroys it's fundamental values. We must meet somewhere in the middle on this road to change.

continued...

5) Since you incorrectly ascribe no importance to the fact that there has never been an Arab "Palestinian" nation, you may not realize that this government, with no tradition of national rule or even any particular "legitimacy" amongst its people, would almost certainly be very weak, and the new Palestinian "nation", centered as it would be in the West Bank, would almost certainly soon fall under Syrian/Iranian/Hezbollah influence. That worked out great for Lebanon, wouldn't you agree?

This was not so much directed at you, Jack, as at those who might have been fooled by your incredibly wonderful idea.

Oh, and by the way, if you read what I said carefully, you'll note that - unlike yourself with respect to conservatives and 'right wingers' - I did not paint all 'liberals' with my brush, but rather only those who have reached a "certain level of liberal groupthink". It is quite possible, a la Dershowitz, to be liberal but not infected. But perhaps you are too busy doing exactly what you accuse me of doing to notice these fine points.

*sigh*, If I must.
Ok, Jack, since you do make a specific point, I'll address it. You say that Israel should give Gaza and the West Bank over to the Palestinians (presumably even if those Palestinians have elected Hamas to lead them). This way, they'd have to act like a responsible state, and Israel would be free to act against them otherwise. Since even rational people might be fooled by that line of reasoning, I'll address it:

1) Israel's waistline and strategic ability to defend itself simply does not permit hostile buildups that close to its population centers. Some people do not have a clear realization of how small Israel really is, and how dangerous it is to allow enemies (even of inferior capabilities) that close; and clearly Jack is one of those people.

2) Doing this would prevent Israel from having ANY means of stopping Iran from handing Hamas a nuke to use against Israel, for even regular and routine surveillance measures would now violate Palestinian "sovereignty".

3) Palestinians would obviously demand either a land bridge to connect the West Bank to Gaza, or at minimum, unfettered free passage. There will obviously be tremendous pressure on Israel to comply - after all, citizens of this nation have the right to be on either patch of land. As a matter of national defense for Israel, giving either concession would be nearly suicidally disastrous.

4) Giving full sovereignty back to Lebanon turned into a disaster for Israel. The political void there was filled by Syria (which already controlled those parts of Lebanon that were not actively under Israeli military control). Not only are the actual Lebanese in the south part of the country far worse off under Hezbollah then they were under Israel by any objective 'standard of living' measure, but Hezbollah simply used the territory gained to more effectively attack northern Israel, moving the frontier of battle closer to Israeli population centers.

dershowitz
He is afraid to tell the truth,as he knows he will be shunned and punished by his liberal comrades

Darth Vector @ 3:28 am
Thank you kind sir! Don't drink either. Gave it up. Love the Lord.

p.s. Did you hear DP explain (for an hour straight!) the fact that generalities are not, in point of -endlessly disected- fact, specificities? I hadn't even "fallen, and I (couldn't) get up" and was still desparately mashing the button on my "Life Alert" box to get those lazy bastiges over here to change the channel for me. Oh, didn't I tell you? I'm actually a disembodied head w/ a de Bergeracian nose. Well, gotta go now, master wants to take me out on the riding mower. Said something or other about "feeding the lawn". OFF WE GO!
WEEEEEEE!

The Question is Agenda over Truth
The Left's indignation of Israel is a perfect example that honesty and truth are not the driving factors behind their reactions to Israel's military responses to terrorism. The outcries of brutality and autrocity (from the World's Leftists in mass) are all directly squarely at Israel, not at Hamas or the Palestinians. The demands of 'restraint' and 'horror' are all one way. They are quick to point out the imbalance of power, yet they just as quickly overlook the imbalance of terror. I guess the Left expects Israel to respond to every Hamas rocket attack by "throwing rocks." That would be "fair" to the Left correct?

The Left does not honor honesty or truth, but immoralism and an agenda-driven ideology that can never be held into account. When their policies fail(like school reform)they never accept the truth of the failures; the solution to their failures are to simply blame Republicans-aided gleefully by the MSM-and push for more of the exact same thing that caused the problem in the first place. Just spend more tax money.

The truth doesn't matter one bit; truth isn't the result they want. Truth is not the measuring stick for the Left. Winning is the result they want and it doesn't matter how it's achieved. That's why cheating in elections is perfectly defensible to the Left. That's why they resist ANY attempts to stem voter fraud and tightening voting practices/laws. It's the Left who should be for voter fairness and honesty above all else right? 'One Man One Vote' used to be their motto. Clearly that has been abandoned; maybe it's now 'One Man, As Many Votes As It Takes?'

Agenda trumps all things existing for the Left. Truth and honesty be damned; they are not virtues of the Left.
[I apologize for any misspellings]

Doof Vector
Pay attention.

Whether Palestinians existed in the past is irrelevant. Worrying about that is just a repetition of the same attitudes and beliefs that perpetuate the conflict. It's an exact corollary of those who claim that Israel doesn't really exist. Palestinians exist now, whether you want to accept it or not.

The same goes for whining about Jordan being the Palestinian state. Only a recognition of the facts as they are now can possibly bring about a resolution. For some reason, you bring up the issue of occupation, which I never mentioned. But that kind of thing just seems to be part and parcel of arguing against phantoms, a well known right wing tendency.

Pheeble
Your response to me did not include a single concrete reference: instead you fall victim to the same limitation faced by Prager and others on an almost constant basis. You enjoy telling yourself and others what "liberals think," even if you really have no idea. I assume you enjoy your fantasy world.

As I said, the solution is to declare a Palestinian state as soon as possible. Place the conflict on the level of a dispute between sovereign nations and make Palestinian leadership responsible for the welfare of its people.









left? right?
You posit a collection of issues where the right HAS to believe in certain positions, and the left HAS to believe the exact opposite. Real people tend to be more complicated. Bill O'Reilly supports gun control. Christopher Hitchens supports the invasion of Iraq. Most American Jews support Israel, but remain liberal on other issues. It's on the right that you generally find people who vociferously claim that the US is Christian nation. By the way, there was a time when Israel was the darling of the left. The kibbutzim were seen as socialism in action.

Will Europe protect its Jews NOW?
I'm reading now of violence being directed against Jews in European countries, evidently by Arabs or those of Arab ancestry in Europe who are angry over the present conflict in Gaza.

For those liberals who have come here to TownHall and argued that it would just be so much easier for everyone, including Jews themselves, if the Jews would just leave Israel, living as they do in an region of the world where they are unwelcome to their neighbors, and go to other parts of the world where they would presumably be "safe", we are now about to see first-hand how valid their belief really is. Will the European governments, many of whom clearly are terrified of the growing Muslim populations in their countries, take aggressive action to protect its Jews - and punish Arabs who direct violence against them? Or will they cower in fear again, like the government of France did in response to the riots launched by French Muslims a couple of years ago, and pretty much let their Muslim population rage unchecked against their Jewish population in the hopes that letting their Muslim population engage in their OWN private pogrom against their Jewish countrymen will mollify them?

Yeah, I know, right NOW the French government is publicly saying it will crack down on those who get violent toward France's Jews - and Sarkozy, after all, is not the spineless jellyfish his predecessor was. But we'll see if he has the willingness to take on a sizable segment of France's population if need be.

And if the European governments again kow-tow to its fractious Muslims and basically do little to stop them from engaging in their OWN private war against Jews there in Europe: well, no one who makes the argument that the Jews would be safe if they'd only leave Israel will ever get anywhere with that argument with ME. After all, the Jews at Mumbai's Jewish center last month weren't looking for a fight with Muslims: the Muslims came for THEM, not vice versa.

Jack and Bob
Bob: Let's be careful about our comparisons. Alan Dershowitz is not, despite what you may think, "as complicit in moral evil as the U.N. pro-terrorist members". Indeed, few people could ever hope to attain that lofty pinnacle of complicity, even if they were anti-Israel tools. That Prof. Dershowitz publicly defends Israel, a point which infuriates his erstwhile friends and fellow travellers, renders your point about him not only moot, but downright silly. Let us not unnecessarily make enemies of our friends.

Jack: People, please -- the 'Jack's of the world cannot be convinced by reasoning, swayed by history or fact, or mollified by truth. There is simply no point in feeding the trolls, just as there is no reason to 'debate' with holocaust deniers, believers in the blood libel, or white power advocates. Once liberal groupthink reaches a certain level, it becomes religious in overtone, and is driven by ideological purity and faith. This can be observed simply by carefully noting how their mantras are repeated as a sort of Gospel without any backing in terms of facts or history. Indeed, the strongest proponents of leftist groupthink actually get angry and offended by the implication that they should need those things - to them, their beliefs and causes are the only ones that can be held by 'good' people; asking for proof means you are a denier. You'll see the same thing with the global warming whackos.

If there is a way to educate these people, to reach them, I do not know of it. I do know that reasoning is useless, history is useless, and facts are useless. But unless we come up with something that might work, we should not waste time validating their delusions with our attention.

just another jones
great post.

both the new york times and even huffington post have come out in support of what israel is doing.

prager seems to be stuck in another century.


What should Hamas do
I hear a lot of comments from the left that say what should Hamas do given they way they are treated by Israel. The answer is simple, sue for peace. That is all that it takes Sue for Peace. Acknowldege Israel's right to exist, embrace a two state solution and unilaterailly agree to disarm on the condition that Israel agree to open the border to trade.

Hamas is the aggressor- It does not peace and it repesents the people of Gaza who do not want peace.


Question for Dershowitz by Dennis Prage
An excellent article. The left has become so pathetically inept at recognizing right from wrong, that even someone as intelligent as Dershowitz can't bring himself to see this. He is therefore a very poor spokesman for the Israeli cause. To excuse his colleagues on America's campuses makes him as complicit in moral evil as the U.N. pro-terrorist members.

Jack
One can always tell when the left wing has encountered the limitations of its awareness and understanding of history. The "Palestinians" sir (I only put the word in quotes because there never has been a Palestine, only a figment of Yasser Arafat's imagination. Don't believe me? Fine. Then define what a Palestinian is for me. Tell me when "Palestine" ever existed as a state, not a territorial region. I'll await your response) have been offered statehood TWICE. Jordan the first time and they refused, and then the Oslo Accords visited the subject again and they refused. Again. Why? BECAUSE ANY TWO STATE SOLUTION WILL BE REJECTED BY THE PALESTINIANS AS LONG AS IT INCLUDES ISRAEL'S RIGHT TO EXIST. Why do you lefties not understand something so simple? Does it pain you to see the world for it is? Do you really think this is about "occupation" of someone else's land? There are 3,000,000 Palestinians living in this land. 3% of the population is Christian. Why is it that only the Muslim Palestinians are blowing up innocent people? Why hasn't one of the 100,000 Christian Palestinian blown up Jews? Are the Christian Palestinians any less "occupied" than the Muslim ones? THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OCCUPATION.

Phylo
Congratulations. Without even trying you have illuminated to the rest of the non-Minnesotan readers of this blog just exactly why Minnesota is about ready to put Al Franken into the Senate. Unfortunately, there are about 1.72 million people in this state who are as utterly clueless about the world as you are. You are uninformed and wrong on every single "point" (if I can even label them as such) you listed in your little diatribe against conservatives. Get educated sir. Learn about what is going on in the real world. I would be embarrassed to make myself look so foolish in public as you have done.

Paradigm Blindness
One can always tell when the right wing has encountered the limitations of its bankrupt intellectual processes. Invariably, it results in right wing commentators telling their stooges what liberals think. Then, they rant on that topic, even if it is largely disconnected from reality. This is another of those cases. But, rather than take Prager to task for his typical Manichean thinking, I'd prefer to offer an actual pathway into the future that addresses both conservative AND liberal concerns.

I strongly suggest that Israel, the US and the Arab nations declare a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza as soon as possible. This will force Palestinina leaders to assume the responsibilities of statehood. Any act taken by Palestinians then becomes the act of the state and would be subject to the same response any state could expect.

In other words, if rockets are launched from Palestine into Israel, Israel would not respond by attacking underprivileged refugess, but by declaring war on an aggressor state.

Separate resolution of four key issues, Jerusalem, Water, Militarization and right of return would have to follow.





More for renny @ 12:15
You wrote "The Muslims have been taught that the Christian kingdoms of the Middle Ages were eventually deposed by European disinterest and neglect".

True, and they are NOT taught that very oft Muslim kingdoms fell due to their bad policies (such as forcible conversions). A classic example is in Pakistani textbooks where Aurangzeb (ruled 1658-1707) is touted as being the best Mughul Emperor--despite of his own near-deathbed-admission (which they suppress) that his policies of forcible conversion had led to a circumstance where his empire would inevitably collapse (by 1739, just 32 years after his death, the collapse was complete).

Also, a factoid: India also had a chance in 1971 to deliver a permanent and irrecoverable defeat to then-nascent Islamism--by a ground attack on Rawalpindi followed by a withdrawl mostly to the border with exception of Nagar Parkar and Shakargarh salients (which India had captured from Pakistan). Instead, India unilaterally returned these territories and 95,000 war-criminal POW's to Pakistan in 1972--and was "rewarded" for its magnanimity with the selections of two non-POW war-criminals (Tikka Khan and Zia ul-Haq) as Army Chief of Staff in 1972 and 1975, clear indications of Pakistan's refusal to learn anything from the 1971 conflict.

Thanks, Svpallava
Anyone who thinks the UN or Europe or even the US State Dept is going to solve the war between the Palestinians and Israel has suffered a total lobotomy.

Only the Isaelis can solve it by winning decisively. They had a chance in 67 and 73 to take Cairo and Damascas and show the Muslims what real conquest is, but they always stopped at the urging of the UN and us.

The Muslims have been taught that the Christian kingdoms of the Middle Ages were eventually deposed by European disinterest and neglect, and the current Arabs think if they just keep turmoil stirring in Israel that eventually the Jews will give up. But they haven't learned that the Jews were the only peoples the Roman Empire could not totally subjugate.

The Palestinians were given Jordan as their state, and they rejected it. The PLO and Arafat were languishing in Tunisia and the whole conflict might have died off, but Oslo and Clinton brought them back to have a negotiating partner. Arafat repaid their hubris with a children's war and suicide bombers.

Don't think for a minute if the Iranians could give Hamas a nuclear weapon they wouldn't detonate on top of themselves to nuke Israel. If we're ever going to have peace there, a definite Israeli win is a must.

All the rest is blather and self defeat.

renny
There is no form of occupation that works for an extended period of time unless one is willing to accept periodic casualties. The serious proposals in the region take that into account. The unserious ones are the kind of murderous fantasies that pretend that if enough people are killed everything might work.

Reba
This country is filled with people just like you. Actual conservatives on most issues but, claim to be liberals. That is why conservative values win most issues. That is why Reagan won landslide elections. That is why McCain never had a chance. Because regardless of what people claim to be to their friends, they will mostly support conservative values if given a chance. The question is, will they ever be given another chance?

Typical right wing propaganda
Are conservatives against political correctness or not? They're sure for it if it can be used as a weapon to define the opposition. Too bad Prager's simplistic definition of the left doesn't fit his ideal. He's just going to have to re-evaluate his own beliefs rather than trying to adjust everyone elses.

Prager--hit and also missed
Dennis didn't really hit smack-on here. He missed the bigest point of all.

We hear Alan stoutly defending Israel's retaliation against Hamas. Big deal. The "Israel can do no wrong" gambit has always been played up by Alan, but again, Alan is on the popular side of the question. It takes no guts at all to boldly proclaim to the public that Israel is "proportionate" in its response to Hamas in Gaza. We all know that!

But Alan's stupidity comes brilliantly to the fore when he uses the word "proportionate." Any true liberal would. Here's "proportionate." "You touch me, I'll touch you. You pinch me, I'll pinch you back." That's liberalism when it comes to war. Don't ever win a damned thing. That's cheating. Be "proportionate!" That's "FAIR."

Also, don't be a Prager, if you want to nail this liberal to the wall, where he belongs. It takes no guts to be a liberal, and half of that to be Alan Dershowitz.

I actually admire Dershowitz.
Alan Dershowitz is a rare breed. He is probably the only prominent liberal on this planet that is actually HONEST.

For example, though Dershowitz believes that gun ownership ought be outlawed by a constitutional amendment, he is probably one of only a handful of liberals that actually is honest enough to admit that, in fact, the Second Amendment does protect the ownership and possession of firearms.

He was blackballed a few years back by saying that there ought be the notion of "torture warrants". That is, warrents issued by judges authorizing the use of physical torture to gain information from terrorists. Of course stupid people (read: all of his fellow liberals) were horrified, and claimed that Dershowitz was evil because he supported torture. In fact, his idea was the EXACT OPPISITE of what he was accused of. He is smart enough to know that torture happens. It just happens in secret. He thought that the idea of a "torture warrant" would not only allow for more judicial supervision, but would REDUCE the amount of torture because then judges would be allowed to deny the warrant, and, at that point, would have some amount of protection over the defendant.

In short, though I don't like his politics, I have to admit that he is one of the few honest, intelligent liberals.

As for the Israel/Hamas conflict, here is the ONLY thing you need to know about the difference between Israel and Hamas:

When Israel fires a rocket, and that rocket kills innocent people, the Israelis call that "collateral damage".

When Hamas fires a rocket, and that rocket kills innocent people, Hamas calls that "direct hit".

Nuff said.

For renny
Alternate way of looking @ Israel's security requirements:

(*) from hills near Kinneret, one can actually view the Mediterranean (exact opposite side of the country, last I checked).
(*) using "Green Line" (pre-1967) boundary, I compared it to India's Shiliguri "chicken neck" which, at 25 km width, caused Indian military planners many migraines in 1962, 1965 and 1971--though NOT insurmountable as India showed in 1971 WITHOUT invading "neutral" Nepalese territory. One third of pre-1967 Israel is a LONG Shiliguri (actually, even narrower at 13 km--which puts major Israeli cities within range of 155-mm artillery, let alone rockets; unlike Shiliguri, the only way to surmount this danger is as Israel did in 1967--the other side of it is the Med).

Also, "Palestinians" openly declared long ago (under turdocrat Arafat--whose philosophies and vitriolic hatred of Israel are shared by Hamas "leaders") that they would NOT hesitate using atomic bomb against Israel. So, as you suggested a neutron bomb (or other sub-kt nuke such as the ones used in 1998/05/13 Pokharan tests) certainly make a good weapon against Gaza.

Phylo
You need to get educated, every one of your points are completely wrong. Keep on these type of sites and you might learn something. The kos is only going to keep making you look stupid to the rest of us. I can't even give you a "nice try" on that post.

NOT A FAIR QUESTION MR. PRAGER!
Throughout our lives don't we all struggle with liberal and conservative questions. I was not born a conservative or independent, thought as a moderate liberal when I was younger. I shared many interesting conversations with my liberal friends. Now as I graceful age I realize most of my actions in life have always leaned toward being a conservative. I maintain my liberal and conservative friendships because life is more interesting sharing with both. Thank you very much!

Dear Dennis
Dear Dennis,

I am a life long conservative who has come to the conclusion that the Jews can take care of their own business in the middle east, without our help or interference. The billions they recieve in US aid is a joke considering they are one of the richest countries in the world, with billions sent in from Jews around the world.

Israel can and will survive without our help or protection. They came into being with no help from anyone, and they can maintain a presence in the middle east for centuries to come

Israel is about 1/3 of NJ
I've been to Israel and Egypt and Jordan, Turkey, Lebanon, and the Sinai, all of which prob. fit into NE, but they don't have to drop millions of megatons.

They don't have to use a stict atom bomb. It could be neutron.

But you are never going to stop the Middle East war with conventional weapons. That's why the terrorists use suicide bombing. They know they can't win with regular armies and Pentagons.

War has to be fought to win. Another incursion like Lebanon's last invasion will not improve Israel's security or end the ceaseless attacks on civilians.

You come up with something that really works.

renny
You keep posting this idiocy about Israel nuking Gaza. Are you unaware of the geography of the region, or are you unaware how nuclear bombs work?

A nuclear bomb dropped in Gaza would release radiation into Israel which is not so big that it can afford to sacrifice part of its territory or its population.

You really should find a different way to play out your fantasy of murdering lots of innocent people.

an apt quote
Here is a quote from Orwell which pretty well describes the Dershowitz position. At least Prager is more consistently wrong.

"All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts.
A British Tory will defend self-determination in Europe and oppose it in India with no feeling of inconsistency. Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage -- torture, the use of hostages, forced labour, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians -- which does not change its moral colour when it is committed by 'our' side ... The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them" -- George Orwell

The right believes no such thing about
gays *deserving* marriage.

Marriage has been since before recorded history an institution between the opposite sexes, and no pagan society or ancient society, no modern non-people of the book culture, all of which recognize homosexuality, sponsor marriage between people of the same sex.

No reason existed then and no reason exists now.

Gays are protected by the Const., the Bill of Rights, and all other laws and regulations, but they are not a protected *class* because they stick the protuberances in the same sex's apertures.

Right does not equal Moral
This column starts out well, but quickly through falls off a cliff. Prager states that Dershowitz identifies himself as a man of the left. But then Prager makes no attempt to qualify which values/positions that Dershowitz specifically holds on other issues. One can only assume that Dershowitz is pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, a fiscal progressive, and agrees with other positions typically held by the left, but we cannot tell for certain from this article. All we know is that Dershowitz is pro-Israel, a position more typically held by conservatives.

Prager has attempted to attach a moral choice here on the part of Israel, and having done so, argues that being a choice more readily supported by conservatives, must be the morally correct one. But one can just as easily argue that self preservation is more basic than deciding between good an evil. Pacifist Christians might argue that responding with violence is morally wrong regardless of the damage inflicted by Hamas. Who then gets to decide who is actually morally correct on that point? Are right-wing Christians prepared to prove that they are more moral than left-wing Christians? By what criteria that all can agree to would such an evaluation be decided and by whom?

As much as Prager and others on the right would like to assert that the right has the corner on morality, there is no consensus among religions on the finer points of morality, otherwise there'd only be one religion. Here in Virginia, for example, there is a split between the Anglican and Episcopal churches regarding gay clergy. Each side has what it believes to be ample theological backing for its position. So, even in what once was the same protestant Christian denomination, there is no consensus on morality.

That is why it is impossible to legislate morality - no one can convincingly prove he is the most moral, and therefore why it is foolish and arrogant to believe that one group is the lone arbiter of what is and isn't moral.

Israel should nuke Hamas
Our dropping the atom bomb on Japan has been denigrated by the world community for generations, but the bombs ended WW II. Period.

Israel is going to be harried and condemned and castigsted here and at the UN and all over what was once Europe ad infinitum, so it may as well do something that will actually bring results.

The ground incursion only injures more civilians (as Hamas is not regular army, all terrorists are civilians, so they *win* no matter what), spreads more pathetic photos across the lib. rags of the world, and draws out all the whiners who would pee in their pants if missiles dropped near them practically hourly whose bleeding hearts run for all except the Jews.

Good questions for Al, but lets thank him, also, for having the guts to speak out. The left is not known for producing or tolerating any dissension or protest.

Food for thought
For those of you who never ever ever ever question Israel's actions, please consider the following by Daniel Levy:

We also frequently hear the claim - what would America do if it came under rocket fire from Canada or Mexico? Again, there can be no justification for rockets targeting Israel's south, and of course America would respond if it were under fire from Canada or Mexico. But let's at least complete the analogy and here is that bigger picture. Gaza constitutes under 6 percent of the '67 territory in which a Palestinian state is supposed to be created (Gaza, West Bank, Palestinian East Jerusalem), about 94 percent remains under occupation so under our scenario 94 percent of Canada or Mexico would have remained under a 40 plus year American occupation with settlements and roadblocks, and with the "liberated" 6 percent still under siege. Now I like the Mexicans and Canadians as much as the next person but is it totally inconceivable that under such circumstances some of them would have formed hardline armed groups that would even become very popular and use that 6 percent of territory to launch attacks against America? I will leave it to your imagination.

Phylo out.

Which is more depressing?
It is certainly embarassing that someone like Dershowitz would abandon his liberal beliefs becasue doing so allows him a kind of blind allegiance to Israel. Interestingly he does not have the same kind of blind allegiance to the US. Dershowitz recognizes that it is patriotic to criticize the US when it behaves badly, but he makes the mistake of thinking that dealing with Israel in the same way makes one anti-Israel. (Ironically Israel is more harmed by this kind of blind allegiance that gets in the way of the kind of diplomatic solutions that would actually benefit Israel than by treating Israel like an actual country).

But it is also pretty embarassing to see someone like Prager who thinks that people (or maybe only jews its not clear from the abvoe) should define themselves politically entirely in terms of their views of Israel. I am an American jew, but I don't think that that means that Israel should be more important to me than the US. (Admittedly, if I did I would hold the same positions on Israel, so it may not make as big a difference as all that).

But is it more depressing to see a conservative jew thinking that Israel is more important than the US or a liberal jew thinking the same thing? I guess I find the Dershowitz thing more depressing because at least he is right about some things.


It's a matter of definition
We in Israel have noticed that disconnect too, and have reached our own conclusions.

And that is that the terms simply don’t mean what they used to.

In Israel, Left and Right are exclusively linked to one issue and have only a limited connection to social, civil or monetary ideologies – and that issue is where you stand in terms of the minutiae of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

But Dershowitz is Old School, and so for him Left/Liberal probably means civil rights and social issues and thus he identifies himself as being Left.

In Israel, Dershowitz would be very uncomfortable with the way civil rights are used and abused by the Left to promote and defend their political agenda.

I assume that in America the terms no longer mean what they used to too.



By the way, we are live blogging the war in Gaza at http://muqata.blogspot.com



Dershowitz - the blind squirrel
Mr.Prager is a kind, gentle and a brilliant man.

Alan Dershowitz is the quintessential blind squirrel who stumbles over an acorn (or, occasionally, a truth)and takes such as vindication for the reat of his abject nonsense.

Phylo
You are not correct about may of your statements. They reflect the attitude of the Bush Administration and not everyone on the right agrees with many of them including torture.

Conservatives have often been reluctant to support nation building.

What you describe is the neo-con view nad many conservatives question many aspects of the neo-con agenda.

In fairness
The Huffington Post ran a column yesterday totally favorable to Israel and exposing the real of Agenda of Hamas.

Prager is right about the left
It is difficult to admit this as one who is moderate to left leaning politically and yet finds it offensive how quickly the left will embrace despots and terrorists as long as they are on opposition to America of Israel.

Israel is not a perfect nation and they have certainly made mistakes including continuing to build settlement and providing actual incentives for citizens to live in the west bank and Gaza. But Israel has begun to evolve and there is no greater example of that then the decision of Ariel Sharon, a hawk to unilaterally withdraw from Gaza. What he understood was that the road to peace for Isreal rests with a two state solution.

People on the far left should have applauded that but they did not. Of course, the religious right was not happy with that either.

Palistinians in Gaza had a choice in the way they responded to the gesture of unilateral withdrawal. They could have embraced a two state solution and elected Fatah or the could have voted to continue the we want it all strategy and elect Hamas. They choose Hamas and the left was silent or attempted to suggest that the vote for Hamas was really about their non-military wing or about Fatah corruption.

But it was not. It was about choosing the historical struggle over a new way. The left always focuses on the suffering of the Palistinian people but they just can't bring themselves to blame any of that suffering on Arab states or Hamas.

The blood of innocent Palistinians and frankly except for the children, I question who is truly innocent is on Hamas' hands.


Whitaker Chambers
Whitaker Chambers, who exposed Alger Hiss as a Soviet spy and was outrasized for it, was a Communist himself. When he left the Party and wrote his book, Witness, he said he had realized that the Soviet Man, who was believed to be perfectible, had replaced God and this was the source of the problems with the Left. He became a Christian and knew that one has to believe in the deity to understand that man is not perfectible. (This explains the liberals insistence on solving the "root causes" of crime and poverty, i.e. perfect man and these ills will disappear. Can't be done, but they are not convinced.) One also has to believe in God to accept our Founding Father's premise that our rights come from God. If one is a secular person, one is only left (pun not intended) to believe that our rights are granted to us by the government. Thus, fascism and other assorted ills. So, the Red Diaper babies who now dominate academia, media, education, et al, who were Marxists in the '60's, still portray their absolute hatred of Christians and Christian values. To solve their cognitive dissonance, they need to replace our government with socialism/Marxism. See Black Liberation Theology, Dr. James Cone, Trinity Baptist Church, Obama,Noah Chomsky, Malcolm X, NYT, Wash Post, LA Times, CNN, NBC, CBS......

They're analyzing us
Here is an excerpt from a "scholarly" journal that proves conservatives are mentally ill fascists (of course it was written by a Phd from Stanford and 2 from Berkeley).
Political Conservatism as Motivated Social Cognition

Analyzing political conservatism as motivated social cognition integrates theories of personality (authoritarianism, dogmatism–intolerance of ambiguity), epistemic and existential needs (for closure, regulatory focus, terror management), and ideological rationalization (social dominance, system justification). An analysis confirms that several psychological variables predict political conservatism: death anxiety;system instability;dogmatism–intolerance of ambiguity; openness to experience;uncertainty tolerance; needs for order, structure, and closue; integrative complexity;fear of threat and loss; and self-esteem. The core ideology of conservatism stresses resistance to change and justification of inequality and is motivated by needs that vary situationally and dispositionally to manage uncertainty and hreat.
For more than half a century, psychologists have been tracking the hypothesis that different psychological motives and tendencies underlie ideological differences between the political left and the right. The practice of singling out political conservatives for special study began with Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, and Sanford’s (1950) landmark study of authoritarianism and the fascist potential in personality. An asymmetrical focus on right-wing authoritarianism (RWA) was criticized heavily on theoretical and methodological grounds (e.g., Christie, 1954; Eysenck, 1954;
Rokeach, 1960; Shils, 1954 Sanford’s (1950) landmark study of authoritarianism and the fascist potential in personality.

Psychological Bulletin 2003,Vol. 129, No. 3, 339–375

Liberalism is a form of mental illness
and I've come to the sad realization that most of my fellow jews are schizophrenic.

Numerous studies have documented an uptick in antisemitic rhetoric and attacks over the past few years and multiple think tanks postulate that anti-israel sentiment is simply veiled antisemitism (it's more politically correct to attack "an agressive zionist regime" than simply jews in general). But despite the fact that the majority of this rhetoric is spewed by the left, my fellow jews- including Dershowitz- continue to believe it is the conservatives who threaten them.

Only 2 good things I can see. First, 10% more of the jewish population voted republican during the last election than in previous elections. Second, since libs are only interested in getting re-elected, they need the jewish vote. Hopefully that will continue to keep them from throwing israel/jews under the bus.

Dershowitz Not Logically of the Left
I was very fortunate to have had Professor Alan Dershowitz was my Criminal Law Professor at Harvard Law School, and this was years beofre he became famous. I asked him in class one day about his opposition to the death penalty, inquiring whether if it were shown to him empirically that for premeditated murder cases, the death penalty resulted in a net saving of life, would he not have to drop his opposition given that on moral-utilitarian grounds the penalty saved lives and that the penalty of death was proportionate to the premeditated infliction of death? Professor Dershowitz responded that logically he would have to, but he would have a difficult time accepting it. He was being honest.

Professor Dershowitz describes himself as a man of the Left, but that is an emotional position. Professor Dershowitz's good mind logically takes him to positions that are not of the Left. Former Leftist and now conservative David Horowitz regularly publishes articles by Professor Dershowitz on Horowitz's site frontpagemag.com. Horowitz describes in one of his books about how being a Leftist is a matter of faith; due to certain events, Horowitz no longer could be a believer and Horowitz's mind led him to being a conservative. I think Professor Dershowitz still emotionally holds on to belief, but his mind is taking him elsewhere.

Duke Lacrosse
KC Johnson was hammered as "right-wing" when he helped dismember the Duke Lacrosse Hoax - (he was an early Obama supporter, is in favor of gay marriage and abortion.) He is not right wing, obviously. He also is pro-Israel - while most of the discredited participants among the 88 staff and faculty were solidly anti-Israel, something that was noted on his Durham in Wonderland blog and by numerous posters.
So the question is not new - but the leftwing hypocrisy, as evidenced by 88 signatories who went ahead, full steam, intending to lynch three completely innocent young men, is troubling. Few of them offered an apology, even after the innocence became clear. The word "cognitive dissonance" is applicable here, too.

All you have to do is to read Tom
Wolfe's "Radical Chic," and the issue that appears to be confusion becomes something like chaos. The Red Diaper babies never lost their teething rings.

God help Israel!


Post Dershowitz response
Absolutely. If Alan Dershowitz does respond to these direct questions, I would love to see it posted on Townhall.com. This sort of intellectual debate would be so refreshing compared to the "shout down" on CNN or Fox.

Liberals' Neglect of Israel
Conservative Christians and Jews really do have a lot in common--they believe Israel has a right to defend itself. It really perplexes one in understanding why Jewish American voters gravitate towards the Democrat Party whose far left contingent could not care less about the survival of Israel.

Jimmy Carter symbolizes the fault line in the Democrat Party as it relates to Israel. Based on his actions and his comments, former President Carter always seems to favor the Arabs. The U.S. State Department also traditionally has been skewed towards the Arabs and is the primary reason why it should be completely shaken--not stirred--until all the Arabists are spun away to retirement. Don't expect that from Hillary, however, who is noted for her fond embrace of Arafat's wife.

It seems like the American Jewish concern for the poor surpasses its concern for the survival of Israel. Just as they have used their black supporters for decades the Democrat Party also uses its Jewish supporters in U.S. elections but brushes off their concerns about Israel's survival with a few perfunctory words of support.

Dennis...
...don't forget to post Dershowitz's response. I hope you get one.

Michael
Your point can not be made often enough. Violence DOES settle things. Wars DO decide things. Discussion of morals and merits is conducted only by survivors.

For whatever reason
Dershowitz excludes Israel from his moral relatism, from the whole left wing denial of reality in favor of good intentions. If true fairness, if true prosperity, if any of the other absolutes were important to him, he would be a conservative. Liberals systematically trash Israel in favor of well-intentioned negotiation. But they also trash many of the values of civilization the same way, giving lip service to lofty goals, while taking and supporting actions which produce the opposite results.

Isreal
As the consumate outsider, the only knowledge I have of the historical and unfortunately enduring Arab Israeli conflict is what I read in columns such as this and what I hear from disparate people especially in my travels as a seaman, a marine engr., most credibly from people in the middle east where I've often made port. E.g. in Aqaba and Eilat where Egypt, Israel, Jordan and Saudi all come together at the top of the Gulf of Aqaba, the people all seemed much more similar than different, to no one's surprise really. Still, even in view of the apparent animosity toward Jews implicit in the Qu'ran, the pervasive dislike (hatred, truthfully, in too many quarters) of Jews is as reprehensible to me as it is inexplicable. But, also, many Muslims seem to love their faith, taking it very seriously, much more so than far too many 'Christians' and 'Jews'. Whatever their obvious faults you don't see Muslims slaughtering their children en masse in abortion as we do, or encouraging sexual relations between and among men as also we do. Or encouraging assisted suicide and all the nauseating rest of it as additionally we do, in some quarters. Also, only the Orthodox (who need to learn how to deal with modernity, and as hard as they can be to deal with) and the conservatives strike me as the real article, real Jews, with liberals and secular 'jews' no more Jewish than liberal 'catholics' are Catholic.
So what's to be done?

Prager, Dershowitz, Others,
I come to praise Caesar.

As usual, both Left and Right ask the wrong question, as to the survival of any nation. Both seek the righteousness of survival, and only the winners can answer that, as history has always shown.

All else is arguing my college football team is better than your college football team, regardless of the final score.

Since 1945, the West, as to both Left thinking and Right thinking, are dedicated to experimenting with having nationhood without military conquest -- military conquest in all its guises.

That, after a million years, or after 6,000-some years (whatever you believe), of doing it with military conquest.

Period.

"Morals" are merely obfuscations.

Proud leftist history

The leftist movement in Israel has a long and proud history. David Ben-Gurion is one from many obvious examples:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/ben_g urion.html

With a leftist history filled with names like Sharett, Meir, Rabin, Peres, and now Tzipi Livni, why would Prager be surprised to find a friend of Israel among the left in this country?

Also, here is a recent editorial from the NY Times, that I think nicely sums up the liberal position on the current situation in Gaza:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/opinion/06tue1.html?_r=1

In what way does this position - that the current incursion into Gaza is perhaps justified but potentially counterproductive - indicate an "anti-Israel" bias?



more nonsense from Prager
Enough already with the tortured psychoanalysis of liberals. Just stick to the issues. Most American liberals, including myself and soon-to-be-President Obama, are strong supporters of Israel. Los Angeles Mayor Villariagosa, another guy the right loves to hate, gave a strong pro- Isaeli statement today.

Despite his other nonsense, 2spot is right; accept that we agree on some things without making it some grand "test". You ain't not psychiatrist so stop playing one on the radio and in print.

Mr. Prager, Mr. Prager...
I think the queries that you want your friend to answer are only queries that you struggle with in you own life.

Who do you resolve your own 'cognitive dissonance' within the right?

Your struggle with your friend is your own struggle with 'Truth.'

Pilate struggle with 'truth' was simple to absolve himself of guilt.

Unless you come to the place where 'truth' is more than 'moral authority' you have yet to have answers for your friend.

2spothipshot
Brother, if you ever get to MN look me up--I don't drink but I'll buy you a beer anyway! Your comment on Prager's article, brilliant in both its profundity and humor, made me laugh out loud :)

Dennis is such a wise, decent man. It troubles him to see a fellow Jewish intellectual think so clearly on an issue like that of Israel and its enemies, yet remain in the dark on all of the other leftist intellectual incoherence. I think he would be wise to take your advice 2spot--don't even bother trying to figure out the mind of the modern liberal. It is best left to psychiatrists, psychologists and the other like professions who get paid to do so for a living...


Dennis Prager is a brilliant man who,
...more and more, tortures me w/ endless expoundings on the self evident and, apparently, for purposes of civility, asks questions that serve no function other than to give the questionee a chance for redemption.

Here's the score: 1)Dershowitz is a lib
2)Liberalism is an established form of brain-sickness
3) Who the hell cares why he is irrational, HIS ACTIONS ARE THAT OF A MENTAL PATIENT.

My question: Why do so many on the right waste so much time trying to assuage those who are, in effect(if not intent), the enemies of peace and reason? So he gets ONE thing right, so what? He only serves to confound those who try to understand him. Like Lieberman, in the end, if you try to embrace only "the good side" of him, his lib side drags you down into its non-sensical insanity.

See!? I'm goin' nuts just talkin' about it!

Dershowitz is confused...
...and has been for years. His book, "Rights From Wrongs", which I am now reading, is confused from the get-go on such basic elements (e.g., he says that rights cannot be unalienable as the Declaration of Independence describes, because if they were, nobody's rights would ever have been abused by those in government) that it amazes me that the publisher went ahead with it. I hope your question to him makes him begin to question his assumptions.

It's a question about Judaism as well
I'm of a secular Jewish background, and Mr. Prager's "10 Questions" book, which I read in mid-life, was my first inkling that Judaism had something to offer me on a spiritual level. (That I could have grown up so ignorant testifies to a serious cultural failure...but that's another topic.) Anyway, Prager's question is why the left seems to be associated with such a serious degree of moral vacuity, and why a decent man of the left like Dershowitz doesn't acknowledge this trend. Likewise, decent Muslims should be asking themselves why so much modern carnage comes from their ranks. And, as a Jew, I wonder why the Jews on the whole tilt so strongly to the left, and I wonder whether the problem is with Judaism itself, or with the secular Jews who have lost touch with Judaism. In any event, it's an issue that troubles me, and certainly must be addressed by proponents of Judaism...of which I am one.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.