Op-Ed: Dershowitz Explains his Support for Obama
Ted BelmanThe author is a retired attorney and the editor of Israpundit. In 2009 he made aliya and is now living in Jerusalem.
Alan Dershowitz explains How Liberal Democrats who Support Israel Might Think about the Election by explaining his own views.
" have also disagreed with presidents, both Republican and Democrat, who have suggested that Israel’s settlement policy is the major barrier to peace between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. The major barrier has always been, and remains, the Palestinian Arabs’ unwillingness to recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people, to renounce their absurd claim to a so-called “right of return,” and to accept reasonable offers from Israel regarding the borders of the "West Bank". Though I have long been opposed to Israel’s settlement policy on humanitarian and democratic grounds, I insist that the continuing occupation is largely the result of Palestinian refusal to accept the reasonable compromises offered by Prime Ministers Barak and Olmert.
"f the Palestinians had been prepared to accept such reasonable compromises, the occupation would end, as would the concerns over humanitarian and democratic issues. The same might be true if the Palestinians were now prepared to negotiate a two-state solution with no preconditions. At bottom, therefore, this dispute is more about land than it is about human rights, because the Palestinians can secure their human rights by being willing to compromise over land, as the Jews did both in 1938, when they accepted the Peel Commission Report, and in 1948 when they accepted the UN Partition Plan."
I can only wonder what the humanitarian grounds are. If anyone can find a link where Dershowitz expounds on this, please do.
As for democratic grounds, I am equally at a loss.
He is wrong to say that “this dispute is more about land than it is about human rights”. It is about neither. The Arabs don’t compromise on land because neither human rights nor land is what they want. They want to destroy the state of Israel. Why can’t he get this?
"I approve of President Obama’s policies on the rights of women, gays and racial and religious minorities. I support his health care bill, his approach to immigration and to taxes, and his appointments to the Supreme Court. If I believed that his foreign policies endangered Israel’s security, that would weigh heavily on my decision how to vote. But instead I believe that there would be no major differences between a President Obama and a President Romney when it comes to Israel’s security."
Although Obama has provided Israel with considerable military and intelligence upgrading which adds to Israel’s security, to ignore his position on borders is to ignore a fundamental weakness in his security bona fides. Also to press Israel to make further compromises at this time ignores her security needs.
I believe that Romney would be better on both accounts. Finally,Romney would never have embraced the Muslim Brotherhood, as he did. Obama has endangered Israel by doing so.
Furthermore, Dershowitz reduces Israel’s claims to security only.
He never argues that Israel has rights to the land or to Jerusalem. For him, Israel has no legitimate claims to either. Romney may well have a different view on this.
These differences are reason enough to vote for Romney.