The three whoppers of Alan Dershowitz

alan dershowitz endorses a republican
Alan Dershowitz (Photo:Salon)

This Thursday, Peter Beinart and Alan Dershowitz will once again square off on the subject of Zionism at CUNY, a debate that promises to cover a spectrum of opinion from A to B. It is unclear exactly what new ground they will cover, having debated at least twice before, once at CUNY last October, and a few months earlier on Martha’s Vineyard. One possibility is that Dershowitz will use the occasion to unveil newer and better lies. There is no shortage of exposés of his breathtaking dishonesty, including my own modest contributions about his 2010 debate with Susan Abulhawa, his whining about the BDS conference at Brooklyn College, and his recent claim that the Israel Army has the lowest rape rate of civilians. But Dershowitz keeps the lies coming fast and furious, and someone has to keep up with the Great Fabricator.

Take this short excerpt from last year’s Martha’s Vineyard debate with Beinart. Starting at about 29:20:

There’s a lot of common ground between us. Let me start by giving you a little of my own history on these issues. In 1967, as you probably all know, Israel tried very hard to keep Jordan out of the 1967 war… It was a responsive war, not a preemptive war. The War with Egypt and with Syria was a preemptive war, but the war that resulted in the capture of the West Bank was a reactive war. Israel captured the West Bank, immediately it offered to give it back, immediately… As … Moshe Dayan said, “I sat by the phone. We put an offer out, land for peace,” and the response was the meeting at Khartoum between all the Arab countries and the Palestinian leadership in which they issued the three famous no’s – no negotiation, no peace, and no recognition.
At 31:20: Israel has complied completely with 242. . . Any country that has made peace with Israel has gotten all of its territory back. So one has to remember that history and think of it very carefully. –
At 32:00: The Palestinian leader at the time, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, said there is no such thing as the Palestinian people. The last thing we want is a Palestinian State, we just don’t want there to be a Jewish State. So there’s a history here.

Those who view Dershowitz’s opening statement will no doubt spot other indefensible assertions of “fact,” but there are three major whoppers that I have never seen made by anyone else.

First whopper: “Israel captured the West Bank, immediately it offered to give it back, immediately.”

Seriously? Israel immediately offered to give back the West Bank? Where does Dershowitz get this from? Apparently by grossly embellishing on a more modest lie he previously spouted in his 2002 book, The Case for Israel. There, on p. 96, Dershowitz wrote that Israel agreed to comply with the principles of UNSC Resolution 242, and he recounts the story of poor forlorn Dayan waiting for a phone call from King Hussein. This earlier Dershowitz version does not make the claim that Israel actually offered to give back the West Bank, or that Dayan was ever quoted as saying, “We put an offer out, land for peace.” The book cites p. 330 of Benny Morris’s Righteous Victims for support.

Putting aside the problems presented by Morris’s historically inconsistent histories, what did he actually say on p. 330?

Morris does claim that Israeli leaders thought that “the conquered territories could be traded for peace,” that Dayan was waiting for King Hussein’s call (but not that Dayan said anything about an offer of land for peace), and that the Israeli cabinet secretly offered to give up the Sinai and Golan Heights for peace with Egypt and Syria, who rejected the overture.

However, when Morris discusses Israel’s plans for the West Bank, it’s a very different story.

[Israel] “postponed a decision concerning the West Bank, about which the ministers disagreed. There was a consensus not to return to the prewar borders – which Foreign Minister Abba Eban, nothing if not a dove, was to immortalize as “the Auschwitz lines” . . . The majority eventually coalesced around the plan proposed by Yigal Allon at the end of July 1967: to divide the West Bank between Israel and Jordan . . .  Israel would retain and six-seven-mile-deep strip along the west bank of the Jordan as a “security belt”. . .

In other words, Israel’s plan was to expand its width into Jordanian territory rather than return to the pre-existing border, and in addition, acquire a 6 to 7 mile wide swath stretching west from the Jordan River, in the middle of Jordanian territory!

To recap, in 2012, Dershowitz claimed that Israel immediately offered to give the West Bank back to Jordan, based upon his own decade-old book that makes no such claim, which was in turn based upon a 1999 Morris work that explicitly stated the opposite.

Second whopper: “Israel has complied completely with 242. . . Any country that has made peace with Israel has gotten all of its territory back.”

The only two countries that lost territory in 1967 and subsequently signed a peace treaty with Israel are Egypt and Jordan. Israel conquered the Sinai peninsula and Gaza from Egypt in 1967, and built Jewish settlements in each territory. In the early 1970’s when Egypt indicated a willingness to agree to peace with Israel in return for its captured territories, PM Golda Meir dismissed the overture out of hand. This led directly to the Yom Kippur War of 1973, and eventually to the Camp David agreement five years later in which Israel finally agreed to withdraw from the Sinai. This was not compliance with 242. It took another war to get Israel to part with the Sinai. Moreover, Israel continued its control of Gaza after the peace treaty. So Egypt never got “all of its territory back” and only got the Sinai not out of Israel’s compliance with SC 242 but after Israel’s initial rejection of the resolution’s principles.

As for Jordan, Dershowitz’s lie is even worse. Jordan made peace with Israel but did not get any of its territory back. It is true that it renounced its claim to the West Bank, but it assigned its rights over the territory to the Palestinians. If Israel, in exchange for a peace treaty with Jordan, had returned “all of [Jordan’s] territory” captured in 1967, it would have returned the entire West Bank to Jordan’s designated beneficiary, the Palestinian people. Instead, it has never relinquished one inch of that territory.

Third whopper (this one a double): “The Grand Mufti said there is no such thing as the Palestinian people. The last thing we want is a Palestinian State.“

Where does Dershowitz get this from? Apparently from his own peculiar powers of deduction. It is, of course, true, that the Mufti, Haj Amin al-Husseini, as well the overwhelming majority of Palestinians, opposed the 1947 UN Partition Plan proposing a Jewish and an Arab State, but the objection was to the Jewish State, where hundreds of thousands of non-Jewish Palestinians resided. There was no objection to a state for Palestinians that was independent from the surrounding Arab states. There is zero support for the proposition that al-Husseini rejected the notion of a Palestinian State or the existence of the Palestinian people. With respect to the latter, Dershowitz might be confusing the Mufti with Golda Meir, who famously did deny the existence of Palestinians; people make that mistake all the time.

Beinart did not challenge Dershowitz on any of these lies, as conspicuous and indefensible as they were. In fact, at 43:40, he meekly responded that “I agree with some of that history. . . much of it was back many, many decades ago.” It was not only outdated, Peter, it was fictional.

Note Dershowitz’s demeanor, which he cleverly uses to bolster his fabrications. He casually recites this invented history as if it were facts we can all agree on, like 2+2=4. He throws in the reassurances that this history is “common ground,” and “as you probably all know.” In fact, such phrases act to promote unanimity of agreement with the fabrications to follow, since anyone who dares dissent from or even acknowledges ignorance of Dershowitz’s thumbnail narrative would be confessing to an embarrassing level of crudeness and lack of cultivation.

Does it work? It looks like it. A couple of hundred well-heeled, mostly liberal MV vacationers went home enlightened about Israel’s extraordinary generosity toward the vanquished Arabs in the wake of victory, and the Fakestinians who pretend to be aggrieved about the loss of something that was never theirs. But Dershowitz has been getting away with and even thriving on this mendacity for decades. Probably the only interesting thing about Thursday’s debate will be to see if there are any new whoppers in the hopper.

About David Samel

David Samel is am attorney in New York City.
Posted in American Jewish Community, Israel/Palestine, US Politics | Tagged

{ 56 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. ToivoS says:

    Even if Dersh is “winning’ these arguments because the audience and Peter can’t distinguish the truth from a lie, he is still slowly losing. The receptive audience is mostly already convinced, older American Jews who will accept any new fact to bolster their love of Israel. But the audience is getting smaller so Dersh is losing this debate one funeral at a time.

  2. Shingo says:

    Outstanding as always David.

    Great analysis and expose on Dersh. When is he going to debate someone who can actually call him out on this rubbish?

    Beinart did not challenge Dershowitz on any of these lies, as conspicuous and indefensible as they were.

    That comes as no surprise. Beinart seems to suffer fro schizophrenia. One minute he’s being honest and calling out false narratives, the next he’s endorsing them.

    Check out his latest effort

    Why Do People Keep Calling Israel an Apartheid State When It’s Not?
    link to

    • kylebisme says:

      Dersh has tried to debate Finkelstein, it didn’t go well.

      • Shingo says:

        Holy shit kylebisme, I had no idea, thank you.

        This clip is indescribable. It’s like 2 impersonators dong a skit for SNL.

    • eljay says:

      >> Beinart seems to suffer fro schizophrenia. One minute he’s being honest and calling out false narratives, the next he’s endorsing them.

      That’s what happens when “liberal Zionists” try to balance the realities of justice, morality and equality (among other things) with their deeply-held desires for a supremacist “Jewish State”.

    • Sumud says:

      I read Beinart’s article and it is tedious. He is tedious, tying himself up in knots when even Israeli zionists are claiming Israel practices apartheid.

      Give the man a laxative.

  3. Yes, what a whopper by Dershowitz! That Israel offered to get out of the West Bank immediately after the June 1967 war ended.

    In fact, Britain tried to force Israel out of WB, Gaza, Sinai, and Golan Heights, at UN, but Israel lobby blocked effective American support for the British effort.

  4. Surely Dershowitz is only too well aware how close Israel came to a peace deal with Syria, in 2008. Failed precisely because Israel REFUSED to “give everything back”.

  5. Nevada Ned says:

    Good article. Thanks, David Samel!

    The title should be changed slightly, from
    “The three whoppers from Alan Dershowitz”
    “Three of the whoppers from Alan Dershowitz”.

    Because the man doesn’t stop at just three.

    For details about lots of other whoppers from A. D.,
    see Beyond Chutzpah, by Norman Finkelstein.

  6. kylebisme says:

    Morris does claim… the Israeli cabinet secretly offered to give up the Sinai and Golan Heights for peace with Egypt and Syria, who rejected the overture.

    The story goes that the Israeli cabinet voted unanimously to make such offers, and asked the the US to relay it to Egpyt and Syria, but Avi Shlaim notes on p 254 of The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World:

    The American record of the meeting confirms that Rusk considered the Israelis terms as not ungenerous, but it makes no mention of a request by Eban to transmit these terms to Egypt and Syria. Nor is there confirmation from Egyptian or Syrian sources that they received a conditional Israeli offer of withdrawal through the State Department in late June 1967. One is left with the impression that Eban was more interested in using the cabinet decision of 19 June to impress the Americans than to engage the governments of Egypt and Syria in direct negotiations.

    Also, while the article implies that Egypt and Jordan had rightful claims to the Gaza Strip and and the West Bank respectively, they never actually did, just like Israel doesn’t to this day. Both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank have been Palestinian territory since they were carved off from the Ottoman Empire as such.

    • David Samel says:

      kyle, Morris does say that the offer was transmitted to and rejected by Egypt and Syria, though I’ve seen your account more often. The decision to offer land for peace, if made at all, was done in secret, and in my opinion, the whole story should be taken with a grain of salt. There simply is no reason to believe anyone on this point about what was done or not done behind the scenes.

      • kylebisme says:

        Any chance you can tell me what source Morris cites for his claim that “Withing days both countries had rejected the offer”? I see the sentence is marked as being derived from footnote 120, but I’m just working with a Google Books preview which doesn’t give me access to the actual footnotes to determine the source.

        • tree says:

          I’ve got the paperback copy. Footnote 120, for chapter seven, page 330 lists “Korn, p.14-15″. In his Bibliography Morris lists one book by Korn, David. “Stalemate: The War of Attrition and Great Power Diplomacy in the Middle East, 1967-1970. Boulder, CO. Westview Press, 1992.

        • tree says:

          I also note that on page 330, which Dershowitz cites as his proof that Israel offered to return all conquered territories for peace, Morris also said:

          “The resolution did not mention the Gaza Strip, implying that Israel would keep it, and … ” This passage is right before David’s quoted passage “…postponed a decision concerning the West Bank, about which the ministers disagreed.” So Israel never offered to return Gaza and only later did they offer to return to Jordan a portion of their captured territory, cut off from the rest of Jordan by Israel’s “security belt”, and completely vulnerable to the whims of Israel for access.

          So Israel didn’t even agree to return all captured Egyptian territory. It planned to keep Gaza. And it couldn’t even agree on a plan to “return” a rump version of the West Bank to Jordan. No doubt this was an early example of the “generous offers” Israel has become famous for.

        • tree says:

          From what little I can glean from the few tidbits of page 13 and 14 of Korn’s book that is available on Google Books, East Jerusalem and Gaza were immediately subtracted from the Israeli list of “returnable territories”. ( And Israel redrew and greatly expanded East Jerusalem’s municipal boundaries and annexed it just 10 days after the Cabinet meeting in June.) The rest of the West Bank was still in dispute among the various Israeli Cabinet members at the time of the “peace proposal”.

        • David Samel says:

          Sure, kyle. David Korn, Stalemate: The War of Attrition etc. at 14-15. I haven’t checked that book myself but would be interested to see what he wrote and who his source was.

        • Great post, Tree. Lydon Johnson deserves credit for the catastrophe of the Vietnam War, and for potential catasrophe in Middle East due to failure to force Israel out of all territories occupied during June 1967 war.

        • David Samel says:

          tree, you’re absolutely right. Israel always seems to make proposals that sound good superficially but are designed to be rejected. This is an early version of that tactic.

        • tree says:

          Thanks, David (and James, too.)

          I should mention that I always look forward to your posts here, David. I always learn something from them, and I admire your ability to layout your argument so clearly.

        • kylebisme says:

          Thank you David and Tree. Considering the fact that Morris cites a book from ’92 rather than a document from ’67, I’m figuring there’s probably not any really substantiation for the claim.

    • marc b. says:

      kylebisme, it’s difficult to make a clear, concise statement of Israeli policy at the time from what I’ve read. there seems to have been many personalities working at cross purposes, or rapidly changing their positions, on the status of the in particular. dayan, then minister of defense, reportedly was initially supportive of a land for peace swap, but that didn’t last long, and the idf began to train and arm settlers as a paramilitary force in the fairly shortly after the end of the war.

      if you can get your hands on them at the library, ‘lords of the land’ and ‘the bride and the dowry’ are great resources on the subject.

      • marc b. says:

        ‘lords of the land’ is available at google books:

        link to

        the first chapter details the quick transition from discussion of land swaps for peace, to various settlement proposals which are typically mish mashes of military, political and religious/historic considerations. dayan’s transformation, as I said, was quick. within weeks he went from proposing military outposts, to the establishment of civilian settlements, the difference between military and paramilitary really being the key distinction between actors. that and he was enacting policies to ensure that Palestinians did not return and further encouraging displaced or separated family members from settling outside of the, in Jordan mostly. another big population transfer initiated by Israeli military aggression.

  7. biorabbi says:

    I preferred Ron Silver in Reversal of Fortune to the real Dersh. The cover of Mondoweiss now has an awesome pic of the Dersh… looks like he’s a bit dyspeptic after a big mac.

    • David Samel says:

      Dershowitz was a consultant on that movie, and although I thought it was quite good (thanks to Jeremy Irons), you could see Dersh’s fingerprints on the movie. Although he won a reversal of Klaus’s conviction and a new trial, that new trial was won by an excellent trial attorney named Tom Puccio. The movie portrays Dersh’s appeal as being so successful that any idiot could have won the retrial. In other words, he took credit for that too.

  8. marc b. says:

    david, i can’t get behind the subscription wall right now, but adam shatz had an excellent review in LRB of ‘the bride and the dowry’ by avi raz detailing the history of ’67, including the important pre-history leading up to it, and the historical fact is that many of the founding fathers of israel considered it a grievous error not to have taken the in ’48. ’67 (the ‘pre-emptive counterattack’) was the premeditated fix.

    dershowitz is such a shameless liar every word out of his mouth is a fresh affront to decency.

    • David Samel says:

      Marc, I did not go into the usual hasbara that we hear about Israel fighting a defensive war in 1967, etc. I was struck by these unique assertions made that I’ve never seen made by anyone else. You certainly are right that there is ample evidence that Israel accepted the partition plan with the aim of eventually conquering the entire territory.

    • Avi Raz’s “The Bride and the Dowry”, as marc b says, takes this whole West Bank-Jordan thing apart.

      link to

  9. Safakhouli says:

    I don’t know, I really don’t, how a professor in his weight would lie publicly and deliberately undermines our minds as no one reads the history but him. That his real academic and political career just to manipulate the facts and distort the history. Shame on Harvard University.
    Please Excuse My English.

  10. Safakhouli says:

    Thanks for the author.

  11. Dershowitz. One of the most unprincipled men the world has ever seen. The mind boggles.

  12. Abdul-Rahman says:

    I think one the best “whoppers”, or exposures I should say, of Dershowitz still has to be what the Dersh considers supposed “scholarship”, as Norman Finkelstein humorously exposed in their legendary Democracy Now debate. With Finkelstein showing that Dershowitz’s supposedly “scholarly” book used such “vaunted” references and source material as a High School syllabus, a Sony Pictures website, and I believe also an Orlando Sentinel opinion page writing!

  13. The wider question is how people like him feel able to make such outrageous lies up, and dispense them as if he expects to be believed, and not called out. Might I suggest that it is the climate of zionism and completely uncritical Israel worship and idolatry which has encouraged ideologues like Dersh to promote their fictionalised version of history – one which has nothing to do with inconvenient notions like truth, and everything to do with justifying and normalising a land grab and occupation with the horrifying consequences we are familiar with.
    Dersh has striven to bully, intimidate and smear anyone who stands up to him and the Israeli fiction factory. As have many others. The result is their insouciance, and presumption that they can whitewash any aspect of Israeli history and behaviour. It is a gigantic propaganda exercise, which has succeeded to the extent that he, and many others, feel entirely free to keep wheeling out further distortions and outright alterations of fact in order to further their agenda. Their confidence that nobody will call them out, that they won’t be ridiculed or their tenure or credentials questioned, is an indication of the climate they themselves have created, where apparently you can make anything up you like about Israel, with the confidence that the mainstream will not question you for fear of being called anti-semitic. But on the other hand, any correction of these falsehoods, or a statement of Palestinian history is denounced ferociously by these people, whose main concern appears to be preserving the freedom they have granted themselves to continue building the myths they so assiduously exploit for their own benefit.

    • Justice – - The Israel lobby has suppressed the truth about the illegal activities of Israel in the Golan Heights and the West Bank, for decades, in the US particularly. As you say, this encourages lying by promoters of Israeli oppression of the Palestinians.

  14. Citizen says:

    What I’d like to see clarified is the time line for how and when the US official stance on all the settlements as illegal slipped from forthright condemnation therefore–to ambiguity as to legality and merely a problem or obstacle to peace extending only to the “hilltop” and future new settlements. Any takers?

    • Citizen says:

      Never mind. At a glance, it appears the last POTUS to clearly declare the settlements illegal was Carter. And it also appears Reagan was the first to avoid the question of legality and characterize the settlements as a mere hinderance in the peace process: link to

      • Citizen – - Was Jimmy Carter “taken out” by the Israel lobby? To punish him?

        • Citizen says:

          @ James Canning
          Your question has been answered many times on this MW website. I suggest you use its archives. Of course you know former POTUS Carter was called an anti-semite by many in the mainstream media, so what’s your point?

        • Citizen – - I was alluding to the apparent conspiracy to take Jimmy Carter out of the White House, by making a cause celebre of the Iranian student takeover of the US embassy in Tehran. Did the Israel lobby make this possible? If so, it would explain why Reagan took a different approach, as you argued.

        • Citizen says:

          @ James Canning
          This article discusses at length the proposition that the “CIA within the CIA,” partnering with the Likud regime in Israel via Mossad, conspired to take Carter out of the Whitehouse by blocking Carter’s attempt to free the hostages and, instead, ring in Reagan with an immediate release of the hostages–Israel allowed itself to be used as the conduit for bribing key Iranian leaders with US-made weapons, and Israel benefited handsomely from the deal: link to

        • Thanks, Citizen. There indeed was a conspiracy to prevent Carter from making a deal with Iran to free the hostages.
          Elements of the Israel lobby, and Israeli agents and officials, helped the scheme.

    • Obama’s demand that Israel stop all growth of the colonies in the West Bank, during Netanyahu’s first visit to White House under new administration, implicitly recognised the settlements are illegal.

  15. Ismail says:

    Big Mac? Nope, I think it was a Whopper.

  16. seafoid says:

    “The Palestinian leader at the time, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, said there is no such thing as the Palestinian people.”

    he meant the people were part of the Shaam, the Levant, ie no difference between Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Jordan.
    Israel was gerrymandered along with Lebanon to make states for 2 religious minorities. Both were very shortsighted decisions.
    The mufti was right. They all speak the same dialect and share the same culture.
    Dersh is wrong in turning his words to mean the complete dispossession of the Palestinians . Even if the people felt part of “greater Syria” there was no right to strip them of everything. Their link to their land never turned on a name.

    The problem with zionism is that as the bots were outsiders they needed an ideology to unite the people. And the ideology is very shoddy at this stage.

    Rashid Khalidi’s new book is advertised in the latest issue of the New York Review. It looks really good. Dersh is of course one of the lynchpins of the current dysfunctional system.

    link to

    Praise for Brokers of Deceit

    What has happened to the Palestinian people since 1948 is one of the great crimes of modern history. Of course, Israel bears primary responsibility for this tragedy. However, as Rashid Khalidi shows in his smart new book, American presidents from Truman to Obama have sided with Israel at almost every turn and helped it inflict immense pain and humiliation on the Palestinians. At the same time, they have employed high-sounding but dishonest rhetoric to cover up Israel’s brutal behavior. As Brokers of Deceit makes clear, the United States richly deserves to be called “Israel’s lawyer.”
    —John J. Mearsheimer, coauthor of The Israel Lobby

    “Drawing on his own experience as a Palestinian negotiator and recently released documents, Rashid Khalidi mounts a frontal attack on the myths and misconceptions that have come to surround America’s role in the so-called “peace process” which is all process and no peace. The title is not too strong: the book demonstrates conclusively that far from serving as an honest broker, the US continues to act as Israel’s lawyer – with dire consequences for its own interests, for the Palestinians, and for the entire region. Professor Khalidi deserves much credit for his superb exposition of the fatal gap between the rhetoric and reality of American diplomacy on this critically important issue.”
    —Avi Shlaim, Emeritus Professor of International Relations at Oxford and author ofThe Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World.

    “Khalidi has combined history, common sense and his first-hand understanding of arab-israeli peace talks, as brokered by Washington, to make the case that American national security interests would be best served by a just peace in the Middle East. Instead, he writes with great sadness, Washington’s efforts to be an honest broker fall “somewhere between high irony and farce” —and puts democratic America, with its avowed commitment to freedom for all, in the position of enabling the continued subjugation of the Palestine people. This is an important book.”
    —Seymour M. Hersh, The New Yorker

    “For those of us who believe that a two-state solution is the path to justice and peace for Israel and Palestine, Rashid Khalidi’s trenchant analysis is powerful and disturbing. The United States has failed repeatedly to be an honest broker, accepting the status quo of Israeli occupation and settlements when a true peace agreement would be deeply in the interest of all parties, Israel, Palestine, and the US itself. Khalidi emphasizes that the deceptions of language and deed have serious long-term costs and that the United States might soon impose and incur still greater costs through ill-conceived policies vis-à-vis Syria, Iran, and other countries in the Middle East.”
    —Jeffrey D. Sachs, author of The End of Poverty

    Praise for Rashid Khalidi

    “Rashid Khalidi is arguably the foremost U.S. historian of the modern Middle East.”—Warren I. Cohen, Los Angeles Times Book Review

    “Unlike most so-called Middle East experts, Khalidi actually knows a great deal about that region”—Professor John J. Mearsheimer, author of The Israel Lobby

    • Seafroid – - Yes, Lebanon was separated by France, from its Mandate in Syria.
      Transjordan was separated from Palestine, partly to make possible Jewish immigration into Palestine Mandate. Greater Syria included Palestine (and Jordan).

      • Shingo says:

        Transjordan was separated from Palestine, partly to make possible Jewish immigration into Palestine Mandate

        Wrong. Transjordan was promised to the Shariff of Mecca in 1915. It was added to the Mandate as a separate territory by the LON under the terms of the Transjordan Memorandum.

        • Shingo – - The Hashemite leader in Mecca wanted his son to be king of an Arab state of greater Syria. The French wrecked this plan.

          “Under the stress of the World War, the British Government made promises to Arabs and Jews in order to obtain their support.”

          “This conflict [in Palestine] was inherent in the situation. . . ”

          {Royal Commission report, 1937]

        • Shingo says:

          The Hashemite leader in Mecca wanted his son to be king of an Arab state of greater Syria. The French wrecked this plan.

          Not really. The Husseing McMahon letters were written in 1915 and were recognized as a binding treaty. The Balfour Declaration has no legal authority until San Remo in 1920.

        • seafoid says:

          What legal authority have any of those declarations the bots paid for?

          Bulgaria could declare tomorrow that Boston is the sacred land of the Transylvanians.

          If the chinese came along as sole superpower and declared Balfour null and void what comeback would the bots have?
          The whole notion that the systematic dispossession of the Palestinians could be made kosher with the help of some bought lawyers is nuts.

        • Shingo – - Faisal tried to set himself up as king of Syria, after First World War. French troops entered country (Mandate), and forced him out.

          France wanted a colonial holding midpoint between Algeria and Southeast Asia (French Indo-China). And France had cultural and business ties with Lebanese Christians.

          France blocked untified Arab country of Greater Syria. But Britain had its eyes on Palestine for several reasons, apart from delivering on promsies to the Sharif of Mecca.

        • seafroid – -Are you arguing that in effect no resolution of Israel/Palestine should be accepted, unless as many non-Jews either evicted from Israel, or descending from people evicted from Israel, are allowed to return as wish to return? (To Israel within 1966 borders.)

    • MHughes976 says:

      I’m not so concerned about the Palestinian people as about people who are Palestinians. They exist, I think.

      • MHughes976 – - Yes, the Palestinians most definitely exist. Even if Mitt Romney and Sheldon Adelson wish this were not the case.

      • Hughes – - BTW, I liked your comment about Leeds Castle the other day. A friend of mine used to attend house parties there when Lady Olivia Baillie was chatelaine.

  17. eGuard says:

    Having sit through an hour of “debate” at Martha’s Vineyard (linked), I heard these quotes (stresses, verbal, by AD):
    1:02:20, AD: … and everybody knows, everybody knows that Ma’ale Adumim is gonna remain [sic] part of Israel. Nobody thinks that Palestinians are gonna get these enourmous appartments complexes overlooking Jerusalem. Of course they remain [sic] part of Israel.

    1:07:40, AD: I am not here to justify the occupation. I am against it. I am against civilian [sic] settlements. In 1973 I submitted my first petition against [name inaudible] which resulted in my rabbi in the synagoge, in front of my mother at rosh hashanah, calling me a traitor to the Jewish people. So I get it from the right and the left equally as well.
    Clearly he is contradicting himself: being against settlements since 1973, and of course Ma’ale Adumim can stay Israeli. This is not a straight lie, as the whoppers are, but dishonest it is.

    Still, in there are two plain lies, I marked. “Ma’ale Adumim is gonna remain part of Israel”; really, it is not part of Israel, so what is to “remain”? And the lie “I am against civilian settlements” (what would “uncivil” settlements be then, and why does he support them? Are they what they are today?). So allows some military settlement/presence/occupation which he said he is against.

  18. Citizen says:

    Dershowitz has no internal conflict representing his client, Zionist Israel. He cannot do this with any mental integrity unless he falsely posits his training as an American lawyer as his guide. The problem is, the American judicial advocacy system depends on the judge and/or jury being objective deciders, and for this reason, it allows the opposing attorneys to look solely to anything or anybody that will or may support their side of the case and ignore and disparage the other side’s evidence. Somebody needs to inform Dershie that he’s not arguing a trial case in the US judicial system, but he’s arguing his case for justice wrt Israel before the world in the public arena. There’s no rules of evidence and procedure there akin to a judicial case. There’s no appointed judge, nor any convened jury. Problem is, Derhsie takes full advantage of that lack of enforced evidence while pretending he’s just an American lawyer arguing his case.

  19. After decades of throwing lighter fluid on the Israeli BBQ, the Dersh gets his eyebrows singed.

    link to