Alan Dershowitz still doesn't get it

My criticisms here of the piece Alan Dershowitz wrote in the Wall Street Journal appear to be making some waves across the pond. Dershowitz has now written a lengthy defence of himself against me on his JPost blog Double Standard Watch. I had said that he had failed to address the most egregious aspects of Obama's extreme hostility towards Israel, and that this was undoubtedly because, like most American Jews, he was incapable of admitting that a Democratic President could be so vicious towards it.

In his reply, Dershowitz not only shows that he still doesn't 'get it' but also that he doesn't appear to have understood what I wrote.

An Israeli attack on Iran should serve Israeli security, not US timetable

Regardless of the motive, it is former US president George W. Bush who overthrew Saddam Hussein's Sunni regime and replaced it with one led by the Shi'ites, a regime under the influence of Iran. It was Bush, not Obama, who opened the way for an Iranian military presence and threat along the Saudi and Kuwaiti borders. It was Bush who, facing a never-ending quagmire reminiscent of Vietnam finally turned to his main opponent in Iraq, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and asked it to control the Iraqi militias and allow the US to withdraw "with dignity."

Bush, in turn, rewarded Ahmadinejad with diplomatic recognition, a first-ever US interest section in Teheran. Iran, emboldened by Bush's weakness and dependency, challenged US interests in other areas of the region, missionizing in the Saudi Peninsula, in Egypt, and even far-off Morocco. Through its proxies in Lebanon and Gaza Iran took on the IDF in Israel's north and south. If Bush did not directly create the Iranian juggernaut, then he certainly contributed to the emerging confidence Iran displays today in defying American interests in the world and in suppressing its own citizenry.

Requisites for a real friend of Israel

The 2008 Presidential campaign has brought forth statements from all the major candidates, both Democrat and Republican, of the depth of their support for the State of Israel, and their commitment to maintaining the close relationship that exists between the United States and the only real democracy in that area of the world. On the face of it, there would appear to be very little difference between the Democrats and the Republicans regarding support for Israel. The politically naive would be able to look at all the candidates and seeing their near equal "support" for Israel, come to the conclusion that a choice for one's candidate could be made upon other criteria, since all major candidates support Israel.

Rarely has the statement "a little knowledge can be dangerous" had more applicability. Based on their respective records as well as their campaign statements, we know that all the major candidates believe that Israel has the right to maintain itself as a "Jewish State". But the fact that all these candidates support Israel's right to be Jewish, doesn't translate to each one turning out to be equally helpful to Israel to maintain her existence in a very hostile neighborhood. With the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) issuing daily threats to Israel, and Iran's proxies - whether Hizbullah in Lebanon or Hamas, Islamic Jihad or the PFLP in Gaza - attacking Israel and Israelis with relative impunity, it is crucial for the next president of the United States to understand that what occurs in Iraq has direct consequences to Israel's security just as surely as events in Ciudad Juarez effect conditions in Texas, or those in Toronto effect New York.

Letter to MK Yishai: 'Your support could not have been more timely'

Dear MK Yishai
 
I was very gratified by the decision of Rabbi Yosef and Shas to openly support the release of Jonathan Pollard. During our earliest correspondence Jonathan and I agreed that his only real possibility for release would result from the intervention of the Israel Government on his behalf.
 
As one who helped organize and was first Director of Justice for the Pollards in 1989 I have taken an active interest in his case for many years. In 1989 I brought Jonathan's sister to Israel to lay the foundation for grassroots and governmental support for his release. That visit resulted in a letter from the Chief Rabbis to President Reagan, the public support of Interior Minister Hammer, and a meeting in the Knesset with more than 30 members from all parties. From that meeting, and with the assistance of the office of MK Geula Cohen, we were able to draft a petition calling for Pollard's release. The petition was signed by more than seventy members and delivered to the White House by an official delegation of Knesset members in early 1990. 

Hands off the Law of return, Part II: Jewish Denial

In a previous submission, Hands off the Law of Return , respondents covered the spectrum of issues related, it seemed to me, to the title, but few spoke of the issues raised in the article itself. For instance, why was the Law and its Grandparent Clause among the first Basic Laws enacted by the new State of Israel, why was this law considered a priority? Why, if it was to be the gatekeeper regarding persons to be granted instant refuge and citizenship did it not defer to Halacha, Jewish traditional law, defining a Jew as born of a Jewish mother? Why instead was the Law written to include the child of a single Jewish grandparent, regardless of the grandchild's present religion, as gateway to Jewish identity for purposes of refuge? All of these questions relate back to the foundations of Zionism, to the very need and quest for a state of the Jews.
 
I
 
Religious Jews had, as far back as the fall of Jerusalem and the Roman dispersion, returned to Zion in small numbers to fulfill the Halachic injunction to physically live on the land. With the Enlightenment, Europe broke the bonds of Christian theocracy and emancipated the Jews. For the first time in the Diaspora, Jews were accepted as equals and citizens in the lands of their residence. But with "European enlightenment" came a new theory of Jewish difference. No longer seen through the lens of religion, Jews were now designated biologically different, a race separate from their neighbors. And the secular version of anti-Judaism, racial antisemitism was born. Faced with this new and even more virulent discrimination and persecution, Jews came to realize that ,even as they were now granted civil citizenship in their countries of residence they were still, and would always remain the 'Other', foreign in the eyes of their hosts and neighbors.