Former president Jimmy Carter and lawyer Alan Dershowitz, have written an opinionated analysis on the conflict in the Middle East. In The Case for Israel, Dershowitz claims that he is standing up to the “unfair accusations against Israel.” His addresses anti-Israel rhetoric by downplaying Israel’s actions, rejecting Israel’s role in the causing the conflict by pushing blame on the Palestinians, and by appealing that Israel is the perfect democratic state. Jimmy Carter’s The Blood of Abraham on the other hand takes a country by country approach to provide a personal experience and interpretation based account on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In the beginning of The Blood of Abraham, Carter already displays a
misunderstanding on the …show more content…
He believes that to the Jews, for instance, the Biblical idea of “God’s promised land” for his chosen people plays a central role in the reasoning behind Jewish ambition for a home in Palestine. This is problematic because it overlooks the fact that the conflict is not so much a religious conflict but of nationalism. It is also a misrepresentation of the people involved because presenting the conflict under religious terms extends the people involved, meaning, all Jews and all Muslims in the world. This is also problematic because it makes it seem as if the conflict between Zionists and Arab Palestinians have been going on far longer than it actually has--dating back to the of King David. For a start, the dispute between the Zionists and the Arab inhabitants of Palestine is basically a dispute over real estate. The religious aspect, like the land’s affiliation with Abraham, King David, or the Prophet Muhammad is but part of the historical narrative created by the nationalists to back up their nationalist ideals and goals. In this case, religious narrative is used to legitimize their claim on the land. The real estate dispute was just the beginning but further conflicts ensued with issues in economics, disagreements on state partition, mutual hostilities committed by both groups towards each other that now remain embedded in their nationalistic memories, to name a few. Therefore, saying that it is all a …show more content…
Instead, he simply reasons that the Jewish refugees have the right to return to their homeland. However, Jewish settlement in the West Bank and Gaza was in fact, a barrier for peace. For one, it gave Israeli’s international opponents reasons for going against them. Besides, land acquisition for Jewish settlement were gained through expulsions. By encouraging settlements in the areas, Israel was violating the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949). Second, the piece of land was controversial as it challenged the United Nations’ warnings as well as the changes it is going to bring to the peace talks as returning to the former armistice lines and negotiations for two-state solution with Palestine has proven now to be very difficult if not impossible. It became a bitter reminder to the Palestinians of Israeli power and territorial claims, while the settlements also cut through Palestinian countryside, hindering the possibility for a unified Palestinian state one day. Finally, the settlements were off the table as bargaining chips as settlers refused to move out--even threatening civil war if the Israeli government forces them to. Contrary to what Dershowitz claims, Israel was more ambitious for land than he makes them out to be, it would not have been able to pay for this area in exchange for peace even if it wanted to, and neither was it inclined to
misunderstanding on the …show more content…
He believes that to the Jews, for instance, the Biblical idea of “God’s promised land” for his chosen people plays a central role in the reasoning behind Jewish ambition for a home in Palestine. This is problematic because it overlooks the fact that the conflict is not so much a religious conflict but of nationalism. It is also a misrepresentation of the people involved because presenting the conflict under religious terms extends the people involved, meaning, all Jews and all Muslims in the world. This is also problematic because it makes it seem as if the conflict between Zionists and Arab Palestinians have been going on far longer than it actually has--dating back to the of King David. For a start, the dispute between the Zionists and the Arab inhabitants of Palestine is basically a dispute over real estate. The religious aspect, like the land’s affiliation with Abraham, King David, or the Prophet Muhammad is but part of the historical narrative created by the nationalists to back up their nationalist ideals and goals. In this case, religious narrative is used to legitimize their claim on the land. The real estate dispute was just the beginning but further conflicts ensued with issues in economics, disagreements on state partition, mutual hostilities committed by both groups towards each other that now remain embedded in their nationalistic memories, to name a few. Therefore, saying that it is all a …show more content…
Instead, he simply reasons that the Jewish refugees have the right to return to their homeland. However, Jewish settlement in the West Bank and Gaza was in fact, a barrier for peace. For one, it gave Israeli’s international opponents reasons for going against them. Besides, land acquisition for Jewish settlement were gained through expulsions. By encouraging settlements in the areas, Israel was violating the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949). Second, the piece of land was controversial as it challenged the United Nations’ warnings as well as the changes it is going to bring to the peace talks as returning to the former armistice lines and negotiations for two-state solution with Palestine has proven now to be very difficult if not impossible. It became a bitter reminder to the Palestinians of Israeli power and territorial claims, while the settlements also cut through Palestinian countryside, hindering the possibility for a unified Palestinian state one day. Finally, the settlements were off the table as bargaining chips as settlers refused to move out--even threatening civil war if the Israeli government forces them to. Contrary to what Dershowitz claims, Israel was more ambitious for land than he makes them out to be, it would not have been able to pay for this area in exchange for peace even if it wanted to, and neither was it inclined to