Zehut’s great video and an exchange between Dershowitz and Feiglin.

May 8, 2017 | 7 Comments » | 53 views

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

7 Comments / 7 Comments

  1. Why the hell does an American law professor who doesn’t”t even live in Israel have so much discourse on these issues. The way he talks against Israel as a Jewish state and more in favor of Israel as the nation state of the all its citizens is anti-Semitic- nothing less. Of course, how can such a lofty Jewish Harvard law professor be such a thing. I care not only about the State of Israel but about Judaism. In Dershowitz’s simple mind, to be a Jewish state- to declare loudly that, yes, Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people but also the Jewish nation state of the Jewish people. That’s right “JEWISH”.where Judaism is practiced freely and with pride. Leftists like Dershowitz would probably be in favor of making the practice of Judaism into a DSM psychiatric diagnosis. He objects to G-d in the public discourse?? He would have religious Jews in Israel as the second class citizens. Would the Chareidi need a.civil rights movement just for halachic sensitivity. According to his way, religious Jews would probably wind up keeping to their practices almost apologetically- in Israel?? -hiding from the leftist czars. it’s a clear example of a leftist, in this case a Jewish leftist, who is so afraid of religious oppression, he would prefer to oppress the religious. I sometimes think that they believe that without religion and, with it, it’s concurrent denial of G-d, that they won’t die. When moshiach comes I want to be Jewish and, in the meanwhile I’want to wait in a JEWISH state.

  2. Dershowitz has his problems regarding Judaism. But he has no problem living on stolen Indian land where the Indians ‘traded land for peace’ and ended up with less than nothing. Let him save his compassion for the Indians who deserve it rather than the Muslims with 1,000 times more land than Israel.

  3. There have been nothing but peace offerings to the Arabs from the beginning, all of which provoked war and terror. All of the fake peace initiatives from the Arabs came after they were repeatedly defeated by Israel in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1982 and on to the present.

    The lesson of history that liberals like Dershowitz won’t face because they can’t stomach it is, peace only comes from stomping, conquering, humiliating and dominating them. That’s been true since the dawn of Islam. It’s still true. It won’t stop being true not matter how much they preach to the choir.

    The only reason Abbas is talking to Trump about peace is FEAR. He’s frightened of Trump. The nicer Trump is to him, the more frightened he probably is. Stalin was a master of that technique. I hope that continues. Now, he needs to be frightened of Israel.
    One of the things that Dubya did that liberals foamed at the mouth about was to employ psychologists in interrogations. The Soviet Union did that very effectively. Orwell writes about that in 1984. It works. It’s all about psychological warfare and manipulation. You have to understand your subject before you can manipulate him effectively. Above all, you must understand what he fears most. This is how they have been fighting us. We need to start playing the same game. The game is going on whether or not we choose to acknowledge it and play or not.

    Peace is the byproduct of victory over the enemy, from total conquest. There is no other kind of peace in the real world. There’s inner peace, but that’s something else. In zoos, lions have become parental to animals who would normally be their prey. It’s happened. As far as relations between nations and movements governed by totalitarian ideologies like Islam or Communism and the rest of the world is concerned, the lion will never lay down with the lamb, that’s just demented.

    He takes a good position on Iran but why does he believe N. Korea is unstable? It’s had the same one family dictatorship for almost 80 years. Why do these liberals believe that stable regimes are any less dangerous?

    He’s also says what needs to be said about UNESCO but it needs to be dissolved, just getting out isn’t enough. If all that changes is that the U.S. loses its veto, that’s not progress.

    He set up a straw man argument against Feiglin, which Feiglin pointed out. Feiglin does not advocate a theocratic state, but a Jewish state. I agree with him.

  4. @ Sebastien Zorn:
    Kind of ridiculous – and unfair – that she asks Dershowitz, who is not Israeli, about all of these Israeli questions, but she doesn’t ask Feiglin, who is, about the American questions.

  5. Dershowitz makes the mistake the left repeats over and over.

    1. The conflict is 100 years old and is a religious conflict. The Local Muslims consider this their land and do not recognize the Jews have any right to it because Muslims have lived here.

    2. You can not divide the land and have peace. Any land Israel gives up will be used against to try and destroy it. The lesson of Gaza is lost on Dershowitz. Most Israelis now recognize this.

    3. The two state concept is null and void as it brings neither peace nor stability. Potential new paradigms such as Zehut’s
    need consideration. Yes there will be many who do not like it. We have enemies and the conflict will not be solved in short order.

  6. Dershowitz is not willing to accept the simple truth that Israel can only have peace from a position of strength. The return by Israel to the “Auschwitz” borders will put Israel in a position of weakness inviting more demands and attacks.

    Like a typical leftist he cannot admit that his ideas regarding Israel haven’t worked and will not work, just like he can’t admit that the leftists ideas don’t work.

  7. Why does the Israeli media continue to introduce opinions, comments, and analysis of the Israel-Arab conflict from people who do not live in the conflict zone and are not physically affected by it? What makes Alan Dershowitz so special to the press on this generational and complex issue? Is his Jewish identity and Harvard professorship more significant than his American liberal views? Don’t we have any liberal Jewish law professors in Israel who could offer similar viewpoints and debate Feiglin?

Comments are closed.