Although Dershowitz says some great things such as;
– “the Israelis and the Palestinians do not stand in equivalent positions — morally, legally, diplomatically or politically — when it comes to negotiating Israel’s withdrawal from the West Bank”,
– “Israel captured this territory in an entirely lawful defensive war.”,
– “Possession is 9/10th of the law, and in this case, 9/10th of morality as well.”,l
– “The land at issue was never part of a Palestinian state. It was lawfully captured from Jordan in a defensive war.”,
– “The person who was lawfully in possession of the item need do nothing unless the person seeking it offers to negotiate.”,
So far so good, but questions remain.
– “The Palestinians deserve to have a state, but their claim is no greater than that of the Tibetans, the Kurds, the Chechens and other stateless groups.”
This is a good point, but why do they “deserve a state”? On what basis?
It also strikes me as strange that such a legal scholar as he, who is well versed on ME history should start out with proposals to divide the land in ’36 and ’47 neither of which created any Arab rights and were rejected in any event, fails to mention Israel’s legal rights to Judea and Samaria flowing from San Remo Resolution and the Palestine Mandate.
And why if he rightly feels that the Arabs have to come cap in hand and ask for a handout, did he not take issue with his idol, Obama, when he attempted to force Israel to pay for the privilege of talking to the Arabs and literally forced Israel to negotiate based on 100% withdrawal.
And why is he so totally in favour of a settlement freeze. Israel is in the dominant position as he acknowledges, so why does he not support them acting that way. If Israel were to freeze construction, there would be no pressure to negotiate a deal. The only thing that makes time on our side and sends a message to the PA is building more units as fast as the market will support. The message to the PA would be “the longer you wait to cut a deal, the more land it will cost you.”
Ted Belman
By ALAN DERSHOWITZ, JPOST
The burden is on the Palestinians to come to the negotiating table, not as equal partners, but as claimants, seeking to obtain something that they do not have.

Palestinians confront Israeli troops at the West Bank village of Silwad, near Ramallah, on January 10 Photo: ISSAM RIMAWI / FLASH 90
As Secretary of State John Kerry tries to place primary blame on Israel for the stalled negotiations, it is important to look at the big picture and go back to first principles.
A little history always helps to understand the present.
In 1937-1938, the Peel Commission proposed a two-state solution in which the Jewish community of Palestine would receive a relatively small percentage of the land on which to establish the nation-state of the Jewish people.
Read more…