Alan Dershowitz and Caroline Glick clash on two-state solution

Please Share Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on StumbleUponDigg thisEmail this to someonePrint this page

By Maxine Dovere/JNS.org

NEW YORK—Harvard
University law professor Alan Dershowitz and Jerusalem Post columnist and senior contributing editor Caroline
Glick, following their sharp disagreement on a two-state solution to the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict during a panel discussion at Sunday’s second
annual Jerusalem Post Conference in New York City, continued their debate in
interviews with JNS.org.

Click photo to download. Caption: Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz on stage at the second annual Jerusalem Post Conference in New York City. Dershowitz and Jerusalem Post columnist Caroline Glick sharply disagreed on a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and Dershowitz’s comments were laughed at by the audience. Credit: Maxine Dovere.

Dershowitz had
presented the audience with a plan under which peace negotiations would restart
if Israel halted construction in areas where there is “reasonable disagreement”
with the Palestinians, saying Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas personally
gave him a signed paper that stated Abbas would agree to that condition for
negotiations if Israel agreed to it.

Glick, who during
the panel discussion said she needed to “catch my breath for a second” after Dershowitz’s
idea, told JNS.org in an interview
after the panel that Israel should “apply Israeli law to Judea and
Samaria, just like we did in the Golan Heights.”

“It would just be
permanently incorporated into Israel,” Glick said.

“[Judea and Samaria
would fall] under Israeli law, and the Arabs can stay,” she added. “They would
become Israeli citizens.” Those Arabs would be able to vote in Israeli
elections, Glick said, explaining that she was “willing to take a chance on the
demographic outcome rather than on a two-state solution.”

Dershowitz, asked by JNS.org about
Glick’s plan, responded, “Well, before long, Israel would cease to be a Jewish
state. The demographics would ultimately turn Israel first, into a
multinational state, and ultimately, possibly, into an Islamic state. That
would not be an acceptable solution. It would be the end of Israel as we know
it. I don’t think that’s a viable solution.”

During the panel
discussion, Dershowitz’s plan to restart peace talks was also criticized by
Israeli Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz and former Israeli national
security adviser Uzi Arad, with Arad saying that reciprocity in negotiations
with the Palestinians, not “unilateral
concessions” by Israel, is what is needed.

On stage, Dershowitz recounted what he called his “serious exchange”
with Abbas about restarting peace talks. The audience laughed at Dershowitz when
he described the following part of his conversation with Abbas: “[I asked Abbas] if this deal were made, would
you agree to not bring cases [against Israel] before the International Criminal
Court?’ His answer was: ‘That’s a serious question, and I’m going to give it
serious consideration.’”

Dershowitz told JNS.org that the audience’s response to
his comments was “not representative of the American Jewish community.”

“The American Jewish
community is much more supportive of a two-state solution,” Dershowitz said. “And,
the Israeli Jewish community is much more supportive of a two-state solution. This
[reaction] was very skewed.”

Also earning a negative audience reaction, much like he did at last year’s
Jerusalem Post Conference, was former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who
defended his government’s aborted attempts to secure a peace agreement with the
Palestinians. Olmert drew loud boos when he said Israel “must split the land in
order to have Israel …read more
Source: JNS.org

Please Share Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on StumbleUponDigg thisEmail this to someonePrint this page