Law Enforcement, Race and the Gun Culture – Part IX and Conclusion

This is the tenth part in this series, if you count the Discussion post. I recommend that you read or re-read the earlier posts.

Part I is here, Part II is here, Part III is here, the Discussion is here, Part IV is here, Part V is here, Part VI is here, Part VII is here and Part VIII is here:

In Part VIII, I concluded by setting forth the Review of Gerald Walpin’s book by RUTHEE as it appears on the Amazon website.

I now set forth my response as it also appears on that website:

It has been fourteen months since I wrote my negative review of “The Supreme Court vs. The Constitution”, which sparked a lively debate with the author, though now that I return to the Amazon page for this book, I see that all the reviews but mine, have not only been positive, but have been on the rave side.

I wonder why this is? I suggest that that in our hyper-partisan age, it is unlikely that anyone with a view that would not agree with the premise of the book is unlikely to read it. I am the exception.

RUTHEE, whoever that is, since he/she/it does not care to use her real name, came to the book with an obvious pre-disposition to agree with it, and I must say that there are things in the book, that I too, agree with.

But before I get to that I want to comment on RUTHEE’s review.

Ruthee starts out by complaining that while the Constitution is “America's most important document…few have read it” and then demonstrates an ignorance of the Constitution that clearly shows that RUTHEE hasn’t read it either.

How else can one explain the absurd comment that “the primary function of government…is to render security to its subjects? And any mischief menacing that security demands a remedy commensurate with the evil.”

I hope that isn’t a quote from Walpin’s book for it would not reflect well on Walpin’s knowledge of the Constitution.

First of all it is only in a monarchy or a dictatorship that the relationship of the people to their government is that of “subjects”. In a Democracy the people are citizens, not subjects.

Secondly, where did he get the idea that the primary function of government “is to render security to its subjects”? Certainly not from the Constitution, for the Constitution in its preamble states that:

...in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…

Now if Ruthee, and possibly Walpin, had actually read the Constitution, they would have found that the founders did not consider the primary task of government to be “security to its subjects” but rather to “establish Justice” and it should be noted that the founders even chose to capitalize “Justice”. To do Justice, the founders tell us, is the first function.

Now I find no reason why Walpin (if he in fact wrote what RUTHEE claims he did) or RUTHEE, cannot disagree with the founders; they were not Gods. But to claim that this is what the Constitution provides is either ignorance, or deliberate misrepresentation.

RUTHEE then goes on to select as the most outrageous decision of the Supreme Court, Miranda v. Arizona Supreme Court. Now, I happen to agree that this decision was misplaced in interpreting the 5^th amendment, but wouldn’t it be nice if RUTHEE had bothered to quote the relevant portion of the Constitution in criticizing the courts interpretation of it. Or is the language of the Constitution of no consequence in RUTHEE’s mind, and only the result is what counts. Has RUTHEE really ever read the Constitution?

The relevant portion of the Fifth Amendment reads:

…nor shall (any person) be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, …

This is a very short and concise statement. It, like most provisions of the Constitution, is subject to different interpretations.

We could, for instance, make a case that it means only that torture may not be used to coerce confessions, or other forms of evidence that might be harmful to the defendant, but that, a refusal to testify may be used by a jury as evidence of guilt.

But on this point the Supreme Court as early as 1893, in Wilson v. U S, 149 U.S. 60 said: “… clearly recognize their constitutional privilege, … their neglect or refusal to testify shall not create any presumption against them.”

Now if there is a constitutional right to be silent, is it such a huge step to insist that a defendant in police custody must be told of this right. Certainly, we can disagree with this conclusion, as at least three judges did, but is it such a clear deviation from the Constitution as to provoke outrage.

Now RUTHEE goes on to say: “Failure to adhere to this (giving the Miranda warning) will result in dismissal of the case even against hardened and dangerous criminals.” But this is patently untrue! Failure to give the Miranda warnings will, under the Supreme Court decision, make the confession inadmissible, not lead to dismissal of the case.

RUTHEE then goes on to quote Justice O’Connor: “The failure of police to administer Miranda warnings does not mean that the statements received have actually been coerced…” No, but neither does it proof that they have not been coerced, and when a person’s liberty is at stake, shouldn’t the proof have to be that they were not coerced?

Justice O’Connor is also quoted as saying, ”when the admission is not coerced… (it is) highly probative evidence”. Did Justice O’Connor base this on evidence? Was there a record before the court to support this assertion? Isn’t that what courts, and particular Supreme Court Justices, are supposed to do? Base their opinions on evidence?

So let us look at the evidence! The non-partisan Innocence Project uses DNA evidence to determine a person’s guilt. On this basis they have proven to the satisfaction of American Courts that 324 people were wrongfully convicted, and that in 27% of those cases “False confessions and incriminating statements lead to wrongful convictions”. What does that say about O’Connor’s comment about confessions being “highly probative”, or for that matter about RUTHEE’s or Walpin’s approving quote of O’Connor. See here.

One of the foundations of American jurisprudence, as most lawyers know, is Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in the 1760s. In it he puts forth the principle: "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer". Apparently, Walpin, RUTHEE, and O’Connor have lost sight of this principle, which finds its genesis even in the bible:

“Abraham drew near, and said, "Will you consume the righteous with the wicked? What if there are fifty righteous within the city? Will you consume and not spare the place for the fifty righteous who are in it? ... What if ten are found there?" He [The Lord] said, "I will not destroy it for the ten's sake." (Genesis 18:23-32)

Aside from the damning statistics of the Innocence project, has RUTHEE paid any attention to the tragic story of the Central Park 5? The newspapers trumpeted the glory of their convictions on the basis of their confessions, supposedly freely given and with the Miranda warnings. But the confessions were false. Clearly, the Miranda warnings don’t go far enough!!! I urge anyone who cares, to read the story in New York Magazine, “Central Park Revisited.” 

There is something wrong with a society that incarcerates more people per capita than any other Democratic state, by far.

I urge the reader to look at this graph.

Sadly, this graph doesn’t tell the whole story. According to Wikipedia’s “List of countries by incarceration rate" the US has the highest incarceration rate of any country in the world except for Seychelles, and North Korea. It, by far, exceeds China, Cuba and Russia.

Yes, maybe we can all agree that the Supreme Court has become too powerful and that rulings that drastically limit or overrule previous decisions, or lower court decisions, may not be made by a bare majority of 5-4.

But allow me to point out that in the Miranda decision the majority five were not all appointed by Presidents of one party. Two, Warren and Brennan, were appointed by Eisenhower, Republican, and among the dissenters one, White was appointed by Kennedy (Democrat). Contrast that with today’s decisions where the Supreme Court Justices break consistently along the lines of whether they were appointed by Republican or Democratic Presidents. In other words the Court has become completely politicized.

Just how politicized can be garnered best by the completely partisan decision of Bush v. Gore. The Justices in the majority were Rehnquist, Kennedy, O'Connor and Scalia, appointed by Reagan, Thomas, appointed by Bush, G. H.W. Republican Presidents appointed all of them.

Dissenting were Souter appointed by Bush, G. H.W, Stevens appointed by Ford, and Breyer and Ginsburg appointed by Clinton. Thus this majority of Justices that came to their posts through Republican Presidents, chose the next President of the US to be, guess what, a Republican.

They did this in a decision that they declared would have no precedential effect and went against all precedents (stare decisis) in substituting its interpretation of Florida laws for that of the highest state court. For an in depth discussion of the decision see Alan Dershowitz's “Supreme Injustice” and other books on the subject.

Ever since we have seen this partisan divide on the court, only worse, and when that divide is consistently 5 to 4 along party lines, we have good reason to put an end to such 5 to 4 decisions, which take the court out of evenhanded justice and into political partisanship.

That this is not good for the nation is something we should be able to agree upon.

And so I once again I ride into the night. For the foreseeable future there will be no new posts, while I devote my time to writing my memoirs.

However, if there should be any:

Comments, questions, or corrections they are welcome, and will be responded to and distributed with attribution, unless the writer requests that he/she not be identified. However, please give your full name and the town and state in which you reside or have an office.

I AM A JEW (PART XXV - Discussion)

Happy New Year to one and all! May the New Year bring peace to all mankind and end the suffering that afflicts so many!

As the title shows this is the 25rd part (actually the 26^th, if you count the Special Bulletin) of the series. If you haven’t read the other parts I urge you to do so. They are, after all a continuum. Easy access to the others can be obtained by clicking on Part I and then scrolling upwards or by accessing the label I Am A Jew.

In my last commentary entitled "I AM A JEW (PART XXIV - Dershowitz Again)" that I posted before the holidays, on December 15, 2014, I quoted a very short excerpt from a May 2013 article by Alan Dershowitz written in May of 2013. Since most do not read the articles that are linked, allow me to quote a little more from it, for it expresses my views precisely:

There are a small number of extremely vocal right-wing Jews who believe that retaining the entire West Bank is more important than trying to make peace with the Palestinians. Some of them believe that God gave the Jewish people the West Bank and it is a sin to give any of it up. It was that kind of thinking that led to the assassination of former Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin when he tried to exchange land for peace with the Palestinians. There are others who believe that because Jews lived in Judea and Samaria thousands of years ago, Israel has no right to end any current Jewish settlement on the West Bank. There are still others who believe that it is foolish even to try to trade land for peace with the Palestinians, since the Palestinian leadership has no real interest in arriving at a peaceful solution. 

This noisy clack boos disrespectfully when they hear the name of President Obama, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, former Prime Minister Ehud Barak, current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or anyone else who favors a two-state solution that does not compromise Israel's security. I have now joined this distinguished company of people who get booed for advocating territorial compromise in the interest of peace. I was booed and jeered at the Jerusalem Post Conference on April 28, 2013 when I proposed an idea for restarting peace negotiations with the Palestinian Authority.

I can only say amen!!!! Unfortunately, Dershowitz has now decided he will no longer take positions that are likely to produce boos.

Now let me share with you some of the comments I have received, and discussions I have had.

One person whose comment I had quoted earlier is Leonard Levenson of Manhattan, N.Y. and my previous exchange with him can be found at: "I AM A JEW (PART XXI - Voices in Defense of Israel."

Since he had raised the issue of the sharing of water rights, I could not resist sending him an article that I ran across in the Times of Israel dated February 19, 2014 with the title: “In Rawabi, the brand-new Palestinian city, both sides win” and the subheading: “Projects like this bring our peoples closer together, says Bashar Al-Masri, the entrepreneur behind an unprecedented construction project that is changing the West Bank landscape.”

When I first read the article I thought to myself, now that is the way to build peace and security.

Alas, six months later an article appeared in the New York Times dated August 26, 2014 with the heading: “Palestinian Town Awaits Israel’s Approval for Water.” 

That promising gesture by Israel toward a promising and peaceful Palestinian town had come to naught. Israel had refused to allow water to be connected.

As I said above I couldn’t resist sending the two articles to Levenson. Now what was his response? I quote:

I have read the articles and my first reaction is "infuriating bureaucracy". I suspect that you and many Palestinians suspect something more sinister at work.  I am not a big fan of Netanyahu and his party.  He reminds me of the right wing of the Republican Party.  Neither is given to compromise but in times of crisis, their mindset is needed.   

Levenson is right about one thing: I believe that something more sinister is at work. Isn’t it obvious that this is war by other means!

Terry Steichen of Fairfax, Virginia contributed this:

You say:

 So as long as the forces of decency reigned in Israel, it would have been wrong to even mention these horrendous deeds. But the Israel of its founders, the Israel of Ben-Gurion, is no more. The enemies of the Haganah, the enemies of Ben-Gurion, the very people who called Yitzhak Rabin a Nazi, and whose denunciations of him were directly responsible for his assassination, are now running the Israeli government.

 Amen.

 You also say:

 There are many American Jews who are deeply concerned that the Israel that true Zionists like my father and I, and untold survivors of the Holocaust, and their children, is no more. We want an Israel that returns to the ideals of its founders, to the people, like Levenson, who went to Israel to work on a kibbutz, but that Israel is no more. .. True Zionists seek the ideals on which Israel was founded!! Not the one of Netanyahu and Lieberman.

 Amen in spades.  I've admired the culture of the Jews.  But have come to realize that the longer that Jews "link arms" with real (but perhaps not "true") Zionists, they will split from that culture.  The current regime in Israel is destroying Jewish values.  I'm disheartened that many of my Jewish friends don't see their own self-immolation.

 More:

 People in Israel are beginning to see the crisis that Israel has brought on itself... True American supporters of Israel, of whatever faith, must stop blindly labeling resistance to oppression terrorism, and not excuse the inexcusable, defend the indefensible, rationalize the irrational, or justify the unjustifiable.

 We can only hope - for Judaism's sake.  And real world peace.

Herb Reiner of Cedar Grove, NJ added this:

I think it's relevant to point out that what is now Israel was occupied and inhabited by many different powers and people throughout history. One justification for a Jewish state is a popular misconception that the Jews were the first there -- when in fact, they were preceded by the Canaanites - and who knows how many other tribes preceded the Canaanites. The Jews may have executed one of history's earliest recorded ethnic cleansings in Canaan because God commanded, "whoever sacrifices to any god but the Lord shall be utterly annihilated.” (Exodus 22:20) -- so I wouldn't say the Jewish kingdom was not exactly founded in a blaze of glory -- (although, unfortunately, some would). Joshua and his underlings did the job.

  The concept of a Jewish State, an Islamic, a Christian nation or a state dedicated any religion seems contrary to democratic principles. This is especially provocative in Israel where a substantial minority is not Jewish.

 Your blog on the Israel-Palestine conflict is a breath of fresh air. We hear almost exclusively about the considerable misdeeds on the other side. But most of the American Jewish community refuses to see the moat in our own eye. This is true of Congress and the media as well. Obama was soundly berated when he dared suggest that Israel halt the settlements. It's considered almost un-American to criticize Israel.

To which I responded:

“I must say that I disagree with you on this point. While I am very critical of Israel’s blatantly racist policies, I have always, and continue to support the concept of a Jewish state. Without, at this point, going into great detail, I think that the Nazi era, once and for all, showed that the world needs one state where Jews will always be welcome.

“There are many countries that are Christian or Muslim or Hindu, etc. states, so I don’t see why there cannot be a Jewish state. It need not effect any of its policies except on immigration.

“I understand that this means that there can be no right of return to Israel, but if we force the creation of a viable Palestinian state, the Palestinian diaspora, can find good homes in a country of their own, but I reject the concept of an Arab Palestininan State being denied the right to arms, or any limitations on its sovereignty.

“I don’t give any credence to a Jewish right based on the Bible, or on who was there first, only the need for a haven for a historically persecuted people.”

Finally, Pearl Duncan of Manhattan, NY raised an interesting question when she wrote:

Are you working on a book? You can collect your political commentary in a book.

Ms. Duncan, who is herself getting ready to publish a book, hit the nail on the head. That is indeed my hope.

I hope that my readers enjoyed the holidays, whether that was Chanukah, Christmas, and/or Kwanza, and that all are looking forward to a happy and prosperous New Year, with the many dark clouds lifting throughout the world.

I now welcome any comments readers care to make and will publish same, with or without attribution, as the contributor wishes. 

I AM A JEW (PART XXIV - Dershowitz Again)

As the title shows this is the 23rd part (actually the 24^th, if you count the Special Bulletin) of the series. If you haven’t read the other parts I urge you to do so. They are, after all a continuum. Easy access to the others can be obtained by clicking on Part I and then scrolling upwards or by accessing the label I Am A Jew.

Alan Dershowitz appears to have taken it upon himself to be the principal spokesman or apologist for anything and everything that Israel does. He used to be a spokesperson for liberal causes in the great tradition of Judaism, but that Desrshowitz is no more.

As recently as May of 2013 he denounced Right Wing Jews:

…who believe that retaining the entire West Bank is more important than trying to make peace with the Palestinians.

But that was before prominent Israeli leaders began advocating for retaining the entire West Bank.

Now Dershowitz joins the apologists for all that resembles Israeli policies by becoming a spokesperson for those who try to equate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. Now he finds anti-Semites under every rock, and in doing so joins the Right in smearing leading Jews.

In an article appearing on March 11, 2014 in the Right Wing magazine Newsmax entitled "Europe's Alarming Push to Isolate Israel" he lashes out at all critics of Israel and labels them “the grandchildren of Nazis and Nazi collaborators” which is rather startling in its sweep.

What is his evidence – and one might expect some evidence from the noted lawyer. It is true that there were many non-Germans complicit in the Holocaust, not just Germans. Yes, what else is new? How does that take us from the fact that Nazi supporters were not all Germans to his conclusion, or rather to his smear? He lumps Voltaire, Karl Marx, and Levrenti Beria to prove that the Left is as bad, or worse, than the Right. 

Well, now that he finds himself in good standing as a member of the Right (he appears to be writing a regular column for the Right Wing publication Newsmax) he has the nerve to lump Voltaire with the leaders of communism, or for that matter Marx with Beria.    

Voltaire was the founder of the enlightenment. In that capacity he was very anti-religion since it was religion that gave legitimacy to “the privileges of the nobility, and in the infallibility of the Church.” In doing this he “preferred to concentrate his attacks on the Old Testament and its followers, the Jews” but according to the Jewish Virtual Library, he did this “primarily a(s) a result of his hatred for the Church” and the Jewish Virtual Library goes on to say, “Voltaire's outlook was a powerful contribution to the creation of the mental climate which made possible the emancipation of the Jews…” emphasis added (Ibid) 

But the further exploration of this point is rather ridiculous because the views of people who lived in a world where anti-Semitism was the norm is hardly of import today. Whether there is anti-Semitism in today's world can hardly be doubted, but to conclude from this, that criticism of Israel has its basis in anti-Semitism, is far-fetched, to say the least. 

Dershowitz mentions the persecutors of Alfred Dreyfus, but somehow omits mention of Zola’s ringing defense “J'accuse.” If Zola were alive today and criticized Israeli policy, would Dershowitz smear him too with the brush of anti-Semitism.

But the extent of Dershowitz’s descent from any kind of liberalism is his own anti-Semitism, for he joins the Right in smearing prominent Jews. Thus we read his mean-spirited attack on Gertrude Stein and her companion, Alice Toklas, when he says that they: “collaborated with the Gestapo”. This is a gratuitous smear on one of the great Jewish intellectuals, which shows how low Dershowitz has sunk. For the background of this smear see the Jewish web site Tikkum's "Why the Witch-Hunt Against Gertrude Stein?." As to Gilad Atzmon, why publicize a nut few people have ever even heard of. See what the Arab press has to say about him. 

Will Dershowitz soon join the Right in smearing George Soros? It is such smears against fellow Jews that reveal the inanity of the new Dershowitz.

Following the demise of the Nazi regime we have had a long period where anti-Semitism, at least in Western Europe and the US, was at one of its lowest ebbs in recent history. It is only, the outrages of Israel, and its attempt to equate criticism of its policies with anti-Semitism, that has stoked the very thing that Israel should have been instrumental in preventing.

People like Dershowitz share the blame for this new outbreak of anti-Semitism, irrational, like all prejudices, including those against Blacks and Muslims, which are raging, at least as much as anti-Semitism. He asks:

Where are your demonstrations on behalf of the oppressed Tibetans, Georgians, Syrians, Armenians, Kurds, or even Ukrainians? Where are your BDS movements against the Chinese, the Russians, the Cubans, the Turks, or the Assad regime?

But demonstrations in those cases are unnecessary, since the governments of the West have been actively engaged in opposition. Do we need demonstrations to denounce the Russians in Ukraine, when the West has applied sanctions? If sanctions were in place against Israel it is highly unlikely that there would be demonstrations.

When Iraq tried to occupy Kuwait, George H.W. Bush declared:

This will not stand, this aggression against Kuwait. 

The Cubans?

Does Dershowitz think that the US aught to be doing more against Cuba than what it has been doing all these decades?

Have the Western nations not made their concern with Tibetans clear by receiving the Dalai Lama in all the capitals. What more can reasonably be done?

No, the anger about Israel is because Israel has been given a free pass, to do as it will with the Palestinians. If there has been any favoritism it has been in favor of Israel, not against it. American aid to Israel in the last two years has exceeded 6 billion dollars. Since 1949 aid to Israel has exceeded 120 billion dollars, and to help Israel keep Egypt friendly, the US gives Egypt an additional “annual $1.3 billion military assistance package… “ 

Israel has been given a free pass because of the world’s guilt about the Holocaust. But the reliance on that guilt is wearing thin.

The prejudices of the world have always been around. Unfortunately they will always be with us. But to use them to intimidate legitimate criticism of any country, or of any policy, is a disservice to the very values for which Dershowitz used to be known.

It is sad to see a figure of such renown fall to such depth.

Except for comments received, my summation, and possibly a debate preceding the summation, this concludes my analysis of the Israeli/Palestinian tragedy. I now welcome any comments readers care to make and will publish same, with or without attribution, as the contributor wishes.

I AM A JEW (PART VII - A Defense of Israel’s Policies and a Rebuttal)

As the title shows this is the seventh part (actually the 8^th, if you count the Special Bulletin) of the series. If you haven’t read the other parts I urge you to do so. They are, after all a continuum. Easy access to the others can be obtained by clicking on the titles: "I AM A JEW (Part I)," "I AM A JEW (Part II)," "I AM A JEW (Part III)," I AM A JEW (Special Bulletin)," "I AM A JEW (Part IV - The Torah & The Talmud)," "I AM A JEW (Part V - Gaza Is A Huge Prison)" and "I AM A JEW (PART VI - The Palestinians)."

As the reader is well aware by now, I am very critical of Israeli policies toward the Palestinians. However, I do want to give some space toward the opposite viewpoint, though, obviously, not equal space. My problem with the arguments defending Israeli policy is that the bulk of those come from the Right Wing media, and I call attention to those who consider themselves liberals, or progressives, which is the more popular term these days, that they frequently circulate articles from sources that they would never rely on for any other purpose.

However, there is one voice that is unquestionably progressive and yet a staunch defender of Israeli policies and that is Alan Dershowitz. Wikipedia describes him as “A political liberal."

In his article, which appeared in the Jerusalem Post dated July 7, 2014 entitled The current conflict between Israel and Hamas shatters myths (Those who want to read the article in full can find it here.), he makes a number of arguments or what he calls myths.

Myth 1: The primary cause of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is the occupation of the West Bank and Israel’s settlement policy.

He then goes on to rebut this hypothesis. This, it seems to me is setting up a straw man for I am not aware that this has been put forth as the casus belli for the recent conflict in Gaza. Instead, as I have pointed out, the cause for the rocket attacks form Gaza were triggered by Israel’s rounding up and imprisoning without trial 500 members of Hamas in response to the murder of three teenage Israelis by members of Hamas, without the approval, or even knowledge, of the Hamas leadership. (Emphasis added.)

He argues that the attacks from Gaza on Israel:

...are incited by the Muslim Brotherhood, Iran, Syria and others opposed to the very concept of the nationstate for the Jewish people. The best proof of this reality is that these attacks began as soon as Israel ended its occupation of Gaza and uprooted all the civilian settlements from that area. Israel left behind agricultural hothouses and other equipment that the residents of Gaza could have used to build a decent society.

This is a damming charge. For it puts forth that Gaza had been given its full freedom to govern itself and to build a prosperous economy and it rewards Israel with attacks upon it. What are the facts?

According to the Washington Post:  

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said the withdrawal was to increase security of residents of Israel, relieve pressure on the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) and reduce friction between Israelis and Palestinians. Hamas, the Islamic Resistance Movement, claims that the withdrawal is the result of violent Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation. (Emphasis added)

But what about Dershowitz’s charge?:

… that these attacks began as soon as Israel ended its occupation of Gaza…(and) left behind agricultural hothouses and other equipment that the residents of Gaza could have used to build a decent society.

Here we must look to Peter Beinart, another Jewish liberal. In his article Gaza myths and Facts (I urge you to read the article in full) he writes:

If you’ve been anywhere near the American Jewish community over the past few weeks, you’ve heard the following morality tale: Israel left the Gaza Strip in 2005, hoping the newly independent country would become the Singapore of the Middle East. Instead, Hamas seized power, ransacked greenhouses, threw its opponents off rooftops and began launching thousands of rockets at Israel.

… But at no point did Gaza become its own country. Had Gaza become its own country, it would have gained control over its borders. It never did. As the Israeli human rights group Gisha has detailed, even before the election of Hamas, Israel controlled whether Gazans could enter or exit the Strip (In conjunction with Egypt, which controlled the Rafah checkpoint in Gaza's south). Israel controlled the population registry through which Gazans were issued identification cards. Upon evacuating its settlers and soldiers from Gaza, Israel even created a security perimeter inside the Strip from which Gazans were barred from entry. (Unfortunately for Gazans, this perimeter included some of the Strip’s best farmland). (Emphasis added.)

He adds: 

Pro-Israel” commentators claim Israel had legitimate security reasons for all this. But that concedes the point. A necessary occupation is still an occupation. That’s why it’s silly to analogize Hamas’ rockets—repugnant as they are—to Mexico or Canada attacking the United States. The United States is not occupying Mexico or Canada. Israel — according to the United States government has been occupying Gaza without interruption since 1967.

He goes on to point out: 

To grasp the perversity of using Gaza as an explanation for why Israel can’t risk a Palestinian state, it helps to realize that Sharon withdrew Gaza’s settlers in large measure because he didn’t want a Palestinian state.

Now when we look to Dershowitz’s allegations such as: 

…these attacks began as soon as Israel ended its occupation of Gaza…

Beinart corrects the record by pointing out:

…militants in Gaza didn’t start launching rockets at Israel after the settlers left. They began a half-decade earlier, at the start of the second intifada. The Gaza disengagement did not stop this rocket fire. But it did not cause it either.

Returning to Dershowitz’s allegations: 

Moreover, there was no siege of Gaza at that time. Gaza was free to become a Singapore on the Mediterranean. Instead, Hamas engaged in a coup d’état, murdering many members of the PA, seizing control of all of Gaza, and turning it into a militant theocracy. It used the material left behind by the Israelis not to feed its citizens but to build rockets with which to attack Israeli civilians. It was only after these rocket attacks that Israel began a siege of Gaza designed to prevent the importation of rockets and material used to build terrorist kidnap tunnels. 

I have already addressed the claim that there was no siege of Gaza at the time above. There was! As to the claim that “Hamas engaged in a coup d’état” Beinart points out: 

But Hamas didn’t seize power. It won an election. In January 2006, four months after the last settlers left, Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem chose representatives to the Palestinian Authority’s parliament. (The previous year, they had separately elected Abbas to be the Palestinian Authority’s President). Hamas won a plurality of the vote - forty-five percent - but because of the PA’s voting system, and Fatah’s idiotic decision to run more than one candidate in several districts, Hamas garnered 58 percent of the seats in parliament.

Beinart goes on to say:

So yes, members of Hamas did throw their Fatah opponents off rooftops. Some of that may have been payback because Dahlan was widely believed to have overseen the torture of Hamas members in the 1990s. Regardless, in winning the battle for Gaza, Hamas—which had already shed much Israeli blood - shed Palestinian blood too. But to suggest that Hamas “seized power” - as American Jewish leaders often do - ignores the fact that Hamas’ brutal takeover occurred in response to an attempted Fatah coup backed by the United States and Israel. In the words of David Wurmser, who resigned as Dick Cheney’s Middle East advisor a month after Hamas’ takeover, “what happened wasn’t so much a coup by Hamas but an attempted coup by Fatah that was pre-empted before it could happen.”

As for the greenhouses Beinart writes:

Israel responded to Hamas’ election victory by further restricting access in and out of Gaza. As it happens, these restrictions played a key role in explaining why Gaza’s greenhouses did not help it become Singapore. American Jewish leaders usually tell the story this way: When the settlers left, Israel handed over their greenhouses to the Palestinians, hoping they would use them to create jobs. Instead, Palestinians tore them down in an anti-Jewish rage.

But one person who does not endorse that narrative is the prime mover behind the greenhouse deal, Australian-Jewish businessman James Wolfensohn, who served as the Quartet’s Special Envoy for Gaza Disengagement. In his memoir, Wolfensohn notes that “some damage was done to the greenhouses [as the result of post-disengagement looting] but they came through essentially intact” and were subsequently guarded by Palestinian Authority police. What really doomed the greenhouse initiative, Wolfensohn argues, were Israeli restrictions on Gazan exports. “In early December [2005], he writes, “the much-awaited first harvest of quality cash crops—strawberries, cherry tomatoes, cucumbers, sweet peppers and flowers—began. These crops were intended for export via Israel for Europe. But their success relied upon the Karni crossing [between Gaza and Israel], which, beginning in mid-January 2006, was closed more than not. The Palestine Economic Development Corporation, which was managing the greenhouses taken over from the settlers, said that it was experiencing losses in excess of $120,000 per day…It was excruciating.

Facts, facts, facts;. They do get in the way of our pre-conceptions. But if we are to objectively analyze a problem, a conflict, or find a solution, we must start with the facts, and Beinart sets them forth without distortion and without bias.

I am only excerpting Beinart’s analysis here, but those who really want to see what the facts are should read both Dershowitz’s article and Beinart’s in full.

I welcome comments, but will not publish any until this series is complete.