Alan "we should have tortured OJ" Dershowitz writes by Matt Giwer, © 2002 [October]
I found this editorial at www.jpost.com, The Jerusalem Post Internet Edition, Oct. 23, 2002, entitled The big new lie, By ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ. As Mr. Dershowitz has recently advocated the use of torture to extract confessions, such as from OJ, it is always useful to see what transgression of civilized norms the man is advocating. Tyrants have always understood that if you repeat a big lie often enough people will begin to believe it. The big lie that's being repeated all around the United States, and especially on university campuses, is that anyone who is critical of Israeli policies or the Sharon government will automatically be labeled an anti-Semite. It would be terrible if that were true, since criticism of Israel is important, as is criticism of any imperfect democracy. That is a very carefully worded setup as what follows will show. But the reality is that in the many years that I have been speaking about the Arab-Israeli conflict, I have never heard anyone ever actually label a mere critic of Israel or Sharon as anti-Semitic. Nor have I ever heard mere criticism of Israel described as anti-Semitism. There is the first thing his setup omits. The epithet is only applied to non-Jews. Dershowitz being a Jew would be labeled a self-hating Jew. Yet the big lie persists. Holocaust scholar Susannah Heschel has made the following charge: "We often hear that criticism of Israel is equivalent to anti-Semitism." And much of that comes right from the government of Israel. Tikkun editor Michael Lerner has made a similar charge, as has Harvard professor Paul Hanson. One would not want to take on such people without a sound case. I hereby challenge anyone who claims that mere criticism of Israel is "often" labeled anti-Semitism to document that charge with actual quotations, in context, with the source of the statements identified. I am not talking about the occasional kook who writes an anonymous postcard or e-mail. I am talking about mainstream supporters of Israel who, it is claimed, have "often" equated criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. There is another narrowing of what he means. It must be "mere criticism" and it must come from a mainstream supporter of Israel not from Israel itself negating my identification of a source. And it can only apply to a supporter of Israel and not from an opponent of Israel. Surely that is not what President Lawrence Summers of Harvard did when he made the following statement: "And certainly there is much to be debated about the Middle East and much in Israel's foreign and defense policy that can be and should be vigorously challenged. But where anti-Semitism and views that are profoundly anti-Israeli have traditionally been the primary preserve of poorly educated right-wing populists, profoundly anti-Israel views are increasingly finding support in progressive intellectual communities. Serious and thoughtful people are advocating and taking actions that are anti-Semitic in their effect if not their intent." Note those who were until recently anti-Israel are poorly educated, right-wing and populists. Summers then referred specifically to those who have called for a boycott of, and divestiture from, Israel alone. The point is, "Israel alone." Surely that is not what Thomas Friedman of the New York Times did when he wrote the following: "Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction out of all proportion to any other party in the Middle East is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest." And here it is "singling out Israel." Surely it is not what I have done when I have welcomed criticism of Israel, while accusing of bigotry those who would single out Israel for economic capital punishment, despite the reality that Israel's human-rights record is far better than that of any other country in the region and at least as good as any other country that has faced comparable dangers. "Captial punishment"? An interesting and far from unbiased choice of words. Note it implies the destruction of Israel, the classic whine of the zionist paranoid. Then he drops in a comparison with other countries and raises the "comparable dangers" of total destruction paranoia. Indeed, I have often myself been critical of particular Israeli policies, such as Sharon's foolish efforts to isolate Yasser Arafat in his compound. Yet, I have never been accused of anti-Semitism, nor have the government's many critics in the Israeli media. As long as people stick to criticizing the tactics rather than the objective there is no problem. When he states categorically that the occupation is criminal he will get a different response. IT IS important to understand that although criticism of Israel is not, by itself, anti-Semitism, there are certain kinds of criticism of Israel which are clearly anti-Semitic, even if the word Jew is never mentioned. And that is the kind which does not water down the criticism with comparison to other countries as almost said in the previous paragraph. An obvious instance is that of activist and poet Amiri Baraka who has claimed that Israel and Sharon knew about the attack on the World Trade Center before it happened and warned 4,000 Israelis to stay away. Baraka is an otherwise unknown poet chosen as the Poet Laureate of New Jersey who included references to the five Mossad spies and advanced warning to Jewish organizations about the 9/11 attack. Certainly the center of a manufactured issue is not worthy of Dershowitz who knows how the political game is played. Can anyone doubt that this variation on the blood libel is anti-Semitic to the core? So, too, is any attempt to demonize, isolate, and delegitimate the Jewish nation for imperfections that are far worse among other nations. A good working definition of anti-Semitism is to take a characteristic that is universal and to single out only the Jews for exhibiting it. Can anyone doubt? Alan, bubby, if you don't know why are you asking me? Didn't you learn in law school you should not appeal to your own ignorance? And I would like you to stay on topic and address the prior knowledge issue rather than refering to imperfections in comparison to other nations. The issue is foreknowledge. Are you trying to say other nations had more or less foreknowledge? It is not clear from the way you phrase it. And then criticism which deviates from a specific required form is a blood libel. That form must not criticize Israel for anything if there is any nation in the world which can be construed as more worthy of the criticism. For example, in the 1920s Harvard's racist president, A. Lawrence Lowell, tried to impose a quota on Jews admitted to Harvard because, as he put it, "Jews cheat." When a distinguished alumnus reminded him that non-Jews also cheat, he replied, "You're changing the subject. We're talking about Jews." Now he starts raving about someone from the 1920s rather than address the issue of foreknowledge. Alan, bubby, you are changing the subject from foreknowledge to anything that sounds like a good rant. Can anyone doubt that Lowell's statements were anti-Semitic? So, too, is the singling out of the Jewish state for faults that are far worse among other states. But to play your game, bubby, you bring up anti-semitic without mentioning that in the US it was always trivial in comparison to anti-Catholic sentiment. I guess "You're changing the subject. We're talking about Jews." Right? Even those who believe that singling out Israel for criticism is not anti-Semitic, must surely acknowledge that there is a difference between mere criticism of Israel and singling it out for unique sanctions, such as divestiture or boycott. It is true that those who advocate the latter have been accused of anti-Semitism, but it is false that those who fit into the former category have been so labeled. Yet the recent big lie lumps these distinct categories together. Alan, bubby, I am certain the critics would insist upon equal treatment of Palestine if Israel had not destroyed everything worth investing in. I certainly support the identical treatment for Palestine. I will promote boycotting all that Palestinians olive oil if Israelis stop shooting those trying to harvest the olives and permits the oil to be exported. But you have not been talking about Palestine at all, have you. You have been making vague references to "other countries" without being specific while pretending to address the unique sanctions being called for because of Israel's occupation of Palestine. That is very clever of you -- or is that an anti-semitic observation? The time has come for those who are spreading this big lie either to put up, by documenting their charge, or shut up. While dozens of examples can be produced from Sharon and Peres and the rest of the cabinet they will all be disallowed because the people and entire countries accused of being anti-semitic have not "changed the subject" by mentioning nations equally as evil as Israel and not calling for the same steps against them. That's a sucker play, bubby. The writer is a professor of law at Harvard and author of Why Terrorism Works. In summary the writer is intent upon unlinking the criticism of Israel from its 37 year occupation and repression of Palestinians. Let me explain it so that even a Harvard Law professor and torture advocate can understand it. It's the occupation, stupid! The only country comparable to Israel in the matter of occupation is China with its occuption of Tibet. That is it. And let me be perfectly clear. I have never said and will never say that Israel is any better than communist China in the matter of occupation.
Page reads: 1873