Read Part 2 Read Part 3
You really have to give Alan Dershowitz credit. It’s obvious that his success as a lawyer comes from a great talent for building a convincing argument. It is
also clear that he understands very well the difference between a convincing argument and a cogent one.
Dershowitz has let loose with both barrels on Jimmy Carter in a blog at gather.com. Dershowitz not only makes the case that Carter is a Jew-hater, but also a supporter of terrorism, an accomplice of “evil” and a dishonest man who tries to turn the world against the Jews because he is paid to do so by Arabs.
That’s Dershowitz’s claim in a nutshell, but he makes it much more elaborate and less stark than that. If he simply summed it up, none but the most reactionary supporters of Israeli policies, like himself, would give it any credibility.
Dershowitz spends a great deal of effort to show that Carter is a mere lackey on the payroll of wealthy Arabs and that this is the reason for his so-called “anti-Israel” and “anti-Semitic” views. We’ll look at the financial allegations in part 2 of this piece.
As contemptible as the monetary smoke and mirrors Dershowitz put up was, his misleading interpretations of Carter’s words are even more egregious. In this, I do want to try to give Dershowitz the benefit of the doubt. As I have said previously in this space, I think Carter’s choice of a title for his recent book was ill-advised. A former president writing on arguably the single most controversial topic before us today is going to get attention. The title served to trigger many people and to give his opponents an easy way to sidetrack the conversation.
So, I can allow that Dershowitz, like many other Jews, has had a visceral reaction to some pretty touchy points, not only limited to the description, however defensible, of conditions on the West Bank as “apartheid.” Still, even allowing for high emotions, this must be confronted and challenged.
Dershowitz wastes no time in his series launching his attack. In the very first paragraph, he writes: “In his recent book tour to promote Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, Carter has been peddling a particularly nasty bit of bigotry. The canard is that Jews own and control the media, and prevent newspapers and the broadcast media from presenting an objective assessment of the Arab-Israeli conflict, and that Jews have bought and paid for every single member of Congress so as to prevent any of them from espousing a balanced position. How else can anyone understand Carter’s claims that it is impossible for the media and politicians to speak freely about Israel and the Middle East? The only explanation – and one that Carter tap dances around, but won’t come out and say directly – is that Jews control the media and buy politicians.”
This is perfectly typical of Dershowitz’s methods, and is repeated throughout the four articles Dershowitz has published thus far as volumes of attacks on Carter. On Planet Dershowitz, which is, sadly, all too populous, mentioning the undeniable truth that Israel has a very powerful support bloc working to prevent serious debate in both Congress and the public arena about American policy in this conflict must, by definition, mean advocating a “Jewish cabal conspiracy” along the lines of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
The infamous “Israel Lobby” is often credited with even more power than it really has (such as when people allege that it is so powerful that it can get the US to invade Iraq contrary to American interests and just for the sake of Israel). But to deny its power and influence is equally absurd.
As one colleague said to me recently, if, in fact, AIPAC and the many other organizations, PACs, media watchdog groups and grassroots activist groups have so little influence on policy and public discourse, then they are one of the greatest con games of all time. Because an awful lot of people, Jewish and not, are giving an awful lot of money to those groups to ensure that Congress and the media consistently reinforce the status quo; that Israel’s position as the single largest recipient of US military aid is never seriously debated; that the research institutes and think-tanks which are most closely consulted on American Middle East policy are dominated by people who approach policy first and foremost not with fairness or even pragmatism, but with the theory that American and Israeli interests are generally the same.
All those large contributions that a great many people make are, on Planet Dershowitz, apparently wasted because they do not affect public discourse or policy.
Moreover, when Carter spoke of “powerful political, social and religious forces” stifling debate here in the US, there was a widespread assumption that, as Dershowitz stated, this must mean “the Jews”. Jewish institutions are certainly a part of those forces, but so are radical “Christian Zionist” groups, as well as other groups who profit from the status quo.
In many ways, too, some of this comes down to an atmosphere, something not driven consciously. Israel is a long-time American ally, a country whose birth was mythologized both as a compensation for historical atrocities and as a “triumph of the underdog,” a kind of story story that Americans absolutely eat up. And the high level of emotions on all sides of the issue make many shy away from the issue, or, if they get into it at all, to choose the safer road of supporting the status quo. There is nothing remotely anti-Semitic about Carter pointing out that these forces, both active and passive, serve to stifle serious debate on this very important issue.
Indeed, the very fact that hysterics like Dershowitz immediately accused Carter of anti-Semitism demonstrates the degree to which a rational discussion of Israel is made impossible in the US. No such accusations are heard in Israel, even while many in Israel disagree vehemently with many of Carter’s views.
In part 3 of his article, Dershowitz takes Carter to task for allegedly condoning terrorist attacks on Israelis. Carter, of course, did no such thing.
The most common charge is based on a passage from Carter’s book, on page 213, which Carter has retracted as poorly worded and has promised to change in future editions of his book. The offending sentence reads as follows:
“It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel.”
It is poorly worded, as Carter acknowledged. But that poor wording simply opens the door for this sort of willful misinterpretation. Anyone reading that sentence in context, in the book, would understand that Carter was not endorsing terrorist attacks in the interim.
Carter simply understands that the Israeli and American insistence that Palestinian violence must stop before anything else, while the violence of the occupation continues unabated is a non-starter. It might be nice if it happens, but it is completely unrealistic.
Carter was, in fact, defending Israeli interests and even taking something of an Israeli point of view in saying that Israel needed to hear assurances that all attacks from these groups would end with the establishment of a viable Palestinian state and that they would enforce law and order in preventing such attacks from radical splinter groups in order for Israel to trust in a peace process.
On Planet Dershowitz, however, this is interpreted as encouraging armed attacks on Israelis.
As member and participant on Gather.Com, I am glad to here read an informed and reasonable opinion … a far cry from what Mr Dershowitz and his apologists have presented over here.
[…] But since he’s a prolific intellectually corrupt propagandist whose high-profile rantings are getting a lot of play right now, I’m glad Mitchell Plitnick, Director of Education and Policy of Jewish Voice for Peace, has had the patience to write a three-part response. Worth looking at if you care what Dershowitz thinks. […]
Alan Dershowitz gets exceedingly so much attention from the “left” because he himself is a longstanding leftist, who has broken ranks to support the Jewish National Homeland. This type of dissent is simply intolerable among liberals, who morph their attention-spans at any given moment, acting in unison–or at least in the pretense of same.
“It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel.” –J. Carter
So I ask, who knows better of International law, Dershowitz, a Harvard law professor, or Jimmy Carter, a president who, by the end of his single term was having his vetoes routinely and repeatedly overridden by a profoundly Democratic Congress?
Bella Abzuk, one of the first women in congress and a prototype of feminist liberalism, was also an opponent of Mr. Carter and considered him an anti-Semite, decades before it became fashionable, following 9-11-2001.
Mr. Carter’s first and most prolific fault is that he is a liar. His statements are replete with ½ truths, ¼ truths and outright fabrications. The fact that all his lies point in the same general vicinity, namely, as accusations against Israel and vicariously against Jews as a culture, also makes Carter an anti-Semite and a punk.
The fact that as President, Carter vigorously supported the Christian Shah of Iran, who victimized hundreds of thousands of Iranian Muslims and maintained the most brutal secret police in the world at the time (Savak) also makes him a world-class hypocrite.
Signed: another leftist supporter of Israel, from the lower-east-side of Manhattan, who’s parents were commies and civil-rights activists (in the 1960s):
Dershowitz is a thoroughly unpleasant character. But he is not even competent in his chosen field of sophistry. As if condoning sterilised needles under the fingernails would discourage any other form of torture! Anyway, according to the Boston Globe of 24 January, after Carter’s undebate at Brandeis, ‘Dershowitz later added, “We are not that far apart in our views.”’ (http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/01/24/carter_wins_applause_at_brandeis/?page=full)
And that was true. They both support the existence of a Jewish state in Palestine, which means they agree that the ethnic cleansing of 1948 was ok and implies that they oppose a meaningful resolution of the refugees’ grievances and full equality for Israeli Arabs. The main difference between them seems to be what word best describes Israel’s treatment of Palestinians in the West Bank.
Carter doubtless deserves thanks for raising the volume of the discussion of Palestine in America, but not its quality. As for Dershowitz, I can’t imagine why you’d waste your time refuting that clown.
Isidor Farash ought to know that ‘leftist supporter of Israel’ is an oxymoron.
As a member of Gather.com I want to encourage you to post this article on gather – definitely in the politics group – politics.gather.com in order to invoke a rela doalogue. thanks so much.
[…] Now, I belong to a Muslim-Jewish artists’ group that organizes exhibitions around the country. While I’m proud to say we have many good points, a pleasing lack of interminable warmed-over email-forward arguments is conspicuously not among them. Even if we no longer waste trees with this stuff, we’re still burning perfectly good coal. And that’s why I’d like to share with you this interminable warmed-over email-forward argument. Not as something to be actually read and studied, but as a sort of flying drone thing you can practice your lightsaber skills on, if you’re so inclined. Because–not to brag–after putting up with this kind of stuff for ten years, I do feel pretty qualified to speak to you as an expert on reading about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. […]
To Ernie Halfdram:
You wrote:
“Isidor Farash ought to know that ‘leftist supporter of Israel’ is an oxymoron.”
So say you and the ‘pacifist bullies’ that appear to dominate the ‘liberal’ adgenda.
James Carville stated:
“Don’t allow your (political) adversaries to define you”. So I reject your conclusion. I am a leftist with noted exceptions. Frankly, anyone who believes that 50% of the voters can be wrong 100% of the time need psycho help themselves. Sadly, this description well accounts for the bulk of the “liberals,” as well as a bulk of the “Conservatives”. Moreover, nothing will ever be accomplished, e.g., no actual forward motion is possible while these borders are being absolutely definded by the zealots themselves. It will be stand-off after stand-off, ‘Carter’ after ‘Bush’ and visa-versa. People will continue to vote for the person and party that they find LEAST OBJECTIONABLE, not the one they actually favor.
[…] “His scholarship is no more than ad hominem attacks on his ideological enemies.” No, that’s not a statement about Alan Dershowitz (whose multi-part ad hominem attack on his ideological enemy Jimmy Carter is nicely dissected by Mitchell Plitnick here). That’s Dershowitz on Finkelstein, explaining why he sent a “dossier of Norman Finkelstein’s most egregious academic sins, and especially his outright lies, misquotations, and distortions” to “everybody who would read it.” (Dershowitz says he compiled the file at the request of some 24 people associated with DePaul.) We wrote earlier about The Holocaust Industry author Norman Finkelstein’s battle for tenure at DePaul. It should not come as a surprise that Dershowitz is back: several years ago the famed First Amendement advocate waged a scorched earth campaign, prior to publication, against Finkelstein’s Beyond Chutzpah:On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, which contained several hundred pages chronicling, to put it more charitably than Finkelstein did, errors in Dershowitz’s book, The Case for Israel. […]
[…] According to its statement of purpose, “MuzzleWatch is dedicated to creating an open atmosphere for debate about U.S.-Israeli foreign policy by shining a light on incidents that involve pressure, intimidation, and outright censorship of critics of U.S.-Israeli policy.” Among the repressive incidents exposed on the website were a critique of Jimmy Carter by Alan Dershowitz, a jibe at George Soros by the New Republic, and a report on Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International by the group NGO Monitor*. Seen through this warped looking glass, criticism of these individuals or groups amounts to a threat to civil liberties. […]
[…] According to its statement of purpose, “MuzzleWatch is dedicated to creating an open atmosphere for debate about U.S.-Israeli foreign policy by shining a light on incidents that involve pressure, intimidation, and outright censorship of critics of U.S.-Israeli policy.†Among the repressive incidents exposed on the website were a critique of Jimmy Carter by Alan Dershowitz, a jibe at George Soros by the New Republic, and a report on Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International by the group NGO Monitor*. Seen through this warped looking glass, criticism of these individuals or groups amounts to a threat to civil liberties. […]
[…] According to its statement of purpose, “MuzzleWatch is dedicated to creating an open atmosphere for debate about U.S.-Israeli foreign policy by shining a light on incidents that involve pressure, intimidation, and outright censorship of critics of U.S.-Israeli policy.” Among the repressive incidents exposed on the website were a critique of Jimmy Carter by Alan Dershowitz, a jibe at George Soros by the New Republic, and a report on Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International by the group NGO Monitor*. Seen through this warped looking glass, criticism of these individuals or groups amounts to a threat to civil liberties. […]