"The faux liberal apologists are being attacked from the right," says my friend Ilene Cohen, in passing this along. A settler site attacks Dershowitz.
When will we learn that any land given to them will only be a launching pad for future attacks against us?
What will it take for us to understand this? How many will have to die? And still Dershowitz refuses to budge from his two state model.
Professor Dershowitz please reconsider.
The settlers have eaten the Israeli political structure and are getting ever more aggressive about pushing the Greater Israel brand. So will Dershowitz join Beinart who fears that Israel is committing national suicide? And what will that do to liberalism? To be continued.
Phil over at Huff Po
Rand Paul Amendment Barring War With Iran, Syria Added To Sanctions Bill
NEW YORK — The Senate is poised to consider updated legislation stepping up sanctions on Iran on Thursday, and due to persistence from Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), the bill will contain a provision making sure the measure is not used as an excuse to go to war with Iran or Syria.
According to a Senate Democratic leadership aide, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will ask for unanimous consent on Thursday to pass an updated version of the Johnson-Shelby Iran Sanctions, Accountability and Human Rights Act of 2012. The measure would go after Iran’s mining, energy and shipping sectors and penalize U.S. parent companies for the Iran-related activities of their foreign subsidiaries.
The bill easily passed out of the Senate Banking Committee, but in March, when Reid tried to bring it up for unanimous consent, Paul blocked it in an effort to insert his amendment.
Although nothing in the sanctions bill authorizes war with Iran, Paul didn’t want to take any chances. His amendment would make clear that nothing in the bill “shall be construed as a declaration of war or an authorization of use of force against Iran or Syria.”
thanks kathleen..here’s the link
link to huffingtonpost.com
>> So will Dershowitz join Beinart who fears that Israel is committing national suicide?
To do that, he’d have to become a self-loathing, Israel-hating anti-Semite, wouldn’t he? I can’t wait to see what happens… ;-)
link to haaretz.com
J Street’s Ben-Ami: ‘U.S. Congressmen live in fear of pro-Israeli intimidation’
William Kristol, head of right-wing Emergency Committee for Israel, stuns debate audience in New York: ‘I agree with Obama’s Israel policies to a considerable degree.’
the Douche, oop I mean the Dersh, will take whatever position is the most awkward and gets him the most media time
the Douche, oop I mean the Dersh, will take whatever position is the most awkward and gets him the most media time
That may be true. Prof. Torture did debate Rabbi Meir Kahane at one time on the topic of Democracy vs Judaism. It was a highly “staged” event and the real differences between the two men’s true positions probably weren’t all that great.
*Part 1
link to youtu.be
*Part 2
link to youtu.be
*Part 3
link to youtu.be
*Part 4
link to youtu.be
Wow, if you can watch that debate and conclude that the positions of the two debaters are not far apart, there is something very seriously wrong with you.
The debate is from the late 1980s, well before Dershowitz ever expressed an opinion on whether ticking bombs should be tortured or not, for which Hostage and others, who have heretofore never condemned the routine torture that takes place in Palestinian prisons and other prisons throughout the Arab world, labeled him “Professor Torture.”
It’s unclear how Hostage determined that the event was any more “high staged” than any other debate on an issue of importance.
For the record, Dershowitz has favored the two-state solution for a very long time.
“Dershowitz has favored the two-state solution”
It’s my understanding that what he favors is one state for Jews, and a territory for Palestinians which is stripped of soveignty (vulnerable to random Israeli murder of its citizens, incapable of a normal foreign policy, etc.) That’s not two states. That one state and a slave.
Wow, if you can watch that debate and conclude that the positions of the two debaters are not far apart, there is something very seriously wrong with you.
No, I’m just taking into consideration the surprising rationalizations Dershowitz has subsequently deployed in support of the adoption of a pass system, kidnapping, torturing, and extrajudicially killing potentially innocent victims and the pragmatic caveats he employed throughout the debate while voicing his qualified opposition to Kahane on those same issues.
For example, you claim that he supports the two state solution. But he stressed that we not only need to consider the differences between the views of the two camps, but also “why” his views differ from those of Kahane (@7:35 in 1/4). His objections to the plans to depopulate and establish a greater, biblical, Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates were pragmatic ones: the world community today would not permit it to happen; it would not be any more secure than the (then) current situation; and he was appalled by the prospect of more preventive wars (@):44 in 4/4).
So his primary concern is that others might object, followed by a concern that any security advantage would be offset by the prospect of more preventative wars. He has long since abandoned that particular concern in editorials which said that an unnecessary preventive attack on Iraq or Iran was more preferable than inaction which would expose it to preventable devastation and which claimed that Israel had every moral and legal right to launch preventive attacks on others to protect its citizens. The world hasn’t stopped Israel from stripping more than a hundred thousand Palestinians of their residency rights or prevented Israel from implanting 600,000 settlers e.g.:
* link to alandershowitz.com
* link to israelnationalnews.com
* link to huffingtonpost.com
Hostage and others, who have heretofore never condemned the routine torture that takes place in Palestinian prisons and other prisons throughout the Arab world, labeled him “Professor Torture.”
Correction: I’ve actually commented many times about my support for an investigation and prosecution of all crimes committed on the territory of Palestine. That naturally includes uninvestigated reports about torture performed by the PA and Hamas like the ones contained in paras 97 and 124 of the Goldstone report. I’ve provided other readers here with links to many other UN fact finding reports on the same subject by Dugard, et al and follow-up status reports from UN HRC panels of experts and the ICC Prosecutor.
Dershowtiz’s debate with Chomsy at the Kennedy center should elucidate anyone here on his positions on the 2SS.
He – like you, hoppy – are cynically liars but bad liars. If the game weren’t so rigged in your favor you’d have lost by now.
That being said, the Dersh more accurately supports a 2SS dungeon. Where the Palestinians live in a bantustan state composed of demilitarized islets, ruled by a puppet government. The Israelis are the jailers – now, before, and whenever this so-called peace solution comes to pass. Doesn’t make a difference.
Phil, in the latest Shalom TV interview with Dershowitz, he actually says he supports the settlers. A total freudian slip, he’s then immediately asked on this and even then he sort of hedges the whole thing. He says he supported the Gaza settlers who were evicted in 2005. But those were far-right lunatics.
And this man still passes for a liberal?
You can see the interview here:
link to blip.tv
The settlements comments at around 19:00 onwards.
He also says that Arabs on the West Bank are treated better than “anywhere else in the Middle East”(ca 30:30).
I have to admit I am amused by The Dersh. He epitomizes the conventional wisdom and it’s good to check in from time to time to check if anything’s changed or if the people have dropped their mask in a moment of weakness, and such is the case now.
“And this man still passes for a liberal?”
Who considers this maniac a liberal?
Are P.E.P.s liberal?
liberal hypocrites
“Are P.E.P.s liberal?”
No. They’re cowards.
«“And this man still passes for a liberal?”
Who considers this maniac a liberal?»
What the hell is a liberal? How is a “liberal” supposed to be any different from the other half-shades of his fellow racial supremacists? Does he strangle you rather than cut off your head?
“What the hell is a liberal? How is a “liberal” supposed to be any different from the other half-shades of his fellow racial supremacists?”
Well, that’s an interesting question. One can ask questions all day about whether a particular shade of orange is yellow or red. But calling this stain on humanity a liberal is like calling yellow, red.
That sounds much worse. Strangling takes time, but cutting off the head is pretty fast. Some people don’t seem to get that. Of course, one of the worst may be the poison injections used in assassinations, but that’s another topic.
Krauss
Thanks for sharing the Link. Dershowitz is a brilliant Professor of Law at Harvard, the Legal cases he has championed over his career speak for themselves. His understanding of the relationship between International Law and the legislative authority of Israel is correct. Yet, he distinguishes between legal and illegal settlements and he specifies certain locations as examples. He does not give a black and white answer, because depending on which standard you use; the law, moral law, etc the answer would be different.
Regardless of legal rights, Dershowitz makes the distinction that compromise in the favour of Palestinian people(s) is the right thing to do. He also calls B.S. on the host of human rights allegations against Israel and asks that the same standard be applied to all Nations. He then cites China and zero tolerance of demonstrations in favour of the Dalai Lama and that Syria would not allow for student protests that are allowed in Israel.
He also makes a clear, legal distinction regarding Jordanian land that was captured in 1967, in defence of an attack against Israel. After the Jordanians had lost the war they started, they attempted to sign over”rights” to the land to the Palestinian peoples. “Rights” that were non-existent. Israel tried to give the land to Egypt as part of a Camp David Peace negotiation but they didn’t want it.
Even after clearly declaring certain legal factors, he maintains that achieving peace and compromise is not a matter of law, it’s the right thing to do.
What is the benefit of attaching the label of Liberal to Dershowitz? or to anyone?
As Liberal as Liberals are, apparently they are conservative in recognizing when someone is actually supporting their position.
“Thanks for sharing the Link. Dershowitz is a brilliant Professor of Law at Harvard,”
LOL. Not really brilliant. He has some intelligence, for sure, and is very crafty, but the only brilliance he has is in self-promotion and in given faux legal cover to his pro-Jewish ethnic racism.
“the Legal cases he has championed over his career speak for themselves.”
the OJ was the epitome of the Dershbag: using a stream of bullshit to prevent justice and providing a guilty party (to judge by the civil suit) to get away with his crimes. Likewise, Israel.
Woody,
NOTE: There is a distinct difference between a legal system and a legal result, or ruling on a case AND Justice. If you think that O.J. was an important case for Dershowitz, you are likely very unaware of the cases I was referring to.
Alan Dershowitz’s reputation has been damaged by his exposure as a liar:
Exhange of letters regarding Mr Dershowitz’s defamation of Israel Shahak and Noam Chomsky’s defense of Israel Shahak in the Boston Globe back in 1973:
http://www.chomsky.info/letters/197304–.pdf
It’s amazing what passes for brilliant these days. Hannity over at FOX is brilliant in his way too. As was Johnny Yoo (did he get himself off or what?). Wolfowitcz was so brilliant that he got himself a perch at world bank with zero qualifications and a coal bag called Iraq hanging over his shoulders, till a misplaced and ill-begotten reptilian sex drive felled him (just as it did Strauss-Kahn. I know, I know…late middle age for the power addicted male of the species is no fun. But it can be worse! there’s Berlousconi too, or is he still alive?).
No doubt Dershowitz knows something about law (well he did go to law school, and I believe graduated with minor distinction) and he is a master at self-serving self-promotion. However, virtually every pronouncement he made concerning Israel is demonstrably stupid and deliberately twisted to fit a pre-conceived bias, indicating that such “brilliance” as he possesses may have been more due to connections, a way with words and said self-promotion. What was that recent book about the tendency of ideologues to become more mired in their ideology the more learned they become?
I put Dersh on the same level as Lady Gaga when it comes to brain power. Except I suspect that the latter might one up the former even without memorizing law books. She knows the power of monied presentation and branding. the rest is just words strung together, which can be sung or flung like dung. Take your pick…
For proof of the limited brain power (which gets you into Harvard as long as there are those connections and the means to pay for said privilege) watching and reading the debates between him and Finkelstein is instructive. The latter has totally blown Dersh out of the water every single time.
Actually, I am curious about what makes Dersh even qualify for a post at harvard given the paucity of his writings, his poor debating skills, his tortured attempts at logic (which are closer to magical thinking than to legal analysis) and the numerous areas where he has been shown to be plain wrong, subject to hissy fits and no better than ideological hacks like, well, Hannity.
Personally I suspect that there is about 30 point legal/analytic IQ difference between Dershy and someone like Glenn Greenwald, in the latter’s favor, obviously. It’s pretty clear from their respective writing that where Glenn is incisive, Dersh can only do derisive. Well, at least these two are equally feisty, just that one is easier on the ears than the other. A heck of a lot more so.
So, Samuel T, how about you try to define what exactly is “brilliant” about the legal panderer you so admirer? That he helped get a guilty man off by exploiting loop holes in the legal system and the weaknesses of our jury system? that he knows how to promote himself? that he gets students signing up for his classes so they can get face points (to come in handy perhaps at a future time when those connections are needed).
There are brilliant legal minds around. Dersh is not one of them except to fellow tribalists and those few individuals who, watching their TV, are amazed that there are some humans who can put together a sentence with all the clauses intact. Kind of a low bar to jump over.
Shucks, I forgot one more comparison – so apt too! I hereby bring you, as Exhibits A and B – the Kagans! There’s Elena Kagan who, with virtually no writings to speak of, and just a talent for serving her bosses with distinction, was called “brilliant” in ways that clearly required no proof. Her tribe so pronounced her so that must be it – what can outsiders say? Another Harvard alumni, promoted by Sommerer – all in the family, as they say. Though yes, there again is that life skill brilliance that stood her well enough to get a bench spot on the SCOTUS. I can’t wait for the myriad of incisive legal opinions which are sure to come any day now.
On the other end of the scale we have Robert Kagan, another brilliant mind – though perhaps in a slightly different department (now which one is that? political “science”?). As for the scintillating quality of his recent book (a paean to the undeclining greatness of America) I can’t recommend enough Bacewich’s (no shoulder patting tribesman be he) masterful take down at the Harper magazine of the trite trivialities that pepper said book. After reading this critique (though the critique itself was partly criticized for not being critical enough) I somehow doubt I’ll find enough spare change to buy that collected piece of brilliant works, even at Amazon discounts.
I do urge one and all to contribute their own candidates for the gallery of “brilliant minds”.
“When will we learn that any land given to them will only be a launching pad for future attacks against us?” (Settler)
After reading this I can understand that Palestinians rejected partition with the same arguments.
What you say is entirely valid, Talkback, but there is still at least some truth in what the Settler says. The 2ss in every form discussed is so unfair – wildly, grotesquely unfair – in its distribution of everything, territory, resources, political rights (armed to teeth vs. ‘demilitarised’) – that it would make the Treaty of Versailles look like a big treat for Germany. Just like the Weimar governments Palestinian governments would spend every waking hour thinking of ways to get out from under the burdens of the made at gunpoint Agreement.
I tried to propose classification “Zionism piano”, more traditional, “we have no peace partner, we have good cafe, gay parade and great bird watching opportunities”, and “Zionism forte”, “we do not need no stinking peace, we will get rid of sojourners and tresspasers and we will bow to no one”. Dershowitz is a hard case because he is an extremely noisy specimen of “Zionism piano”.
Arutz Sheva is as forte as you can get outside insane asylums. I stumbled upon some Zionist web site in Spanish which I do not understand, but it sports a cute map of “Eretz Israel” from Nile to Euphrates. That would make Arutz Sheva rather moderate. But those “plus ultra” Spanish Zionist are so extreme that they obviously cannot even find a tycoon to subsidize them, hence, they do not count.
Anyway, the critique of Dersh resembled a critique of Norman Finkelstein here. First, the tribute to immense contribution he made for the cause over the years, and to his undeniable talent. Dersh redefined the concept of human rights with concepts like civilianality (civilians of low civilianality can be bomb to smithereens) and ticking bombs (who can be tortured for years under proper judicial supervision). Alas, being of somewhat advanced age, he does not fully adapt to the realities of Jewish destiny which is being forged even as we speak.
Piotr,
I think it’s very important to recognize that when Dershowitz explains legal concepts based on what has been, “legally tolerated” He is not endorsing those Concepts nor is he responsible for their creation. Pointing out the misapplication of Law, is a matter of Law, not personal preferences or political views.
The article in which Derschowitz introduced “civilianality” was totally repulsive and it was a frank apology of despicable and counterproductive tactics of IDF. Basically, the population that “supports” the opponent is not civilian, and our troops are (all attacks at the Israeli troops are duly term “terrorist”).
“Ticking bomb” concept is a baseless apology for torture. The concept is preposterous, because it assumes almost complete knowledge but with some key element missing, but known to a captured person (and we know that he/she knows). This never happens. What does happen is that a captured person is labelled “ticking bomb” and is tortured for months and years.
I think it’s very important to recognize that when Dershowitz explains legal concepts based on what has been, “legally tolerated” He is not endorsing those Concepts nor is he responsible for their creation.
That’s nonsense. Dershowitz has personally endorsed the use of torture in Op-Eds.
First, the tribute to immense contribution he made for the cause over the years, and to his undeniable talent. Dersh redefined the concept of human rights
Dershowitz is a litigator who writes propaganda that appears in Op-Eds. No one working in the field of human rights law would ever encounter any of his works. He seldom gets published in peer-reviewed law journals and isn’t even considered a scholar by his fellow law professors. Prof Richard A. Posner wrote:
– link to powells.com
A few years ago Prof Brian Leiter noted that Dersh hadn’t published anything significant in decades and that he was one of the least accomplished professors at Harvard.
Prof Richard A. Posner?
I’m sorry, I’m not familiar with any cases that he has actually won. Any Supreme Court cases. He sounds a little jealous of what is known as being “successful” possibly due to his own shortcomings or lack of accomplishments in his chosen profession. Everyone has the right to a defence, that is a principal vital to due process.
Big difference between being accused of a Crime and being found guilty of a crime. The presiding Judge makes that decision. If a prosecuting attorney is incompetent (Like the O.J. Trial) then defence attorneys, lawfully, advocate for the civil liberties of their clients and WIN.
We are witnessing the hilarious self-deprecation of Zionism.