Dershowitz should stop lying about Tutu’s record

slide 7612 101098 large

At the risk of publicly acknowledging my unhealthy obsession with the lies of Alan Dershowitz, here is yet another installment in his seemingly endless repertoire of mendacity.  If you think that Dershowitz’s smears of his ideological opponents are venomous and even hyperbolic in tone – “there is a special place in hell” for Jimmy Carter; Desmond Tutu is “one of the most evil men in the world” – simple fact-checking reveals that over-heated language is not his worst feature; that is reserved for his brazen (how does he expect to get away with this?!) dishonesty.

Consider his fulminations against just one of his many targets, South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu. In 2010, Dershowitz unloaded on Tutu while speaking to Australian journalist/activist Antony Loewenstein:

Archbishop Desmond Tutu is one of the most evil men in the world. He never condemns China, rarely Zimbabwe or any other county, it’s only Israel.

If this were factually true, Dershowitz’s reasoning would still be absurd. Tutu need not familiarize himself with, and speak out against, every human rights violation around the globe before he has earned the right to criticize Israel.

But since it’s Dershowitz speaking, it’s not true. Not even close.

Tutu has repeatedly and bitterly criticized both China and Zimbabwe, recommending international action equal to or much worse than that urged by the BDS Campaign against Israel. In 2008, two years before Dershowitz’s outburst to Loewenstein, Tutu criticized China for failing to act on behalf of Darfur, and called for a boycott of the Beijing Olympics unless China changed its policy. A month later, Tutu published a statement in the Washington Post strongly expressing solidarity with the Dalai Lama and bitterly denouncing China’s arrogance toward Tibet. In June 2008, Tutu was in San Francisco, speaking at a rally to protest China’s hosting of the Olympics. Here is what he had to say about the country he supposedly never criticizes:

At a candle-lit vigil on Tuesday near City Hall, South African Archbishop and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Desmond Tutu urged world leaders not to go to the Games. “For God’s sake, for the sake of our children, for the sake of their children, for the sake of the beautiful people of Tibet – don’t go,” he said.

So Tutu had repeatedly urged a boycott of the Beijing Olympics on human rights grounds, well before Dershowitz called him “most evil” for “never” criticizing China.

Tutu’s condemnations of China continued afterward as well, when he co-authored an op-ed in the WashPost bitterly criticizing China for its treatment of Nobel Laureate Liu Xiaobo, and celebrated his own 80th birthday by denouncing the ANC government in South Africa for toadying to China by denying a visa to the Dalai Lama.

With respect to Zimbabwe, in 2008, Tutu requested that the African Union refuse to recognize Robert Mugabe as Zimbabwe’s president, and even called for an international peacekeeping (military) force to invade the country and “restore order.” He also called Mugabe a ”Frankenstein”. The following year, Tutu accused Zimbabwe of “making a mockery” of African democracy and called the country a “huge blot on the record” of Africa.

More Tutu denunciations of Zimbabwe are easily accessible to anyone who can use google.

Thus Tutu was on record for having repeatedly called for a boycott of the Beijing Olympics and for international military intervention in Zimbabwe when Dershowitz called Tutu “one of the most evil men in the world” because “he never condemns China, rarely Zimbabwe.”

In 2011, Dershowitz doubled down on this claim:

the South African government, the African National Congress and Bishop Tutu himself have far worse human rights records than does Israel. They have supported some of the most despotic regimes in the world, simply because the despots who head these regimes in Libya, Iran, Cuba, China, Zimbabwe, and the Palestinian governments in the West Bank and Gaza–sided with their legitimate struggle against apartheid in years past.

How could Dershowitz have missed this copious evidence of Tutu’s repeated denunciations of both China and Zimbabwe? It took me less than five minutes to find all of this material, and I’m slow at online research. Was Dershowitz acting in deliberate deceit or willful ignorance by not even doing a cursory check before condemning Tutu? It doesn’t really matter.

I would have emailed Dershowitz to ask for his response to this article, but I already can guess his reply. “Why are you focusing on me? There are plenty of other liars out there whose lies are worse than mine, but you’re only attacking my lies because I’m Jewish and a supporter of Israel.”

About David Samel

David Samel is am attorney in New York City.
Posted in Israel/Palestine

{ 56 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. Cliff says:

    Oh a Zionist lying about Israel being singled out? It must be Tuesday.

  2. Ramzi Jaber says:

    Truly laughable, coming from the guy who defended OJ Simpson… the biggest judicial lie in the 20th century, this is not even worth a comment beyond this.

    • Did Dershowitz defend OJ? I thought that was Johnny Cochrane. He definitely defended Claus Von Bulow, and bigged up his role in ‘Reversal of Fortune’.

    • Citizen says:

      And then we the banality of Kato: link to

    • RoHa says:

      “the biggest judicial lie in the 20th century”

      I’m not sure why you think it was the biggest, but, if it was a miscarriage of justice (and I am not committing myself either way) very little of the blame can go on Dershowitz. He was only one of Simpson’s defence team, and only played a small part in the courtroom. . Barry Scheck was far more impressive, and Cochran’s ties probably helped to dazzle the jury.

      The police seemed to have mishandled such evidence as they didn’t plant, and the prosecution was inept. They seemed unprepared. I recall one of them asking a witness “You do know the Mr. Simpson is an actor, don’t you?” Only someone who had never seen any of his films could say that.)
      They also seemed unable to put together a coherent picture of the alleged events.
      (Why would Simpson drop one glove at the murder house and the other while climbing over the fence when he got home?)

      Altogether, a big cast to spread the putative blame among.

      • David Samel says:

        I am in agreement, RoHa. I have always defended Dershowitz on this point, that his career as a criminal defense attorney (which I am as well) should not be confused with his odious opinions and outright lies as a pundit on Israel and Palestine. Johnny Cochran and Barry Scheck did more to win that case, and neither did anything wrong. They represented their client vigorously and within the boundaries of professional behavior. Scheck in particular is clearly a hero, being responsible for the release of many many innocent people convicted of serious crimes.
        If there is any villain in the OJ saga, it is Mark Fuhrman, the lead detective who botched the evidence collection and even worse, was caught in a big lie on the witness stand. He claimed he had not used the word “nigger,” and the defense presented an audiotape of him using that word numerous times in an interview with a book publisher. This probably did as much to win OJ an acquittal than anything else. After the trial, he was prosecuted for perjury, pled guilty, kicked off the force, and turned his attention to Greenwich CT, where he wrote a book “solving” a 25-year old murder of a teenage girl. He identified the murderer as Michael Skakel, a Kennedy cousin, and the DA was convinced enough to prosecute him on what I (and many others) think is quite flimsy evidence. Skakel was convicted and is serving decades behind bars.

        In any event, Dershowitz’s career is not a reasonable ground to condemn him. It’s certainly not necessary, considering his multitude of other sins.

        • Citizen says:

          @ David Samel
          I agree with you Mark Fuhrman’s being caught lying about his use of the n-word was likely the most decisive thing in the OJ verdict. OTOH, I think Dershowitz takes the US adversary legal system as his guide when he’s operating outside of the courtroom, being a pundit on Israel and Palestine. In other words, he thinks its his job to defend his client Israel of any charge (and that the best defense is a strong offense). The problem is, he’s not in a court room when he does this, when there’s no official judge or jury, no voire dire, no burden of proof, no strong judicial procedure, no strong rules of evidence, no rights of appeal, etc. He takes full advantage of this. And he relies on his top ivy league credentials to suggest he’s not an evil clown, a kid’s worse nightmare.

        • David Samel says:

          Citizen, I completely agree with you

        • marc b. says:

          i’ll spare you my OJ spiel, citizen, but that’s only a partial diagnosis of dershowitzitis. it’s the bald hypocrisy that I find most galling. this [person] can’t open his mouth without slandering someone (tutu, Chomsky, walt, finkelstein, etc.), but pointed criticism of him is usually met with a law suit or threat of law suit. his ego can’t resist the urge to climb into the ring and start swinging, but the minute someone punches him in the mouth he’s bawling like a three-year old.

          it’s not completely analogous, but if I remember correctly brooke shield’s mother had sued over publication of nude photos of her daughter, mommy claiming that they would cause harm to her daughter’s reputation and career. the judge basically said, you chose this life for your daughter, lady, promoting a career based on titillating ads and movie and TV roles for a pre-teen. you broke it, you own it. same for alan. if he wants to fling dung around in a cage full of alpha chimps, too bad if some gets on him.

        • Citizen says:

          @ marc b
          Yeah, the guy has no shame. An significant aspect of his bald hypocrisy is clearly derived from his deep disrespect for fellow human beings. He despises the bulk of humanity, clearly thinks they are morons. He capitalizes on it. No Kant in him at all.

  3. ”Archbishop Desmond Tutu is one of the most evil men in the world.”

    Am I the only one who thinks Dershowitz is suffering from some sort of mental illness? I’m being serious here. I mean, here is a man who became rich and famous for succesfully defending criminals – most notoriously, Claus Van Bulow – whom he admits he knew to be guilty. And yet here he is talking about Desmond Tutu, a man of heroism and integrity, and saying he is ‘one of the most evil men in the world’. Disagreeing with his position on Palestine would be one thing but this just smacks of borderline insanity, particularly when it is said in defence of a country which Dershowitz has never had the slightest desire to live in.

    How does Dershowitz even get away with this sort of thing? Who does he think he is, other than a plagiarising criminal lawyer? Who accorded him any sort of moral authority?

    • Am I the only one who thinks Dershowitz is suffering from some sort of mental illness?

      nope, count me in. and let’s hope it just gets worse. much worse. not only may we be afforded many more articles from david samel but we can gleefully watch the gradual decline of the dersh in slo-motion as he inches his way into the oblivious where he belongs.

    • David Samel says:

      Mental illness? I’m not convinced. And Dershowitz has skills – that’s why I write about him so much. I think he remains very influential. His charisma fills lecture halls and events. He is a very dynamic speaker, and perhaps most dynamic when he is thundering a complete lie with great conviction and outrage at his opponent. In his famous debate with Finkelstein, I thought he scored some good rhetorical points. I saw him debate with Scott Horton, a very smart, decent guy, and thought he clearly won the debate even though I agreed with Horton. If he suffers from some mental illness, which is highly subjective anyway, it hasn’t diminished his popularity and influence. That is why I spend a lot of time on his lies – another reason is that they are so ridiculously plentiful that there is a never-ending supply of material.

      • seafoid says:

        He’s not mentally ill. It’s more like some massive character flaw. For all of his vast intelligence very little of his Israel work is based on facts. And he is so rabid.

        The sad thing is that history will not be kind to him. Once Zionism falls he will be seen as a partisan of a lost cause.

      • American says:

        ‘If he suffers from some mental illness, which is highly subjective anyway, it hasn’t diminished his popularity and influence. ‘…DavidS

        Looks like he’s only popular with other people like him to me.
        As for mentally ill…..I think MRWs posting some time back on the scientific theory that ‘culture’ (call it brainwashing if you like) can literally ‘re wire’ the brain and then pass that ‘re-wiring’ down has a lot to it.
        In the zionist like the Dersh it has to be that ‘chip failure” in their brain that lets them constantly contradict themselves in their own arguments…something that is obvious to non racist and to the normal logical brain.
        There are die hard racist that can make much more subtle cases and arguements without the very obvious and glaring moral contradictions that Dersh stakes his arguments on.
        There is something wrong with the Dersh brains whether it is some brain chip falure or his emotional lobe short circuits his reason/logic lobe…his Israel defending/positions are not even coherent to anyone who doesn’t share the same mental glitch.

    • Henry Norr says:

      I agree with you, Max. The mental illness is called Zionism.

  4. tod says:

    No, no, no! You are being unreasonable! If the Zionists would stop lying they would have nothing… to, like, start the “peace process” with.

  5. Woody Tanaka says:

    The fact that the supporters of israel have to lay down in the filth and attack the virtuous like Bishop Tutu in this way, in order to support their apartheid state, they demonstrate the utter depravity of israel and its supporters. Unless Dershowitz is simply a racist.

  6. gingershot says:

    “Why are you focusing on me? There are plenty of other liars out there whose lies are worse than mine, but you’re only attacking my lies because I’m Jewish and a supporter of Israel.”


    Like the San Diego Water Authority, Derschowitz would have ‘closed the loop’ at that point

  7. Danny_123 says:

    Jimmy Carter has a special place in hell and Desmond Tutu is the most evil man in the world? Boy, Stephen Hawking got off rather easily with just an “ignoramus” and a “lemming” thrown at him.

  8. just says:

    What an truly ugly dersh.


    Thank you, David, for more truth and exposure.

  9. subconscious says:

    Dershowitz forgot to include the evil archbishop’s gross failure in condemning Israel’s main official enemy, the Islamic Republic of Iran, as yet another instance of Tutu’s hypocrisy: 1 2 3
    Why can’t all these so-called human rights advocates share the law professor’s impeccable even-handedness on such matters?

  10. Ecru says:

    I think you could get away quite happily if you shortened the headline to:-

    “Dershowitz should stop lying.”

    Whenever I have the wearying experience of having to deal with a Zionist I’m always reminded of Ford’s thinking about humans in “Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galaxy.”*

    “If they don’t keep on exercising their lips, he thought, their brains start working.”

    Maybe for Zionists it’s

    “If they don’t keep on exercising their lies their brains start working.”

    It would certainly explain a lot.

    *I’m also reminded on these occasions of Marvin’s lament : “It gives me a headache just trying to think down to [their] level

  11. lysias says:

    Never mind apartheid, what about genocide? Look at this from Jim Lobe’s piece on the conviction in Guatemala of Gen. Rios Montt on charges of genocide and crimes against humanity and how it taints Elliot Abrams:

    Also likely to be somewhat embarrassed is the government of Israel which moved into the vacuum created by Carter’s and Congress’s cut-off of military and intelligence assistance and subsequently expanded its involvement with Rios Montt’s counter-insurgency efforts with the Reagan administration’s encouragement. In 1982, just before Reagan’s visit, Ríos Montt told ABC News that his success in allegedly defeating the guerrillas was due the fact that “our soldiers were trained by Israelis.” It was the same year as the Sabra and Shatila massacres by Israel-backed Phalange militiamen in Beirut. Now, its Central American client has been convicted of genocide.

    • Ecru says:

      We must always remember that to a Zionist it really isn’t a crime if it doesn’t happen to a Jew. How could it – to them nobody else is really human.

  12. Pathological. This man is disturbed and has lost any sense of proportion or rationality. His raison d’etre seems to be blindly attacking anyone who dares venture an opinion on Israeli occupation and intransigence. He should be retired before he does any more harm to himself and his deeply dishonourable cause, which is to exempt one country from examination, singling it out as uniquely immune from any ethical or legal obligations, whilst attacking and defaming anyone who should think differently. Harvard ought to be ashamed, but their need for funds no doubt keeps them quiet. A buffoon and a charlatan.

  13. seafoid says:

    The bots seem to be in a tizzy about proving Mohamed al durra was not killed by the ID F. Is the Dersh involved?

  14. Shmuel says:

    At the risk of publicly acknowledging my unhealthy obsession with the lies of Alan Dershowitz

    I was about to suggest you see someone about that, but then I realised that I’ve been reading every word…

    I’ll try to redeem us both by suggesting that you’ve put your finger on a much broader phenomenon than a single pathological liar. “Singling Israel out” is, of course, one of the favourite hasbara memes and, more often than not, it has little if anything to do with reality (“Why does the UNSC only condemn Israel?”; “Why are there no other boycotts?” “Why are drones OK when the U.S. uses them?”). I sometimes wonder whether it’s all a matter of propaganda and point-scoring, or whether those who resort to it really don’t hear anything that doesn’t have to do with Israel, but then want to know why everyone else is obsessed with Israel? Could it be that Dershowitz (the Symbolic Dershowitz [hereafter, SD]) is so absorbed in his little Israel/anti-Israel universe, that he neither hears nor imagines that Desmond Tutu could ever have spoken up on any other topic?

    Another possibility is the “axis of evil” theory — that is, if someone is “overly” critical of Israel, they must be on the side of evil, and could thus never have condemned China or Zimbabwe. SD knows the kind of thing that “Israel haters” condemn and the kind of thing they don’t condemn. He doesn’t need any silly old fact-checking or Google searches. That’s for people like David Samel, who think that the world isn’t divided neatly into good (us) and evil (them).

    Then there’s the post-modernist explanation, but I think we’re already redeemed (if redemption is ever really possible, that is).

    • David Samel says:

      Shmuel, your speculation on Dershowitz’s thought processes is quite plausible. When he explodes like this, which he does often, he may believe every word he is saying, regardless of the abundant evidence to the contrary.

      But on balance, I think he knows he is lying. He so consistently and repeatedly lies, in ways that bend and stretch the truth that require intent and deliberation, that he is probably doing so here as well. Note how in his 2011 attack, in which Tutu is clearly the focus of his ire, he throws in the South African Govt and the ANC along with Tutu as supporters of these various regimes. He clearly is aware that Tutu himself cannot be charged with these transgressions, and so he adds other parties who can, even though Tutu explicitly broke with the ANC on some of these issues. Not only guilt by association, but guilt by repudiated association.

      Also, while he falsely claimed that Tutu never criticizes China, Dersh hedged his bets a bit with “rarely” Zimbabwe, so that he could answer critics who demonstrated such criticisms – “oh they are much rarer than his condemnations of Israel” he would say. Of course in the end it does not matter. The falsity of his accusations against Tutu, and Carter, and Finkelstein, and Goldstone and Travers and Mearsheimer & Walt and lots of other people cannot reasonably be doubted.

      Even if I’m right, your two theories – hearing only criticism of Israel and automatically associating such critics with evil – surely describe the thought processes of many others, and possibly Dershowitz on those rare occasions when he is self-deluded rather than deliberately lying.

  15. MHughes976 says:

    He may be completely mistaken about Tutu or lying through his teeth. However, if Tutu had in fact concentrated always on only one target for all his objections and criticisms, whether or not that target was Israel, China or Paraguay or bad housing conditions in Guatemala that would not make his critique wrong or show that he was a morally flawed person. In reality, Tutu came to prominence as a critique of apartheid SA – would anyone, even Dershowitz, say that someone who concentrated (as some did, I think) on a critique of the apartheid regime was, simply for that reason, a wicked person or that, simply for that reason, apartheid could not be as bad as it was painted?

  16. Blank State says:

    “I would have emailed Dershowitz …..”

    You have his email address???? Good lord, man, let’s have it!!!!

  17. Keith says:

    DAVID SAMEL- Since you have this intense interest in Dershowitz’ falsifications, I thought you might be amused by a 6 minute video of Norman Finkelstein discussing this very topic. link to

  18. Rusty Pipes says:

    Rather than “why are you focusing on ME?” the response is more likely “Why are YOU focusing on me? Your mother is a hamster and your father smelt of elder berries” — or some other deflection from himself.

  19. ritzl says:

    A) It seems neither unhealthy nor an obsession. Just the opposite. He’s so extraordinarily prolific (probably has a veritable bevy of assistants ginning this stuff up) and conscience-free that it’s just a full time job wading through all the “stuff.” Somebody’s got to do it… :)

    B) Good info and/or exposure. It’s hard to overstate how much your persistence helps people like me make sense of it all. Many Thanks.

  20. a blah chick says:

    Wow, Tutu is the most EVIL MAN IN THE WORLD?! More evil than than that guy who kept those three girls hostage for ten years? More evil than Jack Teitel? More evil than Assad? That is some concentrated evil!

    Seriously though this reminds me of the Imus (nappy headed hos) controversy of a few years ago. Back then a number of (white) people claimed that black folk, who were taking him to task, should have been focusing on misogyny in their own community. Which in fact they HAD been doing for years but the MSM ignored it.

    It’s getting harder to be sane in this crazy world.

  21. Bumblebye says:

    Poor ol’ Dersh. He’s got his work cut out for him, defending the indefensible – and here’s a bit of great news (for us, not him!):

    The ICC has *fianally* opened and investigation into an Israeli crime!!!!!

    link to

    “THE HAGUE (AFP) — The International Criminal Court has opened a preliminary probe into Israel’s deadly raid on a Gaza-bound flotilla in 2010, the prosecutor’s office said Tuesday.

    “My office will be conducting a preliminary examination in order to establish whether the criteria for opening an investigation are met,” Fatou Bensouda said in a statement issued from the court based in The Hague.”

  22. RE: If you think that Dershowitz’s smears of his ideological opponents are venomous and even hyperbolic in tone – “there is a special place in hell” for Jimmy Carter; Desmond Tutu is “one of the most evil men in the world” – simple fact-checking reveals that over-heated language is not his worst feature; that is reserved for his brazen (how does he expect to get away with this?!) dishonesty. ~ David Samel

    MY COMMENT: When Dershowitz goes into his ‘defending Israel’ mode, he can “act out” in an incredibly childish manner! I suppose that helps him keep his cognitive dissonance in check, but it’s a shame he can’t utilize one of the more mature (Level 3: Neurotic, or Level 4: Mature) defense mechanisms rather than “acting out” (Level 2: Immature).

    FROM WIKIPEDIA [Acting out]:

    [EXCERPTS] Acting out is a psychological term from the parlance of defense mechanisms and self-control, meaning to perform an action in contrast to bearing and managing the impulse to perform it. The acting done is usually anti-social and may take the form of acting on the impulses of an addiction (e.g. drinking, drug taking or shoplifting) or in a means designed (often unconsciously or semi-consciously) to garner attention (e.g. throwing a tantrum or behaving promiscuously).
    In general usage, the action performed is destructive to self or others and may inhibit the development of more constructive responses to the feelings. The term is used in this way in sexual addiction treatment, psychotherapy, criminology and parenting.
    Acting out painful feelings may be contrasted with expressing them in ways more helpful to the sufferer, e.g. by talking out, expressive therapy, psychodrama or mindful awareness of the feelings. Developing the ability to express one’s conflicts safely and constructively is an important part of impulse control, personal development and self-care.

    • In analysis
    Freud considered that patients in analysis tended to act out their conflicts in preference to remembering them – repetition compulsion.[1] The analytic task was then to help “the patient who does not remember anything of what he has forgotten and repressed, but acts it out”[2] to replace present activity by past memory.
    Otto Fenichel added that acting out in an analytic setting potentially offered valuable insights to the therapist; but was nonetheless a psychological resistance in as much as it deals only with the present at the expense of concealing the underlying influence of the past.[3] Lacan also spoke of “the corrective value of acting out”,[4] though others qualified this with the proviso that such acting out must be limited in the extent of its destructive/self-destructiveness.[5] . . .

    SOURCE – link to

  23. Daniel Rich says:

    “Wow! You’re snorting $500 worth of coke every day. I think you’ve got a problem”

    “A problem? A problem?! Man, look @ Charlie over there. He’s doing at least $2K a day!”

    Dersh on SNL.

  24. ggg says:

    Thank you David for putting the lie to this shameless character.

  25. Kathleen says:

    Dershowitz is so full of bs. And he knows it. Diversion is his strategy..look over there look over there. Just makes you want to say “shut up Dershowitz just stop lying …enough”

    Archbishop Tutu has absolutely criticized Israel as he should. He has also criticized and worked on many human rights and social justice issues. Just a few of them at one of my favorite website
    link to

    We are all shamed by Syria’s suffering
    link to

    Sri Lanka needs to know the world is watching
    link to

    African campaigners come together to tackle child marriage
    link to

    The Elders call for immediate halt to Gaza violence
    link to

    End the suffering in the Sudans
    link to

  26. dbroncos says:

    Great article, David. Giving some of your time to a Dersh Watch is worthwhile as I’m sure his lies go virtually unchallenged elsewhere, particularly when he’s preaching to the Zionist choir. Dershowitz’s blind prejudice, as you’ve so clearly exposed it, provides a window into the larger current of paranoia among Zionists as a group/cult.

  27. Did this unprincipled man himself, Alan Dershowitz, call for a boycott of or even criticise China and Zimbabwe outside the frame of defence of Israel? Is he on record doing such thing? I would like to know.

  28. Thanks David. I’m loving this “obsession” of yours exposing this unethical, unprincipled personage and I suggest that it becomes a feature on Mondo like M. Ellis’s ‘The Exile and the prophetic’. I’m sure there’s enough materiel to keep them coming. The guy seems to be inexhaustible on the BS front.

  29. Shmuel says:

    Archbishop Desmond Tutu is one of the most evil men in the world.

    A keeper if there ever was one :-)

  30. Citizen says:

    Who’s the biggest liar in the world,
    Made for you and me,
    Der-sho-witz, Der-sho-witz,
    Forever let him hold his banner high,
    High, high, high

    • seafoid says:

      From the link

      “As much as people dismiss him (Dershowitz) as a clown and charlatan and roll their eyes ­ the fact of the matter is that he very effectively makes use of his Harvard pedigree ­ it is a distinguished university and he has an eminent chair of that university and he makes use of those credentials to lend credibility to his work”


  31. Ellen says:

    I’d love to see Dersh and Glenn Greenwald debate.

  32. Talkback says:

    Did Dershowitz ever defend China’s occupation of Tibet Zimbabwe’s systematic violations of human rights or South Africa’s Apartheid? Or wasn’t he paid to do so?

  33. piotr says:

    Dershowitz should stop lying? Have you no pity? And he should stop eating for a good measure? Do you want to take the air out of his lungs?

  34. Sycamores says:

    ‘alan’ the man that keeps on giving. at this rate by next year their won’t be no one left to slander, then what will he do?

    his blinded rabid defense for israel has him resorting to school yard tatics of name calling not really a sign of an intelligent person. i’m sure deep down he knows he is destroying his own credibility and rapidly becoming the butt joke of everyone that cares to listen to him both zionists and non zionists alike.

    i wonder whats the dersh defines as a lie
    a lie is my version of the truth.