Trending Topics:

A point by point response to Alan Dershowitz’s ‘Ten Reasons Why The BDS Movement Is Immoral’

Activism
on 89 Comments

The call for BDS is growing louder across the country. Student governments from California to Massachusetts have voted to endorse BDS, the Middle East Studies Association has voted to officially sanction discussion on the topic, and BDS activism has proven an effective means to influence corporate decisions on more than one occasion. All of this has Israel’s supporters scared. Alan Dershowitz, professor of Law emeritus at Harvard University and well-known pro-Israel activist, is one such supporter of Israel whose writing has served as a basis for Zionist talking points on a range of issues, including BDS.

Ever since I began publicly expressing my outrage at last summer’s Israeli assault on Gaza, and especially since I’ve helped to found a local chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace, many of my Jewish friends and colleagues have come out of the social media woodwork to try and “help,” as I have clearly lost my way. Several have sent me links to Alan Dershowitz’s Ten Reasons Why The BDS Movement Is Immoral, hoping to bring me back into their Zionist fold.

Lately, the pressure around BDS is mounting. Many academic institutions and student governments around the country are battling internally over whether to endorse or refuse calls for BDS. Likewise, in the wake of the firing of Steven Salaita here at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, the importance of BDS activism has become even more glaringly obvious. As such, I figured it was time to stop scoffing indignantly into my computer keyboard, and time to start turning those scoffs into responses. Below, Dershowitz’s ten reasons are written in bold, and my exhausted and sometimes snarky responses are written beneath.

1. The BDS movement immorally imposes the entire blame for the continuing Israeli occupation and settlement policy on the Israelis. It refuses to acknowledge the historical reality that on at least three occasions, Israel offered to end the occupation and on all three occasions, the Palestinian leadership, supported by its people, refused to accept these offers. In 1967, I played a small role in drafting UN Security Council Resolution 242 that set out the formula for ending the occupation in exchange for recognition of Israel’s right to exist in peace. Israel accepted that Resolution, while the Palestinians, along with all the Arab nations, gathered in Khartoum and issued their three famous “nos:” No peace, no negotiation, no recognition. There were no efforts to boycott, sanction or divest from these Arab naysayers. In 2000-2001, Israel’s liberal Prime Minister Ehud Barak, along with American President Bill Clinton, offered the Palestinians statehood, and the end of the occupation. Yasser Arafat rejected this offer—a rejection that many Arab leaders considered a crime against the Palestinian people. In 2007, Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered the Palestinians an even better deal, an offer to which they failed to respond. There were no BDS threats against those who rejected Israel’s peace offers. Now there are ongoing peace negotiations in which both parties are making offers and imposing conditions. Under these circumstances, it is immoral to impose blame only on Israel and to direct a BDS movement only against the nation state of the Jewish people, that has thrice offered to end the occupation in exchange for peace.

You would be hard pressed to find a BDS supporter who places zero blame on Palestinian leaders. But this is not an even what I would call a “conflict.” This is not a “fair fight,” and Israel has been and continues to be an occupying force with unprecedented military might. So, yes, of course there is sometimes political jockeying and irrational behavior on the part of Palestinian leaders. But to say that BDS is immoral because it places blame for the occupation and settlements on the occupiers and the settlers is nothing short of absurd.

Furthermore, these “deals” that Israel has offered are not such great deals, after all. Just to pick on one of your examples: you are being disingenuous by pointing to those three famous “nos” without including the “until” bit. The complete stance was that there was to be no peace, no recognition, no negotiation UNTIL Israel withdraws from all of the occupied territories as stipulated in UN Security Council Resolution 242.

2. The current BDS movement, especially in Europe and on some American university campuses, emboldens the Palestinians to reject compromise solutions to the conflict. Some within the Palestinian leadership have told me that the longer they hold out against making peace, the more powerful will be the BDS movement against Israel. Why not wait until the BDS strengthens their bargaining position so that they won’t have to compromise by giving up the right of return, by agreeing to a demilitarized state and by making other concessions that are necessary to peace but difficult for some Palestinians to accept? The BDS movement is making a peaceful resolution harder.

Wait, let me make sure I understand this. A movement that seeks to empower its members to stand up for their rights and desires is immoral because it empowers its members to stand up for their rights and desires? Maybe we need to have a talk about what immoral means. I looked it up, and I can tell you that it doesn’t mean “things Alan Dershowitz doesn’t like”.

3. The BDS movement is immoral because its leaders will never be satisfied with the kind of two state solution that is acceptable to Israel. Many of its leaders do not believe in the concept of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people. (The major leader of the BDS movement, Marwan Barghouti, has repeatedly expressed his opposition to Israel’s right to exist as the nation state of the Jewish people even within the 1967 borders.) At bottom, therefore, the leadership of the BDS movement is opposed not only to Israel’s occupation and settlement policy but to its very existence.

Again, I need to be sure I am understanding this correctly. BDS is immoral because its leaders don’t want exactly what Israel wants? Can we at least agree that Israeli leaders are not Gods? They are human politicians who can be swayed by public opinion, lust for power, personal biases, etc. So, if we can agree on that, then “what is acceptable to Israel” is not the gold standard by which we should measure what is good and pure. Using the logic of your point, BDS supporters could argue that Israel is immoral because its leaders will never be satisfied with the kind of solutions that are acceptable to Palestinians. Which, by the way, according to the BDS’ official call, are: That Israel end its occupation and colonization of all Arab lands occupied in June 1967, dismantle the Wall, recognize the fundamental rights of the Arab-Palestinian citizens of Israel to full equality, and respect, protect and promote the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN Resolution 194. Note the conspicuous lack of “throw the Jews into the sea.”

By the way, Alan, I’m pretty sure you mean Omar Barghouti, the man who literally wrote the book on BDS, not Marwan Barghouti, the Palestinian political figure. But what’s the difference, right?

4. The BDS movement is immoral because it violates the core principle of human rights: namely, “the worst first.” Israel is among the freest and most democratic nations in the world. It is certainly the freest and most democratic nation in the Middle East. Its Arab citizens enjoy more rights than Arabs anywhere else in the world. They serve in the Knesset, in the Judiciary, in the Foreign Service, in the academy and in business. They are free to criticize Israel and to support its enemies. Israeli universities are hot beds of anti-Israel rhetoric, advocacy and even teaching. Israel has a superb record on women’s rights, gay rights, environmental rights and other rights that barely exist in most parts of the world. Moreover, Israel’s record of avoiding civilian casualties, while fighting enemies who hide their soldiers among civilians, is unparalleled in the world today. The situation on the West Bank is obviously different because of the occupation, but even the Arabs of Ramallah, Bethlehem and Tulkarim have more human and political rights than the vast majority of Arabs in the world today. Moreover, anyone—Jew, Muslim or Christian—dissatisfied with Israeli actions can express that dissatisfaction in the courts, and in the media, both at home and abroad. That freedom does not exist in any Arab country, nor in many non-Arab countries. Yet Israel is the only country in the world today being threatened with BDS. When a sanction is directed against only a state with one of the best records of human rights, and that nation happens to be the state of the Jewish people, the suspicion of bigotry must be considered.

Truthfully, the only time I’ve ever heard this “the worst first” core principle of human rights talk is amid bullshit tornadoes of right-wing punditry. So, to make sure I wasn’t mistaken, I googled it! I got “the worst first date ever” and “The worst first pitch ever”… But I didn’t come up with anything that dictated where and when one is allowed to focus on human suffering. But you know what, Alan, you’re right, horrible things happen everywhere. Thank goodness you pointed that out. But saying, “other people do bad/worse things!” isn’t doing you any favors. It’s admitting that Israel is on the list of countries deserving of international attention for its’ human rights abuses and illegal activity. Are you just trying to argue that it’s not very high up on that list? It’s not “as bad as” other countries? Do we really need to engage in the evil Olympics? Should not the call for social justice be heeded no matter where it is?

Furthermore – and this is just me speaking personally – the human rights violations taking place elsewhere in the world are not being carried out in my name as a Jew. So, I’ll go ahead and focus on Israel and Palestine for now.

5. The BDS movement is immoral because it would hurt the wrong people: it would hurt Palestinian workers who will lose their jobs if economic sanctions are directed against firms that employ them. It would hurt artists and academics, many of whom are the strongest voices for peace and an end to the occupation. It would hurt those suffering from illnesses all around the world who would be helped by Israeli medicine and the collaboration between Israeli scientists and other scientists. It would hurt the high tech industry around the world because Israel contributes disproportionally to the development of such life enhancing technology.

I hate this argument. This reminds me of those who argue that sweatshops are good because they provide jobs. He is right, people are sometimes forced to work in conditions that are horrible and degrading because the entire system around them is built to benefit others at their expense. Similarly, there are some Palestinians who depend on Israeli companies – like Sodastream – for work. It’s a shame that they would have to suffer should companies like Sodastream go under as a result of BDS. But BDS, and other movements like it, are forced to reckon with long-term, big picture ideas. It would be a lot better if Palestinians weren’t compelled to work for the very people who they perceive to be occupying their land and torturing their people. That’s how bad their economic situation is. They suck it up and go to work for “the enemy” because they have to. Because Israel won’t let the Palestinian economy develop.

See: Sara Roy, “The Gaza Strip: A Case of Economic De-Development” for more on this.

Also see: A model factory for a colonialism in trouble: the SodaStream saga revisited

6. The BDS movement is immoral because it would encourage Iran—the world’s leading facilitator of international terrorism—to unleash its surrogates, such as Hezbollah and Hamas, against Israel, in the expectation that if Israel were to respond to rocket attacks, the pressure for BDS against Israel would increase, as it did when Israel responded to thousands of rockets from Gaza in 2008-2009.

You may or may not have a point here, but I can’t even begin to consider what you said because you have me so distracted by your mention of the Israeli “response” to rockets from Gaza in 2008-2009. Just to be clear, Alan, you are talking about the response that the UN deemed disproportionate? That time when Israel dropped phosphorous cluster bombs on civilians? You’re talking about that “conflict” that resulted in Palestinian deaths outnumbering Israeli deaths by almost 100:1? For your own sake, Alan, don’t refer to Operation Cast Lead when you’re trying to argue in favor of Israel. It just makes you look silly.

7. The BDS movement is immoral because it focuses the world’s attention away from far greater injustices, including genocide. By focusing disproportionately on Israel, the human rights community pays disproportionately less attention to the other occupations, such as those by China, Russia and Turkey, and to other humanitarian disasters such as that occurring in Syria.

You already said this.

8. The BDS movement is immoral because it promotes false views regarding the nation state of the Jewish people, exaggerates its flaws and thereby promotes a new variation on the world’s oldest prejudice, namely anti-Semitism. It is not surprising therefore that the BDS movement is featured on neo-Nazi, Holocaust denial and other overtly anti-Semitic websites and is promoted by some of the world’s most notorious haters such as David Duke.

Please do not conflate Israel with Jews everywhere. Please do not conflate criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism. This only serves to discredit those who try to illuminate and eradicate actual anti-Semitism.

See this. Cantor Michael Davis says it much more eloquently.

9. The BDS movement is immoral because it reflects and encourages a double standard of judgment and response regarding human rights violations. By demanding more of Israel, the nation state of the Jewish people, it expects less of other states, people, cultures and religions, thereby reifying a form of colonial racism and reverse bigotry that hurts the victims of human rights violations inflicted by others.

You already said this. Twice. This makes three times. I’m bored.

10. The BDS movement will never achieve its goals. Neither the Israeli government nor the Israeli people will ever capitulate to the extortionate means implicit in BDS. They will not and should not make important decisions regarding national security and the safety of their citizens on the basis of immoral threats. Moreover, were Israel to compromise its security in the face of such threats, the result would be more wars, more death and more suffering.

Well that’s just, like, your opinion, man. And since when did unfeasibility/unlikelihood = immorality?

Bottom line: I’m glad Dershowitz is scared enough of BDS to take time out of his very busy schedule to write a list like this. This means something is working.

Samantha Brotman
About Samantha Brotman

Samantha Brotman is a Visiting Lecturer & Arabic Specialist at the UIUC's Intensive English Institute. She also works as a project coordinator with The Arab Studies Institute. She is an alumna of University of Oregon and of Georgetown University's MA in Arab Studies, where she researched Christian and Jewish Zionism. She drafted the Jewish Community Letter in Support of Professor Salaita in September 2014. Samantha has also helped to establish a chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace in Champaign, IL.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

89 Responses

  1. amigo
    amigo
    December 5, 2014, 12:01 pm

    If memory serves me well Dershowits has been peddling 95 % of this trash for years.I hope Prof Finkelstein sees this and gives it the same going over he gave to the dershe,s “Case for Israel”.

    What an erudite anti -anti semite he is.Even failed on Omar Barghouti,s name.The man is a klutz ,unless he is cracking under the strain and is suffering from the late stages of “Zioheimers” disease.

    • Marnie
      Marnie
      December 5, 2014, 12:13 pm

      That was awesome! Douchewitz is running scared. Thank you for your excellent rebuttal to his old, tired cliches. That’s an exceptionally unattractive photo, he looks half in the bag (wish he’d just crawl all the way in and stay there).

    • Mooser
      Mooser
      December 5, 2014, 4:25 pm

      What is discouraging about a an article like this, apart from all the sensible and devastating rebuttal in the article and the comments, is that this screed from Dershowitz is what “many of my Jewish friends and colleagues (who) have come out of the social media woodwork to try and “help,”” (using her own description for accuracy) consider a convincing even appealing antiBDS manifesto. That’s a little scary. Shows how deeply they are willing to think about it to reach the conclusions they do.

      • Sycamores
        Sycamores
        December 6, 2014, 2:01 pm

        you think that’s a little scary wait until they start joining the flat earth society.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        December 7, 2014, 8:01 pm

        “you think that’s a little scary wait until they start joining the flat earth society.”

        Oh, that’s all right, the mention of restoring animal sacrifice on the Temple Mount (isn’t that a sex position in the kosher sutra? I could be wrong about that, don’t quote me.) was scary enough for me. We love our three cats and our dog. I keep on having a vision of some poor kid running, panic-stricken, down the street, screaming ‘ help, help, the frummers got Fido!’

        Ah, but brightly informing a stranger about how you plan to re-introduce animal sacrifice? Must be the trauma.

    • bilal a
      bilal a
      December 7, 2014, 9:17 pm

      who gets away with this drivel? answer: people living in a fantasy land of privilege. even unz’s steve sailer is featuring video satire on the ridiculous fantastic creations of ‘Jewish privilege’, eg ethno extremist Sabrina Rubin Erdely: ‘Its like Holocaust denial’

      http://www.unz.com/isteve/ramzpaul-tries-to-shatter-a-beer-bottle-across-a-skull/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=ramzpaul-tries-to-shatter-a-beer-bottle-across-a-skull

  2. just
    just
    December 5, 2014, 12:18 pm

    This is a great effort, Samantha. Thank you. Your students and colleagues are lucky to have you in their midst.

  3. talknic
    talknic
    December 5, 2014, 12:45 pm

    ” The BDS movement immorally imposes the entire blame for the continuing Israeli occupation and settlement policy on the Israelis”

    Uh huh. Only Israel can end the Israeli occupation and illegal settlement by Israelis of other folks territory.

    It refuses to acknowledge the historical reality that on at least three occasions, Israel offered to end the occupation and on all three occasions, the Palestinian leadership, supported by its people, refused to accept these offers”

    Of course they did. Israel offered to swap Occupied Palestinian territory for Occupied Palestinian territory so Israel could keep Occupied Palestinian territory, all of which was territory “outside the State of Israel” according to the Israeli Govt May 22nd 1948 http://wp.me/pDB7k-Xk

    “In 1967, I played a small role in drafting UN Security Council Resolution 242 that set out the formula for ending the occupation in exchange for recognition of Israel’s right to exist in peace”

    A) Alan Dershowitz is not credited as a draftee.
    B) There’s no mention of any “exchange” in UNSC res 242 and the resolution wasn’t about Palestinian statehood.
    C) It was to end hostilities between already existing UN Member states, all of whom had defined and “recognized” boundaries, including Israel . The Egypt/Israeli Peace Treaty’s reference to UNSC res 242 tells us the outcome expected from UNSC res 242.

    “Israel accepted that Resolution”

    And hasn’t yet shown ” respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;” Israel since illegally annexed East Jerusalem, still occupies and illegally settles in other folks territories

    “while the Palestinians, along with all the Arab nations, gathered in Khartoum and issued their three famous “nos:” No peace, no negotiation, no recognition.”

    Quite rightly. As demonstrated by Egypt;
    1) when Israel withdrew from all of Egypt’s sovereign territories peaceful relations were assumed. Israel has yet to fully withdraw from Palestinian, Lebanese and Syrian territories
    2) There were no negotiations over statehood or territory with Egypt, there were only negotiations on WHEN and HOW Israel would withdraw from territory sovereign to Egypt.
    3) Recognition is not mandatory. There is no legal obligation on any entity to recognize any other entity. In fact there exist UN Member states who do not recognize each other. They are never the less, states, independent, UN Members

    “here were no efforts to boycott, sanction or divest from these Arab naysayers”

    Why would there be you stupid stupid man? None were in breach of International Law or the UN Charter or hundreds of UNSC resolutions. Israel is!

    “Ehud Barak, along with American President Bill Clinton, offered the Palestinians statehood, and the end of the occupation”

    Independent Statehood is unilateral. It cannot be offered.

    “In 2007, Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered the Palestinians an even better deal, an offer to which they failed to respond”

    What is “an even better deal” about Israel offering to swap Occupied Palestinian territory for Occupied Palestinian territory so Israel could keep occupied Palestinian territory?

    “There were no BDS threats against those who rejected Israel’s peace offers”

    Why would there be? A) The so called “offers” were sh*te! B) The Palestinians are under no legal obligation to forgo ANY of their legal rights to anything

    “Now there are ongoing peace negotiations in which both parties are making offers and imposing conditions”

    Wrong. The Palestinians are under no legal obligation what so ever to forgo any of their rights or territories. Israel is obliged by Law and the UN Charter and the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States and Geneva Conventions to end the occupation of ALL no-Israeli territories, evacuate ALL its illegal settlers. Only Israel imposes conditions beyond its legal rights, none of which have any legal basis.

    “Under these circumstances, it is immoral to impose blame only on Israel and to direct a BDS movement only against the nation state of the Jewish people, that has thrice offered to end the occupation in exchange for peace”

    You’re a lawyer Mr Dershowitz, you know offering to swap a victim’s stolen goods with the victim for other goods stolen from the victim so one can keep some of the victim’s stolen goods is against the law.

    • travellerh
      travellerh
      December 5, 2014, 5:31 pm

      @talknic

      Your comments are always most informative, thank you. Can you please direct me to a trustworthy book with more details about 1) the circumstances of the 1967 war (i.e. an analysis of its defensive or offensive nature from Israel’s POV) and 2) these peace offers, the details of what was offered and the responses to them.

      • bryan
        bryan
        December 6, 2014, 4:58 am

        @travellerh

        For an excellent account of the 1967 war I would recommend Tom Segev, “1967: Israel, the War and the Year that Transformed the Middle East”. For an overview of war, peace negotiations, politics and diplomacy, from the foundation of the state to 1999 I can strongly recommend Avi Shlaim, “The Iron Wall”, Israel and the Arab World”.

      • talknic
        talknic
        December 6, 2014, 8:31 am

        @ travellerh “Can you please direct me to a trustworthy book with more details about 1) the circumstances of the 1967 war (i.e. an analysis of its defensive or offensive nature from Israel’s POV) and 2) these peace offers, the details of what was offered and the responses to them.”

        For a book to be trustworthy it should reference documents that are now readily available to anyone with an internet connection. I don’t know how closer one can get to the Israeli POV than actual official Israeli Government statements to the Comity of Nations in order to gain recognition and thereafter to the UNSC

        To approach events in 1967 one must first determine the actual extent of Israeli territory/sovereignty 1948 to 1967. There is no easy shortcut…

        On May 15th 1948, at precisely 00:01 (ME time) according to the Israeli Government at the time, Israel’s Declaration of Independence took effect “within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947” http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf

        May 22nd 1948: on questions from the UNSC the Israeli Government stated it was in complete control of all of its proclaimed territories (as above) and furthermore of territories “outside the State of Israel” …”in Palestine” http://pages.citebite.com/x1r0b4d1y6mkv

        In 1949 the Israeli Government signed Armistice Agreements with Lebanon, Syria, Jordan & Egypt. It did not sign any armistice agreement with Palestine because Israel did not consider Palestine to be a state. To understand this one must 1st read Deuteronomy 20:15 https://www.google.com/search?q=Deuteronomy+20%3A15 then Israel’s attempted claim on Aug 31st 1949 to territories not belonging to any state in the region including, according to the Israeli Government on the 22nd May 1948, to Israel.

        Lebanon – The Israeli Govt agreed
        Article 1
        4. The establishment of an armistice between the armed forces of the two Parties is accepted as an indispensable step toward the liquidation of armed conflict and the restoration of peace in Palestine .

        Article V
        1. The Armistice Demarcation Line should follow the international boundary between Lebanon and Palestine.

        Syria – The Israeli Govt agreed
        THE Parties to the present Agreement,

        Responding to the Security Council resolution of 16 November 1948, calling upon them, as a further provisional measure under Article 40 of the Charter of the United Nations and in order to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine, to negotiate an armistice;

        ARTICLE V
        3. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall be as delineated on the map attached to this Agreement as Annex I. The Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow a line midway between the existing truce lines, as certified by the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization for the Israeli and Syrian forces. Where the existing truce lines run along the international boundary between Syria and Palestine, the Armistice Demarcation Line shall follow the boundary line.

        Jordan – The Israeli Govt agreed
        Article I
        4. The establishment of an armistice between the armed forces of the two Parties is accepted as an indispensable step toward the liquidation of armed conflict and the restoration of peace in Palestine.

        Egypt – The Israeli Govt agreed
        Article I
        With a view to promoting the return of permanent peace in Palestine

        Article III
        1. In pursuance of the Security Council’s resolution of 4 November 1948, and with a view to the implementation of the Security Council’s resolution of 16 November 1948, the Egyptian Military Forces in the AL FALUJA area shall be withdrawn.

        2. This withdrawal shall begin on the day after that which follows the signing of this Agreement, at 0500 hours GMT, and shall be beyond the Egypt-Palestine frontier.

        Although there were cross border skirmishes, none were considered an invasion of Israel by the UNSC based on the Israeli Government statements regarding its territorial boundaries.

        The wars were not fought in Israel. Armistice lines, withdrawal, boundaries/frontiers and peace were required “in Palestine”, not ‘in Israel’.

        The question of Israel was sorted by Israel’s Declaration of Independent statehood and subsequent statements 22nd May 1948, etc. Consequently, subsequent UN/UNSC resolutions address “the Question of Palestine”.

        Aug 31st 1949 – Israel laid claim to territories that, per Deuteronomy 20:15 (ibid), did not belong to another state in the region and beyond the extent of its own sovereign frontiers http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/fd807e46661e3689852570d00069e918/c96e0252e7710bce85256d95006bc157?OpenDocument Again indicating Palestinian territory ‘outside the State of Israel’. The claim was refused http://domino.un.org/pdfs/AAC25IS37.pdf citing the Armistice Agreements

        We can clearly see by Israel’s official words, agreements and requests, no territory acquired by war “outside the State of Israel” ..” in Palestine” had actually become Israeli by any legal means. The Israeli POV in regards to acquiring territory by right of conquest cites Schwebel/Lauterpacht.

        However, Lauterpacht who was cited by Herzog at the UNSC http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/65A12B78BC3108A8052565FD0056A8BE justifies restoring the Sovereign” by war, not the ‘acquisition’ of territory, which was outlawed by the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States http://pages.citebite.com/y1f0t4q1v4son

        Per Lauterpacht, the Arab states on May 15th 1948 informed the UNSC http://mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/MFADocuments/Yearbook1/Pages/5%20Arab%20League%20declaration%20on%20the%20invasion%20of%20Pales.aspx as required under Chapt VII, of their intention to attempt to ‘restore the sovereign’ from Israeli forces by invading, as the Israeli Govt says, “Palestine”

        Consequently, there are no UNSC resolutions against any Arab state for attempting to expel Israeli forces from territories“outside the State of Israel” ..” in Palestine” quite simply because territories“outside the State of Israel” ..” in Palestine” have never been sovereign to Israel.

        As UNSC Chapt VI resolutions on the Question of Palestine had failed to resolve the issues from 1948 it was in 1967 and still is the Arab states and Palestine’s allies who may, by war, attempt to “restore the Sovereign”.

        Moving now towards 1967:

        S/RES/228 of 25 November 1966 http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/1A03C7BFB8D6C049852560C3004A4AAF Go figure …

        “2) these peace offers, the details of what was offered and the responses to them”

        It is important to establish and remember that Israel has never legally acquired any territory other than that proclaimed and recognized as the Israeli Govt stated “within frontiers approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in its Resolution of November 29, 1947” So when it talks of territorial or land swaps, it is in fact talking about swapping non-Israeli territories for non-Israeli territories in order to keep non-Israeli territories. A concept no one in their right mind can consider a reasonable or even a legal ‘offer’.

        However, Abbas at the UN on two occasions offered in front of the world to accept only 22% of the Palestinians rightful territories for peace with Israel. http://pages.citebite.com/e9p5s8u2yhcd

        Israel’s response was to build more illegal settlements, expand on existing illegal settlements and make more demands that have no legal basis.

        Hostage is one of the finest sources of trustworthy information I am aware of http://mondoweiss.net/profile/hostage I do hope he is well!

        Books:
        Professor John B. Quigley https://www.google.com/search?q=John+B.+Quigley
        Professor Francis Anthony Boyle https://www.google.com/search?q=Francis+Anthony+Boyle

      • Zofia
        Zofia
        December 6, 2014, 10:27 am

        Hello:) You can also try this:
        CIA Analysis of the 1967 Arab-Israeli War: https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol49no1/html_files/arab_israeli_war_1.html

        Dalia Gavrieli-Nuri: Saying “War”, Thinking “Victory”—The Mythmaking Surrounding Israel’s 1967 Victory, Israel Studies – Volume 15, Number 1, Spring 2010, pp. 95-114

        “Pre-emptive War:” the Six Day War Revisited Ersun N. Kurtulus:
        The article presents a critical assessment of the widespread conceptualization of the June 1967 War between Israel and its neighboring Arab states as a pre-emp-tive war both in academic and non-academic writing. Tracing the origins of the notion of pre-emptive war to international law, the article identifies three necessary conditions for such a war to be classified as pre-emptive: acute crisis combined with high alert levels; vulnerable offensive weapons; and strategic parity as regards to offensive capabilities. On the basis of a re-interpretation of the evidence produced by previous research, this article argues that the circumstances surrounding the Six Day War did not fulfill some of these necessary conditions.
        This conclusion also is supported by evidence related to the Israeli decision to
        launch a first strike.

        https://kar.kent.ac.uk/1547/1/Kurtulus.pdf

      • jd65
        jd65
        December 6, 2014, 8:24 pm

        Hey travellerh. talknic is of course correct in stating that “there is no easy shortcut” to understanding the details of the 1967 war. There’s really no shortcut to even understanding it generally, and I’m certainly no expert. Here are a couple quotes/sources to add to talknic’s post on deciphering Israel’s war of June 1967:

        “Brigadier General Mordecai Hod, who directed the aerial assault that broke the Egyptian Air Force in the first three hours of the June 1967 war, was reported by Randolph Churchill and his son Winston to have said that not ten but sixteen years of planning went into that assault. ‘We lived with the plan, we slept on the plan, we are the plan,’ Hod said. ‘Constantly we perfected it.’ Brigadier General Peter Young, another British historian of the war, discussed the war plan with Brigadier General Ezer Weizman, the Israeli Deputy Chief of Staff, in October 1966. The Israelis had every last detail worked out, Young wrote. Early in the 1967 war he said in a BBC commentary that it looked to him as if ‘the pattern of 1956 is being followed with an unhistorical repetitiousness.’

        From Israel’s point of view, the 1956 war served as a rehearsal for 1967. The plans for the earlier war were only a year old when they were tested in action. Long before 1967 they had matured to near perfection and, as in 1956, required only favorable circumstances and a political decision to be put into action.”

        – From The Twice-Fought War (1969), Kennett Love

        “After 1957, Israel had to wait ten full years for its flag to fly again over that liberated portion of the homeland (Gaza). In June 1967 we again had a choice. The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decide to attack him.

        This was a war of self-defence in the noblest sense of the term. The government of national unity then established decided unanimously: We will take the initiative and attack the enemy, drive him back, and thus assure the security of Israel and the future of the nation.

        We did not do this for lack of an alternative. We could have gone on waiting. We could have sent the army home. Who knows if there would have been an attack against us? There is no proof of it. There are several arguments to the contrary.”

        – Menachem Begin, speech from 1982 – from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs website

      • talknic
        talknic
        December 7, 2014, 5:48 am

        Link for /// Menachem Begin, speech from 1982 – from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs website ///

        http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/mfadocuments/yearbook6/pages/55%20address%20by%20prime%20minister%20begin%20at%20the%20national.aspx

      • talknic
        talknic
        December 7, 2014, 6:12 am

        You can reach the different year books by changing the number [n] of the /yearbook[n]/ in the address bar of your browser

        e.g., h t t p : / / mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/mfadocuments/yearbook1/Pages/TABLE OF CONTENTS.aspx

        yearbook1 http://mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/mfadocuments/yearbook1/Pages/TABLE%20OF%20CONTENTS.aspx

        yearbook2 http://mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/mfadocuments/yearbook2/Pages/TABLE%20OF%20CONTENTS.aspx

        etc

      • Memphis
        Memphis
        December 8, 2014, 8:25 pm

        A good book that covers the 67 War is “The Six day War” edited by Parker

        Zeev Maoz “Defending the Holy Land”

        NOrman Finkelstein “Image and Reality…”

      • travellerh
        travellerh
        December 13, 2014, 8:31 pm

        Thanks all – the pointers and information are much appreciated!

    • Shingo
      Shingo
      December 6, 2014, 5:38 am

      “In 1967, I played a small role in drafting UN Security Council Resolution 242 that set out the formula for ending the occupation in exchange for recognition of Israel’s right to exist in peace”

      A) Alan Dershowitz is not credited as a draftee.

      The reason he is not credited as a draftee is because he had nothing to do with it. Watch FInkelstein shred Dershowitz on this claim.

  4. ckg
    ckg
    December 5, 2014, 1:02 pm

    Dershowitz: “The major leader of the BDS movement, Marwan Barghouti, …

    Funny. At least we can rest assured that he didn’t plagiarise this sentence.

  5. just
    just
    December 5, 2014, 1:02 pm

    Thank you, talknic!

    ;-}

  6. talknic
    talknic
    December 5, 2014, 1:10 pm

    “2. The current BDS movement, especially in Europe and on some American university campuses, emboldens the Palestinians to reject compromise solutions to the conflict. Some within the Palestinian leadership have told me that the longer they hold out against making peace, the more powerful will be the BDS movement against Israel. Why not wait until the BDS strengthens their bargaining position so that they won’t have to compromise by giving up the right of return, by agreeing to a demilitarized state and by making other concessions that are necessary to peace but difficult for some Palestinians to accept? The BDS movement is making a peaceful resolution harder”

    The folk who have legal RoR to Israel are ISRAELIS http://pages.citebite.com/b3n4r7v9f8xit you stupid stupid man

    Every state, incl Palestine has right to self defense.

    The Palestinians are under no legal obligation to forgo ANY of their legal rights in order that Israel’s illegal so called ‘concessions’ be met.

  7. jd65
    jd65
    December 5, 2014, 1:26 pm

    Excellent article Samantha. Since I believe Dershowitz deserves pretty much any derision directed at him vis-a-vis his incessantly manipulative and transparent lies regarding Israel/Palestine, I enjoyed this quote of yours the most (I laughed out loud for about 2 full minutes…):

    “Maybe we need to have a talk about what immoral means. I looked it up, and I can tell you that it doesn’t mean ‘things Alan Dershowitz doesn’t like.'”

    http://youtu.be/Ldi_DU4kLRY

  8. American
    American
    December 5, 2014, 1:58 pm

    His points are comical is my only comment.
    Glad someone has the patience to address them, I don’t.
    I am done with their silly pilpul.

  9. Kay24
    Kay24
    December 5, 2014, 2:21 pm

    He was one of those who urged the President to release the traitor, Pollard, from his life sentence, for being Israel’s top American spy. That is how much Dershowitz cares for the country he resides in, and pretends to care. He should move to his motherland.
    No decent American should be pleading for a criminal who betrayed his country, to do the bidding of an alien nation that pretends it is our ally.

    • amigo
      amigo
      December 5, 2014, 8:49 pm

      “He should move to his motherland.”Kay 24

      I think fatherland would be more appropriate.

  10. eGuard
    eGuard
    December 5, 2014, 2:44 pm

    re Dersh #3=7=9 the worst first: Please tell us, Dershowitz, was abolishing Apartheid in S.A. done too early? Should we reinstate Apartheid there and change Iran first? (or China, Russia, Turkey, Syria — what actually is your order, Dersh, before again we solve the wrong evil?)

    #4. It would hurt the high tech industry around the world because Israel contributes disproportionally to the development of such life enhancing technology.

    Disproportionally. Where did I hear that before?

    #4. [Israeli] Arab citizens enjoy more rights than Arabs anywhere else in the world. (you are a stupid stupid racist, Dersh). Anyway, that would convince everyone in Ferguson.

  11. shalom
    shalom
    December 5, 2014, 3:00 pm

    For me it comes down to this; the fundamental question isn’t whether BDS is immoral or not, it is whether it will bring peace and two states. The answer is no! Because whereas some people follow a BDS that is limited to West Bank settlements others follow a BDS program that covers all of Israel, and still others allow it to morph to cover anything that Israel does that is not to their liking. The fundamental document; http://www.bdsmovement.net/call, (as you noted), calls for “Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194” This clearly calls for a right of return that would effective end the state of Israel. I don’t believe that pressuring a state of Israel that was built to take in the survivors of the Holocaust and all Jews who need a home will ever give in to a campaign of BDS/delegitimization any more than Palestinian would give up their righteous resistance to the occupation. It is negative, it is hurtful, it is wrong and it will be unsuccessful and worse it will push peace away for a very long time.

    • annie
      annie
      December 5, 2014, 4:04 pm

      I don’t believe that pressuring a state of Israel that was built to take in the survivors of the Holocaust and all Jews who need a home will ever give in to a campaign of BDS/delegitimization any more than Palestinian would give up their righteous resistance to the occupation.

      so don’t worry your little head about it. go spend your time where you think it will make a difference.

      It is negative, it is hurtful, it is wrong and it will be unsuccessful and worse it will push peace away for a very long time.

      look on the bright side. there is no mass slaughtering of jews going on, unlike the actions perpetrated by the zionist state you support. there is no demolitions of jews homes going on (no matter if the criminal pour gasoline down a jews thought and turns them into a human torch) unlike the actions perpetrated by the zionist state you support. you wanna talk about hurtful dearie? look on the bright side, what you support is far more hurtful than bds, so take your worthless hypocritical complaints and go rant where someone might take you seriously, because it won’t be here.

      • Mooser
        Mooser
        December 6, 2014, 10:14 pm

        “I don’t believe that pressuring a state of Israel that was built to take in the survivors of the Holocaust and all Jews who need a home”

        “And all Jews who need a home” Now, I ask you, is that generosity, is that Zionist largess? They’ll give you a home on somebody elses land! Now, that’s the kind of security the Jews deserve after so many years persecution.

    • Mooser
      Mooser
      December 5, 2014, 4:12 pm

      “It is negative, it is hurtful, it is wrong and it will be unsuccessful and worse it will push peace away for a very long time.”

      First kvetch then threaten. Oh well, it beats shoot-and-cry.

    • seafoid
      seafoid
      December 5, 2014, 5:27 pm

      “It is negative, it is hurtful, it is wrong and it will be unsuccessful and worse it will push peace away for a very long time. ”

      Cry me a river baby

      Jews love the one state solution called Eretz Israel- if you wanted 2 states you should have put a ring on it

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4m1EFMoRFvY

      All the single staters (All the erez Israelis)
      All the single staters (All the erez Israelis)
      All the single staters(All the erez Israelis)
      All the single staters
      Now put your hands up

      [Verse 1]
      Up in the UN, we just broke up
      I’m doing my own little thing
      You decided to occupy but now you wanna trip
      Cause all the goys noticed me
      I’m up for them, they up for me
      don’t pay them any attention
      Cause I cried my tears, for sixty three good years
      Ya can’t be mad at me

      [Chorus:]
      Cause if you liked it then you should have put a ring on it
      If you liked it then you should’ve put a ring on it
      Don’t be mad once you see that he want it
      If you liked it then you should’ve put a ring on it

      Wuh uh oh uh uh oh oh uh oh uh uh oh
      Wuh uh oh uh uh oh oh uh oh uh uh oh

    • Abu Malia
      Abu Malia
      December 6, 2014, 2:39 pm

      @Shalom, The point of BDS is take away Israel’s ability to “push peace away for a very long time”.

    • eGuard
      eGuard
      December 7, 2014, 4:00 am

      shalom: the fundamental question isn’t whether BDS is immoral or not – Having to jettison the topic (the topic Dershowitz himself choose) with a reset-button is another sign that your anti-BDS movement is in trouble.

      shalom: it will push peace away for a very long time Too much right turns, sir. You have ended right at the title of Dershowitzes piece. You are chasing your own tail. (Meanwhile you have said that preventing peace is not about morality?!).

    • lyn117
      lyn117
      December 7, 2014, 1:28 pm

      It is negative, it is hurtful, it is wrong and it will be unsuccessful and worse it will push peace away for a very long time.

      Remembering the old adage, “any excuse will do for a tyrant” – when it comes to Israel’s efforts towards ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Palestinians, it doesn’t matter what they do or don’t do, Israel will use it as an excuse for more ethnic cleansing and brutal policies.

      @shalom, you’re happy to make excuses for the tyrant, I see. Poor Israel – BDS/delegitimization is hurtful and therefore mass murder and terror against innocent civilians because they happen to be non-Jewish Palestinian, even though it started well before BDS, can legititimately continue.

    • talknic
      talknic
      December 9, 2014, 8:15 am

      @ shalom ” the fundamental question isn’t whether BDS is immoral or not, it is whether it will bring peace and two states. The answer is no! Because whereas some people follow a BDS that is limited to West Bank settlements others follow a BDS program that covers all of Israel, and still others allow it to morph to cover anything that Israel does that is not to their liking. “

      Uh huh. You then only show one legitimate instance for BDS

      “… calls for “Respecting, protecting and promoting the rights of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and properties as stipulated in UN resolution 194″ This clearly calls for a right of return that would effective end the state of Israel.”

      Care to explain your weird “effective end the state of Israel” theory?

      UNGA Res 194 was adopted in 1948

      The UNRWA definition of 1949, on which Israel mounts its fear mongering bullsh*t for people who don’t understand chronological order, isn’t relevant to UNGA res 194 of 1948

      UNRWA wasn’t established until 1949. UNRWA didn’t have a definition in 1948, it didn’t exist!

      Furthermore UNRWA’s definition is only to ascertain who qualifies for assistance while they are refugees. It does not apply to final status issues. UNRWA’s limited mandate

      (Q2) “Is UNRWA involved in the Middle East peace negotiations and in the discussions on a solution to the refugee issue?”
      (A2) “No. UNRWA is a humanitarian UN agency and its mandate from the UN General Assembly defines its role as one of providing services to the refugees. As such, the Agency is not involved in the political discussions on the future of the refugees.

      Only those folk who had a right to Israeli citizenship in 1948 per the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel , have a right to return to their state, Israel. Their children are also Israelis under Israeli Law 1948

      “I don’t believe that pressuring a state of Israel that was built to take in the survivors of the Holocaust and all Jews who need a home will ever give in to a campaign of BDS/delegitimization any more than Palestinian would give up their righteous resistance to the occupation. “

      1) The push to colonize Palestine began circa 1897 long before the Holocaust http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8632-jewish-colonial-trust-the-judische-colonialbank

      2) Some 50% of Jews who need/ed a home did/have not chosen Israel, Holocaust survivors even.

      3) The only BDS rational you gave is in accordance with International Law and the UN Charter. Israel delegitimizes itself by being in breach of a Charter and Laws and Conventions adopted in large part because of the treatment of our Jewish fellows under the ^&*ing Nazis!

      “It is negative, it is hurtful, it is wrong and it will be unsuccessful and worse it will push peace away for a very long time

      But illegally acquiring territory by war, illegal annexation, illegally encouraging Israelis to break GC IV, illegally selling illegally acquired territory to illegal settlers is all very very peaceful and wholesome … right?

      • just
        just
        December 9, 2014, 9:14 am

        wow. talknic, thank you.

      • jd65
        jd65
        December 9, 2014, 11:21 am

        +1

      • talknic
        talknic
        December 9, 2014, 6:57 pm

        Further to the theory that a right of return via UNGA res 194 ” would effective end the state of Israel.”

        So …. why did the Zionist Movement and Jewish People’s Council plead with the Arab population to stay? http://pages.citebite.com/b3n4r7v9f8xit

        Why after the Declaration of the establishment of the State of Israel came into effect at 00:01 May 15th 1948 (ME time) would the same people who were driven out or fled the violence, suddenly be a threat if they were to return a few weeks later?

        Are we to believe the people who drafted the Declaration were un-aware that under Plan Dalet, non-Arabs were being driven out of territory slated for the Jewish state (and from territory not slated for the Jewish state).

        Like all Hasbara, something simply doesn’t make sense.

    • eljay
      eljay
      December 9, 2014, 8:36 am

      >> shalom: … This clearly calls for a right of return that would effective end the state of Israel.

      The right of return wouldn’t necessarily end the state of Israel, but it most likely would end supremacist “Jewish State”. And there’s nothing wrong with ending supremacism.

      >> I don’t believe that pressuring a state of Israel that was built to take in the survivors of the Holocaust and all Jews who need a home will ever give in to a campaign of BDS/delegitimization …

      Israel was established as a religion-supremacist “Jewish State” primarily for Jewish Israelis and non-Israeli Jews. There’s nothing legitimate about that.

      For over 60 years, Israel has been stealing, occupying and colonizing Palestinian land and oppressing, torturing and killing Palestinians outside of its / Partition borders. There’s nothing legitimate about that, either.

    • Shingo
      Shingo
      December 9, 2014, 4:28 pm

      For me it comes down to this; the fundamental question isn’t whether BDS is immoral or not, it is whether it will bring peace and two states. The answer is no!

      Oh really? The same tired argument recycled from the days of apartheid South Africa.

      Because whereas some people follow a BDS that is limited to West Bank settlements others follow a BDS program that covers all of Israel, and still others allow it to morph to cover anything that Israel does that is not to their liking.

      What a stupid argument. If BDS is to succeed, it will only be effective so long as it has broad support. It won’t survive is “some” people want to turn it into something different.

      And yes, it should target all of Israel. Targeting only the West Bank gives Israel too many loopholes to get around it.

      This clearly calls for a right of return that would effective end the state of Israel. I don’t believe that pressuring a state of Israel that was built to take in the survivors of the Holocaust and all Jews who need a home will ever give in to a campaign of BDS/delegitimization any more than Palestinian would give up their righteous resistance to the occupation. It is negative, it is hurtful, it is wrong and it will be unsuccessful and worse it will push peace away for a very long time.

      Then explain why Israel agreed to UNGA194 idiot.

  12. Kay24
    Kay24
    December 5, 2014, 3:51 pm

    British Architects rescind their previous effort to suspend Israeli Association of of United Architects.

    “The leading association for British architects has rescinded a previous policy to suspend its Israeli counterparts from an international architects group.

    On Thursday, the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) concluded that a motion to suspend the Israeli Association of United Architects (IAUA) from the International Union of Architects (UIA) was “not in furtherance of the charitable objects of the RIBA” and “should not have been placed before RIBA Council.”

    In March, RIBA approved a motion calling on the UIA to suspend the Israeli Association of United Architects from membership until they refused to accept projects in the West Bank.”

    Someone made that telephone call.

  13. a blah chick
    a blah chick
    December 5, 2014, 3:54 pm

    “4. The BDS movement is immoral because it violates the core principle of human rights: namely, “the worst first.”

    This is my favorite Dersh meme, namely that since there are worse violators of human rights in the world we need to focus on them and not sweet little Israel.

    Okay, Professer, if that’s true why aren’t YOU devoting your time and energies to discussing those horrible regimes?

    Idiot.

  14. Mooser
    Mooser
    December 5, 2014, 4:08 pm

    “4. The BDS movement is immoral because it violates the core principle of human rights: namely, “the worst first.””

    “The worst first”. In quotes, double-quotes.

    “Truthfully, the only time I’ve ever heard this “the worst first” core principle of human rights talk is amid bullshit tornadoes of right-wing punditry. So, to make sure I wasn’t mistaken, I googled it! …/… But I didn’t come up with anything that dictated where and when one is allowed to focus on human suffering.”

    I’ve never seen anything like the Zionist relationship with quote marks. Instead of saying ‘somebody said this, exactly this’ it usually means ‘I just made it up’! Very strange.

    • tree
      tree
      December 5, 2014, 5:12 pm

      And of course, If Dersh really believed in “the worst first” principle he wouldn’t be saying a word about BDS. … Or anti-semitism in Europe or American campuses either, for that matter.

      There are so many things in the world that are much, much, much worse than BDS, but he can’t shut up about it. I guess that makes him profoundly immoral. But then we knew that already.

      He makes up a ‘rule’ that he never ever follows and demands that the people who disagree with him must follow his made up rule and then impugns their morality if they don’t. That’s his strategy… and his ‘morality’.

    • seafoid
      seafoid
      December 5, 2014, 10:30 pm

      And for Israel things are going to get a lot worse before they get worse. Dersh’s “worst first principle” is a corruption of “whore first with no principles “- the Zionist tendency to roll out a prominent sociopath to do lead media interviews. It is lovely to see him floundering.

      Nothing moral about power plays. He should know his Machiavelli.
      “Because we can” was the botinspiration. And he’s losing his mojo. Because he can’t any more.

    • Horizontal
      Horizontal
      December 6, 2014, 4:13 pm

      If we’re talking about Palestine, then Israel is indeed “the worst first.” Dersh is just messed up on the scale.

  15. seafoid
    seafoid
    December 5, 2014, 5:21 pm

    Dersh looks like such a 70s porn star in that photo

    BDS is immoral whereas blowing up hospitals is right and proper.
    Thanks for the laughs Dershie. And keep your todger in your pants.

    • piotr
      piotr
      December 5, 2014, 8:37 pm

      seafoid, I never felt so happy that I am ignorant of 70s porno flicks. What kind of individual could gain pleasure from watching Dersh? Perhaps “Dominatrix Amanda and Dersh”?

      I myself wondered how his argument were structured if in his young years Dersh was a lumberjack or yakuza and now had eight fingers rather than ten. I guess he should not get rid of the terrifying vision of BDS movement using poor Iran as its pawn which in turn unleashes its proxies which in turn provoke Israel which in turn increases the following of BDS. In short, while looking deceptively powerless, BDS is a demonic controller of world events.

    • annie
      annie
      December 5, 2014, 8:43 pm

      did someone just use porn and dersh in the same sentence? gross!

  16. Rusty Pipes
    Rusty Pipes
    December 5, 2014, 8:42 pm

    What exactly qualifies a Professor of Constitutional Law to adjudicate Morality? Or has he just gone beyond plagiarism to signing his name to any Hasbara that lands on his desk?

  17. piotr
    piotr
    December 5, 2014, 9:11 pm

    It is a bit hard to properly address the non-sense spewed by the good Professor. An occupational risk is absorbing the validity of the types of arguments he uses.

    For example, it would be immoral to call piotr a male chauvinistic pig because on three occasions, in 1967, 1982 and once in this century he actually behaved nicely toward a female. And on several other occasion while his behavior was not nice, it was objectively justified. What kind of argument (point one) is that? Of course, if we had the true record of what transpired at those occasions we could draw different conclusions, but the very argument makes no sense.

    Or take that: “The BDS movement is making a peaceful resolution harder.” For starters, is it clear (from Zionist perspective) that a peaceful resolution is desirable? For example, this book got Israeli Prize: Saving Israel: How the Jewish People Can Win a War That May Never End
    by Daniel Gordis. Furthermore, can one truly offer a convincing scenario that BDS is removed from existence and, as a result, peace starts reigning in the Middle East?

    Or that: “Israeli universities are hot beds of anti-Israel rhetoric, advocacy and even teaching.” In spite of the efforts of our good Professor, who denounced BGU’s Neve Gordon (Dept of Political Science) as a Fifth-Rate Pseudo-Academic and Traitor, and a number of professors from Tel Aviv University as well. As we well know, he would gladly fire all those low-life, but in another points pretends that putative suffering of Palestinian workers and leftist faculty members would make him sad (and causing that would be “immoral”.

    When Dershowitz campaigned to deny tenure to Norman Finkelstein, did he sincerely believe that Finkelstein was “the worst”? Surely, among thousands of tenure cases in that year there were less deserving ones. When some war criminals of Bush Administration got professorial positions at law schools, was Dershowitz involved in any way? Well, why should he, as he himself theorized justifications for torture and slaughter. Which really gives serious doubt that Dershowitz has any inkling about what is moral and immoral. The above list, and his long record, suggest otherwise.

  18. seafoid
    seafoid
    December 5, 2014, 10:36 pm

    #3 “the kind of 2 state solution that would be acceptable to Israel”

    Jordan
    And they want Palestinians to accept it. We make a desert and call it moral, as the Great Roman Zionist Philosoper Tactless once said.

  19. seafoid
    seafoid
    December 6, 2014, 12:20 am

    At this stage in the game Dersh really exemplifies the nonsense angle of power.
    He wants to defend Jewish privilege and cashflows but he can’t say it openly so all he has is nonsense.

    John Bolton does it all the time too

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/218139/medal-honor-c/jay-nordlinger

    “Ambassador Bolton: There is no moral equivalency to, on the one hand, deliberate attacking of civilians, taking lives, taking hostages, versus the inadvertent and highly unfortunate civilian deaths that occur when a country exercises its right to self-defense. Those are not the same act, they are not motivated for the same reasons, they do not carry the same moral weight. ”

    Shir Hever nailed the core of the Dersh’s problem a while back

    “More than any economic indicator, the absence of any internal discourse to address the threats to the Israeli economy is the biggest threat of all. It leaves Israelis unequipped to deal with the inevitable consequences of the colonial project which continues to be cultivated in their back yard, with their consent. ”

    A lot of this is down to the fact that they exclude non Jews from power so they have no counterweight to the brainwashing. And this notion that Jews are superior is ultra dangerous.

    there is also this

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/sep/12/march-of-the-neoliberals

    “Hegemony is a tricky concept and provokes muddled thinking. No victories are permanent or final. Hegemony has constantly to be worked on, maintained, renewed, revised. Excluded social forces, whose consent has not been won, whose interests have not been taken into account, form the basis of counter-movements, resistance, alternative strategies and visions …and the struggle over a hegemonic system starts anew. They constitute what Raymond Williams called “the emergent” –and the reason why history is never closed but maintains an open horizon towards the future.”

    History is not over. Israel prolly is.

  20. RoHa
    RoHa
    December 6, 2014, 1:00 am

    “Why not wait until the BDS strengthens their bargaining position so that they won’t have to compromise by giving up the right of return, by agreeing to a demilitarized state and by making other concessions that are necessary to peace but difficult for some Palestinians to accept? ”

    These concessions are only “necessary” because Israel demands them. (Not in good faith, of course.) But why should Israel get all it demands?

    • annie
      annie
      December 6, 2014, 1:26 am

      by agreeing to a demilitarized state and by making other concessions

      maybe dersh has not read the palestine papers or abbas’s proposal to the quartet. he already offered that and israel turned him down.

      • RoHa
        RoHa
        December 6, 2014, 8:47 pm

        Mere facts, Annie. mere facts.

  21. RoHa
    RoHa
    December 6, 2014, 1:12 am

    ‘The BDS movement is immoral because it violates the core principle of human rights: namely, “the worst first.”’

    Even if there were such a principle, it would founder on the principle of not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. We may not be able to do much about the worst, but that should not prevent us from changing that we can change.

  22. RoHa
    RoHa
    December 6, 2014, 1:16 am

    “The BDS movement is immoral because it would encourage Iran—the world’s leading facilitator of international terrorism—to unleash its surrogates, such as Hezbollah and Hamas, against Israel”

    So far it has been Israel that attacked Southern Lebanon and Gaza. No sign that Iran encouraged Israel to do that.

  23. RoHa
    RoHa
    December 6, 2014, 1:18 am

    “The BDS movement is immoral because it promotes false views regarding the nation state of the Jewish people, exaggerates its flaws and thereby promotes a new variation on the world’s oldest prejudice, namely anti-Semitism.”

    False?

    • Kay24
      Kay24
      December 6, 2014, 7:56 am

      It is immoral to NOT do anything about the inhumane treatment of helpless people by Israel.
      No religion would condone such ill treatment, and the on going killing of children and youth.
      This zionist called Dershowitz take the side of the criminal who wields the power and holds the weapons. He should be ashamed of himself, if he had a conscience.

  24. oldgeezer
    oldgeezer
    December 6, 2014, 1:22 am

    A good response but frankly I’m not sure someone who wrote an article for jpost advocating the slaughter and ethnic cleansing of civilians deserves any response other than a f off.

  25. traintosiberia
    traintosiberia
    December 6, 2014, 8:38 am

    Before bring indicted Barney Madoff told one of his neighbors that the demands to regulate the money laundering was sinful and immoral. That man was picketing in front of a Wall Street now disappeared farm. It seems Bernie has been released on some type of parole to live somewhere near Harvard.

    • Mooser
      Mooser
      December 7, 2014, 2:31 pm

      Bernie Madoff can always take comfort in his offspring, fine sons.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        December 8, 2014, 2:35 pm

        Aren’t they dead?

  26. CigarGod
    CigarGod
    December 6, 2014, 12:04 pm

    The dersh makes a stellar argument that we all need an editor. Maybe its a good argument for putting rants in a drawer for a few days. Might be a good argument for a thorough medical check up.

  27. Vera Gottlieb
    Vera Gottlieb
    December 6, 2014, 3:40 pm

    Anyone, and I mean anyone, not agreeing with Zionists’ actions vis-a-vis Palestinians is immediately labelled ‘anti semite’. This is the favorite line of attack – not forgetting ‘self hating Jew’. It seems as if so many Zionist trolls are reading from one and the same book: chapter and verse from ‘israel project’s 2009 global language’ dictionary. All these ‘nebbich’s who can’t even think for themselves.

  28. gitelsura
    gitelsura
    December 6, 2014, 3:54 pm

    Samantha, thank you for your fresh, witty and astute take-down of Dershowitz. And don’t be concerned that your ripostes are “snarky”, as you say – more like righteous mockery! Look forward to reading more from you.

  29. Horizontal
    Horizontal
    December 7, 2014, 1:54 am

    Dersh looks as tired as his rhetoric. He can’t really believe this tripe, can he?

  30. Bandolero
    Bandolero
    December 7, 2014, 6:19 pm

    6. The BDS movement is immoral because it would encourage Iran—the world’s leading facilitator of international terrorism…

    That’s a false claim. Israel is the world’s leading facilitator of international terrorism.

    The UN just reported that Israel supports terrorists of Al Qaeda and other groups in cross-border attacks against Syria.

    http://www.moonofalabama.org/2014/12/israels-continuing-war-on-syria.html

    To support Al Qaeda and other terrorists Israel itself regularly commits her military – and the military of her proxy forces like the US in the case of Iraq – to attack other countries and launch wars of aggression.

    Today Israel launched airstrikes – unprovoked acts of a war of aggression – against Syria to support the Al Qaeda terrorist forces whose terror Israel backs in Syria. Syria demands sanctions against Israel – just like against any other country that supports international terrorism.

    http://www.sana.sy/en/?p=20858

    • just
      just
      December 7, 2014, 6:23 pm

      +1

      • just
        just
        December 7, 2014, 6:24 pm

        I hear they kill Iranian scientists, too.

      • Bandolero
        Bandolero
        December 7, 2014, 8:09 pm

        There is so much more relating to international terrorism what Israel has done that any list seems to be very incomplete.

        Just in very recent years Israel did – besides brutalizing Palestinians in the lands between the river and the sea among other things:
        – wage war on Lebanon using disproportionate force against civilians
        – commit aerial attacks on Syria, Lebanon and Sudan
        – send death squads committing acts of murder and/or terror bombings to Iran, UAE, Lebanon, Syria
        – commit murderous piracy against a Turkish ship stuffed with unarmed civilians
        – support internationally banned terrorist groups active in Iran and neighboring countries while posing as US government agents
        – use deception and agents of influence to orchestrate international wars and other bloody attempts for regime change in Iraq, Lebanon, Iran, Libya & Syria

        A bit longer ago Israel also did:
        – bomb jewish people in Iraq to blame it on arabs and make jewish Iraqis emigrate to Israel
        – bomb US institutions in Egypt to blame it on arabs to make the US hate arabs
        – bomb a US warship in the medeteranian sea killing lot’s of US soldiers witht he intent on blaming it on arabs
        – commit an act of kidnapping against a secular Moroccan politician in Switzerland leading to his murder
        – murder an innocent waiter in Norway
        – commit an act of kidnapping against a nuclear scientist who fled Israel in Italy
        – proliferating nuclear weapons technology, know how and raq materials to the apartheid state of South Africa
        – support death squads committing mass acts of murder, terror, drug dealings and serial other crimes in Nicaragua
        – attempt to murder a Palestinian politician in Jordan

        And there is much more. Some of the Israeli acts of terror and other heinous crimes across the globe are well-known, while many other international Israeli crimes are still not known to the general public.

      • just
        just
        December 7, 2014, 9:12 pm

        Of course you are correct, Bandolero.

        Thanks.

    • jd65
      jd65
      December 7, 2014, 9:28 pm

      Important subject you’re posting about Bandolero. Israel’s (and the U.S.’s) perversion and strategic manipulation of the international discourse on “terrorism” is stunning when even nominally comprehended. It occurs to me that, here in the U.S., our vague and/or ever shifting, expanding and contracting definitions of the term “terrorist” somewhat mirror Israel’s lack of commitment to the defining of their borders. Hmmmmm…

      Here’s some decent explication on the subject from a premier expert:

      http://mondoweiss.net/2014/08/discourse-terrorism-blatant

      And here’s a bit more from the great Glenn Greenwald (also referencing Brulin’s work):

      “The best scholarship on this issue, in my view, comes from Remi Brulin, who teaches at NYU and wrote his PhD dissertation at the Sorbonne in Paris on the discourse of Terrorism. When I interviewed him in 2010, he described the history of the term — it was pushed by Israel in the 1960s and early 1970s as a means of universalizing its conflicts (this isn’t our fight against our enemies over land; it’s the Entire World’s Fight against The Terrorists!). The term was then picked up by the neocons in the Reagan administration to justify their covert wars in Central America (in a test run for what they did after 9/11, they continuously exclaimed: we’re fighting against The Terrorists in Central America, even as they themselves armed and funded classic Terror groups in El Salvador and Nicaragua). From the start, the central challenge was how to define the term so as to include the violence used by the enemies of the U.S. and Israel, while excluding the violence the U.S., Israel and their allies used, both historically and presently. That still has not been figured out, which is why there is no fixed, accepted definition of the term, and certainly no consistent application.

      Brulin details the well-known game-playing with the term: in the 1980s, Iraq was put on the U.S. list of Terror states when the U.S. disliked Saddam for being aligned with the Soviets; then Iraq was taken off when the U.S. wanted to arm Saddam to fight Iran; then they were put back on again when the U.S. wanted to attack Iraq. The same thing is happening now with the MEK: now that they’re a pro-U.S. and pro-Israel Terror group rather than a Saddam-allied one, they are magically no longer going to be deemed Terrorists. That is what Terrorism is: a term of propaganda, a means of justifying one’s own state violence — not some objective field of discipline in which one develops ‘expertise.'”

      • a blah chick
        a blah chick
        December 8, 2014, 6:58 am

        Wasn’t it also true that certain politicians lobbied to get MEK off the list because they were supporting them and they didn’t want to get prosecuted as terra lovers?

      • Bandolero
        Bandolero
        December 8, 2014, 8:03 am

        The issue that terrorism is not clearly defined because Israel and the US would come out as top terrorists using any common definition of terrorism shall not deflect from the pure and unmitigated evil terrorism regurlarly applied by Israel and it’s worldwide fifth column. Let me just to name three examples in the not so distant past to make the point of terrorism by & it’s global fifth column clear.

        1. The British zionist paper “Times” – which is usually peddling stories planted by the Israeli government – wrote back in 2007:

        Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on Iran
        By Uzi Mahnaimi, New York and Sarah Baxter, Washington
        ISRAEL has drawn up secret plans to destroy Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities with tactical nuclear weapons.

        Source:

        http://web.archive.org/web/20070109205123/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2535310,00.html

        2. Patrick Clawson, a leading figure in Israel’s US-based fifth column complex AIPAC/WINEP, advocated in an official WINEP policy presentation in September 2012 that Israel or “somebody” shall commit acts of false flag terrorism against Iran to start a war between the US and Iran to please Israel:

        “I frankly think that crisis initiation is really tough. And it’s very hard for me to see how the United States … uh … [the] president can get us to war with Iran.” He then went on to recount a series of incidents in American history—like the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the attack on Pearl Harbor—that gave U.S. presidents the justification needed to go to war. He ended by saying, with a note of sarcasm in his voice, “So, if in fact the Iranians aren’t going to compromise, it would be best if somebody else started the war.”

        Source & Video proof: http://mondoweiss.net/2012/09/winep-director-of-research-suggests-a-covert-attack-to-get-a-war-on-with-iran

        3. Sheldon Adelson, a billionaire, leading figure in Israel’s US-based fifth column complex and one of the main enablers of Bibi, the current chief of the Israeli regime, publicly advocated to terrorize Iran by firing an ‘atomic weapon’ at Iran. The audience of supporters of Israel was supportive of the idea of terrorizing Iran with a nuclear first strike to install so much fear in Iranians that Iran would submit to Israeli demonds whatever they are.

        Source:

        http://mondoweiss.net/2013/10/adelson-nuclear-negotiate

        There is nothing secret there. Whatever definition applied Israel and it’s global fifth column are the ultimate terrorists, terrorist enablers and advocates of terrorism, from terrorism involving nuclear attacks to false flag terrorism to spark senseless bloody wars between christians and muslims or between muslims themselves with te aim to make millions of other people kill each other.

      • just
        just
        December 8, 2014, 9:02 am

        Many thanks for your links and cites, Bandolero.

        They steal, too. Nuclear triggers and Bibles, etc.

        “AP — Two decades after Israeli spies helped whisk ancient Hebrew bibles from Damascus to Jerusalem, Israel’s national library has asked an Israeli court to grant it official custodianship over the manuscripts.

        The move could spark a bitter ownership battle over some of the Syrian Jewish community’s most important treasures.

        Known as the Crowns of Damascus, the bibles were written between 700 and 1,000 years ago. For hundreds of years, they were guarded inside synagogues in the Syrian capital.

        Israel’s Mossad spy agency spirited the bibles to Israel in the 1990s and turned them over to the library.”

        http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jewish-world-news/1.630594?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

  31. uh...clem
    uh...clem
    December 7, 2014, 8:15 pm

    the “worst first”, eh? What if you happen to think, as I do, that “the worst” is the system of global corporate capitalism, which includes, directly or indirectly, all the littler “worsts” within its ambit? Dershowitz does not seem to recognize that “the whole” is greater than the sum of its parts. As an astute friend said to me years ago, “It’s all wrong.” My motto: “Boycott the whole system” — since it is itself immoral. Don’t play his game.

    • Mooser
      Mooser
      December 9, 2014, 8:08 pm

      “My motto: “Boycott the whole system” — since it is itself immoral “

      I think you’re on pretty safe ground. If you “boycott the whole system” boycotting Israel as a small part of that should be pretty easy.

  32. Krendall Mist
    Krendall Mist
    December 7, 2014, 8:28 pm

    So little inquiry into the vehemence of the ZPC’s response to BDS–a mystery.

    Zion slaughters the natives by the thousands and dismisses the condemnation of the world with a shrug and smirk.

    Zion pirates attack and murder humanitarian missionaries on the high seas–and offer an insolent legal brief while mocking its victims

    Zionist murderers assassinate civilian scientists on sovereign soil, and stand mute behind shit-eating grins

    But BDS–that hits a nerve, a red raw nerve that triggers uncontrolled furious explosions of outrage.

    Why is BDS Zion’s greatest terror. releasing its most primitive responses?

    Could it be that, unlike all of its crimes, the consequences of which Uncle Sam dutifully will quash like the dumb obedient body guard it has become, BDS truly is of the demos, unruly and unorganized but organic. beyond co-option, corruption or any form of control?

    Zion, the last dead ender to succor the South African apartheid regime, understands that BDS is its true existential challenge.

  33. ASBizar
    ASBizar
    December 8, 2014, 3:07 pm

    Not only the responses were measured, but also funny and refreshing. Where is the “rational” Dershowitz Follower Sam Harris to put these into his brain.

  34. dgfincham
    dgfincham
    December 8, 2014, 6:41 pm

    More responses

    1. Resolution 242 did not “set out a formula for ending the occupation in exchange for Israel’s right to exist in peace”. No such words appear. It set out two principles for a just and lasting peace. First, that Israel armed forces should withdraw from territories occupied in the recent conflict. This is the only specific mention of Israel. Second, that all states in the area should respect the rights of other states to territorial integrity and to secure and recognized borders. The state that had violated the territorial integrity of other states in the 1967 conflict was Israel. The two principles are independent, neither is contingent upon the other.

    2. The Palestinians have already made a huge compromise for peace in accepting that Israel can keep the land it gained unlawfully in the 1948-49 war. There is no reason for them to make further compromises. The right to return is an individual human right under the Universal Declaration. No-one has the authority to negotiate it away. There is no reason for Palestine to agree to a demilitarized state unless Israel does the same. It is Israel that has conquered Palestinian territory in two major wars, 1948-49 and 1967.

    3. The PLO has recognized the right of the State of Israel to live in peace and security. Israel has not recognized the right of the State of Palestine, or Palestine, or even the Palestinian people, to live in peace and security.

    4. “Israel is the only country in the world being threatened with BDS”. BDS is not about Israel’s human rights violations alone. It is a response of the people of the world to a unique situation in which Israel has conquered, colonized, settled and terrorized a territory belonging to another people, in flagrant violation of international law and scores of UN resolutions, and the UN has been unable to enforce the law because of the US veto in the Security Council.

    5. BDS will not hurt individual artists and academics who are voices for peace. Boycotts are applied to Israeli institutions that support the occupation and colonization, not to individuals.

    6. If Israel responds disproportionately to rocket attacks, or if Israel breaks cease-fires in order to provoke rocket attacks, that will increase the pressure for BDS. If Israel behaves reasonably towards the Palestinians, that will decrease the need for BDS.

    7. The Israel-Palestine conflict has been ongoing for nearly seventy years. People in ‘the West’ feel particularly strongly about it because their governments have been major supporters of Israel in the denial of the Palestinian right to self-determination. It is not disproportionate to concentrate on this problem.

    8. Israel is not the nation state of the Jewish people. It is the nation state of its citizens. Some Jews living outside Israel may consider it their nation-state. Most consider their nation-state to be the one of which they are citizens.

    9. Yawn.

    10. The only threats to Israel’s security arise because of its occupation and colonization of Arab territory outside its borders. Come to an agreement with Palestine, Syria, and Lebanon, and Israel would have no enemies (not even Iran).

  35. M.A.ELBATTA
    M.A.ELBATTA
    December 25, 2014, 10:46 am

    How about Alan Dershowitz’s latest claims that the Palestinians are the main responsible for the last solution and the extermination of the Jews of Europe.
    He claims that Shaikh Amin Al Hussainy suggested to Hitler the Holocaust Idea, which Hitler had no intention to apply before the Palestinians thought of it.
    How sick could some one be to have such a pathetic imagination.

    • jd65
      jd65
      December 26, 2014, 10:23 am

      Uhhhhh. Yes. That’s quite bizarre. Even for Dershowitz. Could you supply a link? Thanks…

Leave a Reply