Mitchell Plitnick
You really have to
give Alan Dershowitz credit. It's obvious that his success as a lawyer
comes from a great talent for building a convincing argument. It is
also clear that he understands very well the difference between a
convincing argument and a cogent one.
Dershowitz has let
loose with both barrels on Jimmy Carter
in a blog at gather.com. Dershowitz not only makes the case that
Carter is a Jew-hater, but also a supporter of terrorism, an accomplice of
"evil" and a dishonest man who tries to turn the world against the Jews
because he is paid to do so by Arabs.
That's Dershowitz's
claim in a nutshell, but he makes it much more elaborate and less stark
than that. If he simply summed it up, none but the most reactionary
supporters of Israeli policies, like himself, would give it any
credibility.
Dershowitz spends a
great deal of effort to show that Carter is a mere lackey on the payroll
of wealthy Arabs and that this is the reason for his so-called
"anti-Israel" and "anti-Semitic" views. We'll look at the financial
allegations in part 2 of this piece.
As contemptible as
the monetary smoke and mirrors Dershowitz put up was, his misleading
interpretations of Carter's words are even more egregious. In this, I do
want to try to give Dershowitz the benefit of the doubt.
As I have said previously in this space, I think Carter's choice of a
title for his recent book was ill-advised. A former president writing on
arguably the single most controversial topic before us today is going to
get attention. The title served to trigger many people and to give his
opponents an easy way to sidetrack the conversation.
So, I can allow that
Dershowitz, like many other Jews, has had a visceral reaction to some
pretty touchy points, not only limited to the description, however
defensible, of conditions on the
West Bank as "apartheid." Still, even allowing for high emotions, this must be
confronted and challenged.
Dershowitz wastes no
time in his series launching his attack. In the very first paragraph, he
writes: "In his recent book tour to promote Palestine: Peace Not
Apartheid, Carter has been peddling a particularly nasty bit of bigotry.
The canard is that Jews own and control the media, and prevent newspapers
and the broadcast media from presenting an objective assessment of the
Arab-Israeli conflict, and that Jews have bought and paid for every single
member of Congress so as to prevent any of them from espousing a balanced
position. How else can anyone understand Carter's claims that it is
impossible for the media and politicians to speak freely about
Israel and the
Middle East?
The only explanation - and one that Carter tap dances around, but won't
come out and say directly - is that Jews control the media and buy
politicians."
This is perfectly
typical of Dershowitz's methods, and is repeated throughout the four
articles Dershowitz has published thus far as volumes of attacks on
Carter. On Planet Dershowitz, which is, sadly, all too populous,
mentioning the undeniable truth that
Israel
has a very powerful support bloc working to prevent serious debate in both
Congress and the public arena about American policy in this conflict must,
by definition, mean advocating a "Jewish cabal conspiracy" along the lines
of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
The infamous "Israel
Lobby" is often credited with even more power than it really has (such as
when people allege that it is so powerful that it can get the US to invade
Iraq contrary to American interests and just for the sake of Israel). But
to deny its power and influence is equally absurd.
As one colleague
said to me recently, if, in fact,
AIPAC and the many other organizations, PACs, media watchdog groups
and grassroots activist groups have so little influence on policy and
public discourse, then they are one of the greatest con games of all time.
Because an awful lot of people, Jewish and not, are giving an awful lot of
money to those groups to ensure that Congress and the media consistently
reinforce the status quo; that Israel's position as the single largest
recipient of US military aid is never seriously debated; that the research
institutes and think-tanks which are most closely consulted on American
Middle East policy are dominated by people who approach policy first and
foremost not with fairness or even pragmatism, but with the theory that
American and Israeli interests are generally the same.
All those large
contributions that a great many people make are, on Planet Dershowitz,
apparently wasted because they do not affect public discourse or policy.
Moreover, when
Carter spoke of "powerful political, social and religious forces" stifling
debate here in the US, there was a widespread assumption that, as
Dershowitz stated, this must mean "the Jews". Jewish institutions are
certainly a part of those forces, but so are radical "Christian Zionist"
groups, as well as other groups who profit from the status quo.
In many ways, too,
some of this comes down to an atmosphere, something not driven
consciously. Israel is a long-time American ally, a country whose birth
was mythologized both as a compensation for historical atrocities and as a
"triumph of the underdog," a kind of story that Americans absolutely eat
up. And the high level of emotions on all sides of the issue make many shy
away from the issue, or, if they get into it at all, to choose the safer
road of supporting the status quo. There is nothing remotely anti-Semitic
about Carter pointing out that these forces, both active and passive,
serve to stifle serious debate on this very important issue.
Indeed, the very
fact that hysterics like Dershowitz immediately accused Carter of
anti-Semitism demonstrates the degree to which a rational discussion of
Israel is made impossible in the US. No such accusations are heard in
Israel, even while many in Israel disagree vehemently with many of
Carter's views.
In part 3 of his
article, Dershowitz takes Carter to task for allegedly condoning terrorist
attacks on Israelis. Carter, of course, did no such thing.
The most common
charge is based on a passage from Carter's book, on page 213, which Carter
has retracted as poorly worded and has promised to change in future
editions of his book. The offending sentence reads as follows:
"It is imperative
that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups
make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of
terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap
for Peace are accepted by
Israel."
It is poorly worded,
as Carter acknowledged. But that poor wording simply opens the door for
this sort of willful misinterpretation. Anyone reading that sentence in
context, in the book, would understand that Carter was not endorsing
terrorist attacks in the interim.
Carter simply
understands that the Israeli and American insistence that Palestinian
violence must stop before anything else, while the violence of the
occupation continues unabated is a non-starter. It might be nice if it
happens, but it is completely unrealistic.
Carter was, in fact,
defending Israeli interests and even taking something of an Israeli point
of view in saying that Israel needed to hear assurances that all attacks
from these groups would end with the establishment of a viable Palestinian
state and that they would enforce law and order in preventing such attacks
from radical splinter groups in order for Israel to trust in a peace
process.
On Planet Dershowitz,
however, this is interpreted as encouraging armed attacks on Israelis.
There’s an odd schizophrenia in
Dershowitz’s broadside on Carter at Gather.com. On the one hand, he is
absolutely brutal in attacking Carter, calling him some horrible things
and
 making
some very serious implications. On the other, he fondly reminisces about
supporting Carter for president and mentions more than once Carter’s
admirable work in so many human rights and social aid and justice arenas.
But Dershowitz pulls no punches in building his “case” that Carter
wrote his book because he is on the payroll of wealthy Arabs.
Dershowitz documents very little of his claims. Where he does, he
primarily draws from two articles.
One comes from the notorious right-wing web site, FrontpageMag.com,
set up by David Horowitz. This site has a well-known reputation for
half-truths and outright falsehoods,
to which I and many of my colleagues can personally testify (for
instance, they described me as “a former 60’s Berkeley radical”. I was
three years old when the 60s ended, and didn’t set foot in Berkeley until
late 1985. The lies about both myself and JVP only begin there, and they
get much more vicious as the article continues).
The other citation is from another notorious right-wing source, albeit
one with a somewhat better reputation, the Washington Times. But there is
precious little direct sourcing in either of these articles either (none
at all in the FrontpageMag one). Dershowitz would never consider entering
a courtroom with “evidence” like this.
For most of us, the stories of big money deals glaze our eyes, and the
claim of massive Arab funders is what comes through loud and clear. But
it’s important to examine Dershowitz’s allegations, so let’s do so,
briefly.
Carter and his associates in the 1970s were swept up in a major scandal
around the
Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), a Pakistani bank
that went global and was a center of major controversy. Carter’s advisor
and close associate Burt Lance was particularly involved. And from this,
in part, Dershowitz draws his allegation of Carter’s support of terrorism,
as BCCI was indeed involved in funding terrorism. And one of the leading
figures involved in that aspect of the story was none other than Marc
Rich.
Rich was a major international commodities trader who was indicted for
tax evasion and for trading illegally with Iran during the hostage crisis.
He was pardoned by Bill Clinton under a storm of controversy, which
included an appeal from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak for Clinton to
issue the pardon, as Rich had been a strong supporter of Israel. An
affidavit had Rich accompanying the key figure in the BCCI terrorism
scandal, Samir Najmeddin, on every trip he took to the bank. Najmeddin was
alleged to have been the person who funneled money through BCCI to
purchase weapons for the Abu Nidal terrorist group. It makes at least as
much sense to call Rich (a Belgian-born Jew who fled the Nazis in 1942,
and an active supporter of Israeli policies over the years) an anti-Semite
on this basis as it does to use this against Carter.
Dershowitz also makes great hay over Carter’s receipt of money from the
former ruler of of the United Arab Emirates. The Center he ran was closed
down because of the very real anti-Semitism that was sometimes generated
there, especially after 9/11. But speakers that same center included not
only Carter, but Bill Clinton, Al Gore, James Baker, Jacques Chirac and
others.
Carter got this money from
Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan many years ago. Al Nahyan was a world
leader who was often praised by many other leaders. He was one of the more
popular Arab leaders.
The Center named for him did indeed produce some anti-Semitic
materials and hosted some anti-Semitic speakers, along with the notable
leaders named above. Al Nahyan himself, does not have such a history and
the Center which bore his name was closed down because of these
well-founded allegations.
One might say that Carter would have been well-advised to give the
money back, as Harvard Divinity School did. His not doing so, however,
does not brand him an anti-Semite.
Reading Dershowitz’s allegations with a critical eye reveals that he is
talking about international finance, an arena where monies change hands
and flow from one place to another and where, inevitably, many of the
characters are going to have considerable dirt under their fingernails.
Yet even at that, while throwing dollar amounts in seven figures make most
people’s eyes pop wide open, the actual amounts discussed are hardly
enough to have the kind of influence on Carter that Dershowitz suggests.
Just about all of the money Dershowitz refers to goes to the Carter
Center, not Carter, and, given the Center’s assets at the end of 2005 were
around $375 million, it is highly doubtful that Carter is dutifully
obeying his Arab masters, or is, as Dershowitz also speculated, simply
blinded by the dollars in his view of Israel and Palestine.
Carter himself recently stated that Saudi money over the years was
under 3% of the Center’s budget.
Dershowitz would have us believe that in the context of that kind of
operating budget, a few million here or there is enough to get a wealthy
man like Carter to write a book for no reason other than to harm Israel
and the Jews. Again, it is Dershowitz’s skill in making a preposterous
premise believable that should be credited, not the points he is trying to
make. Put simply, the level of funding Dershowitz references is hardly
enough to significantly Carter’s actions or views. But it is certainly
enough for Dershowitz to use to slander Carter.
Sorry, Alan, it was an honest opinion, based on first-hand observation
of the effects of occupation on both Palestinians and Israelis.
I begrudge no one, regardless of their views, the right to speak up and
passionately
defend what they believe is right. In no matter is this more important
than in the case of the Israel-Palestine conflict and the US role in it.
But Dershowitz’s “contribution” to the debate is destructive to all
involved. This is not a court case where the arena is set up for each side
to zealously defend their case using whatever means necessary.
Dershowitz’s attack on Carter is built on argumentative chicanery and
rhetorical trickery. Most of all, it is all too often a personal attack
that doesn’t deal with the facts. In this milieu, we already have more
than enough of that.
Here’s another example of how Dershowitz twists things to create his
case against Carter. He quotes Carter, then writes his comment as follows:
“’It is inconceivable that any Palestinian, Arab leader, or any
objective member of the international community could accept this illegal
action as a permanent solution to the continuing altercation in the Middle
East,’ he (Carter) wrote of Olmert’s plan last year in USA Today.
“Carter has, in effect, told Palestinian radicals to continue to do
what they are doing: mainly to terrorize Jewish civilians and then whine
to the world about Israeli responses to terrorism.”
Carter was actually referring to Olmert’s potentially disastrous
“convergence plan” which has since been shelved.
The result of Ariel Sharon’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza has been a
disaster for Palestinians and provided little gain for Israel, which is
relieved of the burden of the pointless settlements in Gaza, but has been
subject to rocket fire from the Strip for much of the time since the
withdrawal.
Olmert’s plan to replicate this failed idea on the West Bank would have
been an unmitigated catastrophe. All the problems with Gaza would have
been replicated, except that Israel would have retained a large chunk of
the West Bank under Olmert’s plan, which would have inevitably been seen
by the Palestinians as a land grab. Indeed, no Palestinian leader could
have accepted it, and the result would almost certainly be an enormous
increase in the number of Palestinians willing to do whatever it took to
harm any Israelis they could.
Carter was opposing a plan that would have increased suffering for both
Palestinians and Israelis. On Planet Dershowitz, that’s called inciting
Palestinians to terrorism.
Finally, Dershowitz blasts Carter for refusing to debate him. Yet his
own articles demonstrate clearly why Carter should indeed refuse such a
debate.
Dershowitz is not well-versed even in the Israel-Palestine conflict,
let alone the broader Middle East. The question of whether or not he’s an
“expert” does not even bear consideration–he’s not even a well-informed
layman. I say this not because of his views. Many people hold views
similar to his who are experts (Dennis Ross, David Makovsky, and a whole
host of experts and fellows at many think-tanks and academic institutions
come to mind). He simply isn’t particularly knowledgeable about this; not
surprising since it’s not his field.
Dershowitz is, however, a masterful debater and an expert at
constructing an argument. His article demonstrates precisely why he has
made a name for himself on this issue and why he should not be debated
about it. Because of his skill, he can win a debate, but he cannot do so
based on his grasp of the facts.
As he did with Carter, Dershowitz bases his argument on personal
attacks, on shading the facts, distorting the meaning of words and
building upon a phony foundation. That makes him a very good lawyer. It
makes him also a very dangerous person in the political arena, and I would
stand by that even when (as he has done) he says things I agree with.
Consider that Dershowitz makes these two statements during the course
of his article:
1. “I would like to join with President Carter in working for peace in
the Middle East. But peace will not come if we insist on blaming one side
in the conflict.”
2. “That is the core of the conflict. It is Palestinian terror, not
Israeli policy, which prevents peace.”
Can it possibly be any clearer that Planet Dershowitz is not a place
for civilized and rational discourse?
10 Responses to “Alan Dershowitz: NO SALE, Clearing
the Fog”
- Thomas Marvell Says:
February 2nd, 2007 at 11:06 pm
How can anyone question the argument that the
Jewish settlements on the West Bank are illegal? How could Dershowitz, a
lawyer, not start with that fact? He seems to think it has little
relevancy.
- Geoffrey Abrams Says:
February 2nd, 2007 at 11:07 pm
I am a Jewish New Yorker and a retired lawyer
and writer and am in full agreement. Good for my mental state to realize
there are more and more American Jews who feel as I do. It was getting
lonely out there a while back. Keep the faith.
- Rabbi Jeremy Milgrom Says:
February 3rd, 2007 at 5:45 am
Well-written rebuttal to Dershowitz’s shady
arguments and innuendos. Let’s all work to get this widely read.
- Ross E. Bluestein Says:
February 3rd, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Dear JPN
Thanks for all the great information
surrouding the controversy of the release of former President Carter’s
book and other aspects of the search for peace in the Middle East.
I have been following the comments of
Professor Dershowitz on this subject for many years. What strikes me is
Dershowitz’s unswerving consistency in never criticizing the actions of
the state of Israel, working to minimize and explain away Isreali
behavior, no matter how inhumane,unlawful or deadly the behavior.
Dershowitz has never been interested in facts, or justice but merely in
lending a leading voice to the perpetuation of an unjust status-quo. In
this regard, Dershowitz’s instincts and behavior are reminiscent of the
apoligists for Stalin in the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Dershowitz
is an apparatchik. The question remains, why is he so prolfic in the
media?
- M. Berla Says:
February 3rd, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Bluestein writes of, “Dershowitz’s unswerving
consistency in never criticizing the actions of the state of Israel…” I
suspect it’s worse than that. I suspect that what he and his ilk are
unswerving in is only Israeli government policy when that policy is
uncomprisingly expansionist.
I doubt that they would hesitate to criticize
official Israeli government policies were those policies to reflect the
opinion of a majority of Israelis (and of American Jews too): that trading
land for peace is the only viable option, i.e., the only option which
holds out for Israel a chance to survive in the coming decades.
AIPAC is not a promoter of “Israeli government
policies”. It and its followers are promoters of right-wing, bellicose
policies. It is to be hoped that American politicians will begin to
understand this, as increasing numbers of American Jews come to understand
it and to act on that understanding in an effort to save Israel.
Dershowitz’s prescription is a prescription
for the destruction of the State of Israel.
- ellen Says:
February 4th, 2007 at 8:19 am
Alan Dershowitz has been given time on BookTV
(C-Span) to “refute” Carter. Like Mitch, I have no problem with someone
disagreeing with Jimmy Carter. But in allowing Dershowitz time for his
attack, they are breaking with their typical format. I have been watching
for years, plus I looked through a couple of hundres shows in the
archives, and I did not find a single instance where an author is invited
on to “refute” another author. In all cases, an author discusses his/her
[recently published] own book.
Clearly some pressure has been exerted on C-Span and I urge people to
e-mail them and demand an explanation.
ellen
contact:
Booktv@c-span.org
Link to web site and description of program:
http://www.booktv.org/feature/index.asp?segID=7906&schedID=473
-
Jerry C. Kays Says:
February 4th, 2007 at 3:27 pm
what Ellen says above about C-Span allowing
such a one sided view presentation is real cause for alarm.
It has been my impression that Carter called
for International debate between thinking peoples, not a ‘take on all
comers’ challenge. He has achieved much of what he asked for in that
regard, yet Dershowitz wants to make a ‘personal’ issue out of it.
You will also find that Dershowitz’s part 4 on
Gather has considerably backed off on his Carter attack, diverting it to
another (Finklestein or some such)… now acting like a ‘fiend’ of Carter …
more disingenuous I suspect.
- Alan Blitz Says:
February 4th, 2007 at 8:34 pm
I greatly admire all of you who have the
fortitude to get through an article by Alan Dershowitz. I no longer can do
so. There are certain people who lose the ability to distinguish between
truth and falsehood. Richard Nixon was one of these. Alan Dershowitz is
another.
I look back on the Greek tragedy of Nixon’s
fall from grace with some sadness. There were times when reading
Dershowitz, however, that I did not know whether to laugh or cry. He once
claimed in a Jerusalem Post article, for example, that Hezbollah wanted
Israel to attack civilians in Lebanon. Is Dershowitz claiming to be in
contact with Hezbollah, and is he accusing Israel of attacking civilians?
Apparently so.
If you want to know why Dershowitz has now
turned on Norman Finkelstein, take a look at Finkelstein’s EBook, “Beyond
Chutzpah,” (available from Amazon) in which Finkelstein focuses his
piercing intellect on Dershowitz’s nonsense. The funny part of this one is
Dershowitz’s claim that Finkelstein is a “holocaust revisionist.” I wonder
if Dershowitz is aware that Finkelstein’s parents were holocaust
survivors?
-
The Third Way: A Different View of the Middle East » Alan Dershowitz: NO
SALE, Part 1 Says:
February 5th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
[…] Read Part 2 Read Part 3 You really have to
give Alan Dershowitz credit. It’s obvious that his success as a lawyer
comes from a great talent for building a convincing argument. It is also
clear that he understands very well the difference between a convincing
argument and a cogent one. […]
- Shawn Bargouti Says:
February 8th, 2007 at 4:45 pm
I am encouraged by the articulate response of
some of the readers. Mr. Dershewitz’s arguments with regards to the
Palestinian Israeli conflict have always lacked proper support and have
always been antagonistic in nature and without substance. As a Palestinian
American I have always felt that when Someone attacks another in debate on
this subject by calling the other Anti-Semitic, to me that was a sign that
that “Someone” has lost the argument and pulled the last “Trump Card” in
that “Someone’s” hand. Mr. Dershowitz seems to only have that type of a
card in his hand. Peace to one and All.
|
