Alan Dershowitz2013-06-20T07:49:45-04:00Alan Dershowitzhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/index.php?author=alan-dershowitzCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Alan DershowitzGood old fashioned elbow grease.Samantha Power Will Wow Them at the United Nationstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.33918082013-06-05T18:12:19-04:002013-06-05T18:12:29-04:00Alan Dershowitzhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/
I have known Samantha since she was my student at HLS, occasionally cutting classes to travel around the world while writing her Pulitzer Prize winning book A Problem From Hell. In that book, she laid out the difficult choices western democracies face when confronted with internal genocides committed abroad. If only Samantha had written her book in the 1930s, perhaps the world would not have stood idly by the rise of Nazism and the genocides against Jews, gypsies, gays and others.
Yes, she is an interventionist when it comes to preventing genocide. But she also cautions prudence in intervening for reasons other than the protection of endangered civilians.
To be sure, Samantha has said some things she now regrets -- about Hillary Clinton, about Israel and about other controversial matters. She says what she thinks when she thinks it. As the United States representative to the United Nations, she will articulate the policy of the Obama administration. She will have to be more diplomatic than she was while in private life. I am confident that she will make our country proud.
I have discussed the Israeli-Arab and Israeli-Palestinian conflict with Samantha on many occasions. As a strong supporter of Israel's security, I have a high level of confidence that she will do and say the right things. Indeed, because of her sometimes critical attitude toward certain Israeli policies -- some of which I agree with, others of which I do not -- she will bring added credibility to her positions at the most anti-Israel location in the world other than perhaps, Tehran. No one should expect to agree with everything an outspoken person like Samantha has said over the past decades. But nor should anyone judge her on isolated statements instead of on her distinguished total record.
While serving in the Obama administration, she has supported Israel's security and defensive actions against terrorism. She stands squarely behind President Obama's pledge never to allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, even if preventive military action is required. She played a pivotal role in persuading the United States and some of our European allies to boycott the notorious Durban II conference, sponsored by the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, which invited Ahmadinejad to be its keynote speaker.
Samantha Power is a strong, independent and persuasive voice for human rights. She understands the principle of "the worst first" -- meaning that people who truly care about human rights must prioritize and focus first and foremost on the most serious human rights abuses, such as genocide, rape as a weapon of warfare, and other fundamental deprivations of human dignity. She also understands that priority must be given to victims of human rights abuses who have no voice because of censorship and other forms of government control. She has written one of the most important books outlining the difficult choices faced by democracies in preventing the most serious violations of human rights.
Power will be respected for her intelligence, scholarship and independence. I am confident that she will represent us effectively, persuasively and morally at a time and place that requires her particular talents.
The president has made a good choice. The Senate should quickly confirm Samantha Power for this important job.]]>Jews Who Boo Efforts to Make Peacetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.32310872013-05-07T18:24:57-04:002013-05-07T18:22:46-04:00Alan Dershowitzhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/
This noisy clack boos disrespectfully when they hear the name of President Obama, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, former Prime Minister Ehud Barak, current Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or anyone else who favors a two-state solution that does not compromise Israel's security. I have now joined this distinguished company of people who get booed for advocating territorial compromise in the interest of peace. I was booed and jeered at the Jerusalem Post Conference on April 28, 2013 when I proposed an idea for restarting peace negotiations with the Palestinian Authority.
These same people cheered loudly when Carolyn Glick, a right-wing opponent of any territorial compromise, announced that: "There are no competing narratives. There is only the truth." For her, the only truth lies in history and archeology. Of course it is true that the Jews lived on the West Bank for many years two millennia ago. (It is equally true that Native Americans populated Manhattan Island as recently as four centuries ago.) For some right-wing opponents of the two state solution, this archeological truth ends the debate. The fact that the West Bank has been largely populated by Arabs over the past several centuries is not part of any narrative. Many of those who booed favor a one-state solution, with Israel simply annexing the West Bank and either expelling or disenfranchising the indigenous Palestinians.
It's interesting to note that my statement that drew the loudest boos and the most derision was my suggestion that President Abbas of the Palestinian Authority might consider not bringing a case against Israel to the International Criminal Court as a way of showing good faith and making a concession calculated to encourage restarting the peace process. But just days after the booing and mocking, President Abbas did just that. Two days after my talk, the Palestinian Authority--according to the Jerusalem Post:
"pledged to the U.S. that it would freeze its efforts to join United Nations agencies or turn to the International Criminal Court, PA Foreign Minister Riyad Malki announced on Wednesday.
Malki said that the promise was made to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry as a "gesture" on the part of the Palestinians "and in order to prove our true intentions to give a bigger chance to the peace process."
The right-wing Jewish extremists who boo everyone who wants to make compromises for peace, are every bit as dangerous as Jewish extremists on the hard left who also demand a one state solution -- a binational state that will cease being the homeland of the Jewish people. Both are unwilling to compromise their ideological claims. Both make peace more difficult to achieve. Both boo and jeer any effort to offer compromise in the interest of peace. The difference, and it is a real difference, is that the right-wingers love Israel -- at least their conception of a Jewish Israel that extends from the river to the sea. Many of the left wingers hate Israel and want a binational Palestinian state that extends from the same river to the same sea. Motives are important, but the road to war is often paved with good intentions.
The writer J.J. Goldberg characterized the Jerusalem Post Conference as "an odd combination of high-level exchanges on security policy and raucous, far-right pep rally". He reported that among the former and present ministers and generals, "the most enthusiastic reception was reserved for Post columnist Caroline Glick, a passionate opponent of Israeli-Palestinian compromise known for her slashing attacks on liberals."
Those in the large audience who booed and jeered were not interested in the "high level exchanges on security policy" or in subtlety or nuance. They were there to cheer the right-wing bumper stickers, bon mots and clichés of their champion and to show disdain for anyone who disagreed with her simple-minded "bombs away" solutions to complex problems.
That's why I will no longer lend my support to "far right pep" rallies of the kind I spoke at last week.
This op-ed originally appeared in The Jerusalem Post on May 5, 2013.]]>Why Wasn't Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Indicted as a Terrorist?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.31345542013-04-22T17:35:30-04:002013-04-22T17:35:40-04:00Alan Dershowitzhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/
Perhaps the reason is as simple as the absence of any evidence, at this time, of what the actual motive was. The Federal Terrorism statute requires the government to prove an intent to terrorize, whereas the mass destruction statute requires no such motive or intention. An ordinary citizen could be indicted under that statute if he used a homemade bomb to kill his mother in law or his business rival.
There may, however, be a different reason for why the government selected the mass destruction statute. A trial under that statute may be far less ideological or political. All the government has to prove are facts that seem indisputable, based on the affidavit submitted in this case. Neither Jihad nor Islamic extremism will be placed on trial. That may have been a deliberate decision based on foreign policy considerations. Or it may have been a more legalistic decision based on the current absence of evidence regarding intent and purpose. It is of course possible that we may see new indictments based on additional evidence. That may depend on whether the government elicited any information from Dzhokhar Tsarnaev when they interrogated him in his hospital room. It may also depend on whether field investigations turn out any connections between the older brother and terrorist groups either abroad or at home.
The decision to charge him under the mass destruction statute rather than the terrorist statute may also explain why prosecutors were willing to have him interrogated without his Miranda warnings. Statements made during such an interrogation may have been more necessary under a terrorist statute than under the mass destruction statute. The government may have calculated that they are risking little by not Mirandizing him in an effort to obtain real time intelligence information.
In the end, it is unlikely that there will be a traditional criminal trial in the federal court. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will either try to make a deal to exchange information for his life, or he may proudly proclaim his guilt and demand the death penalty in order to join his brother in martyrdom. Indictment under the mass destruction statute will make such an ideological defense harder to mount.
All of this remains somewhat speculative at this early stage, but it is still worth asking why the government chose to charge him under the mass destruction statute rather than under the more obvious terrorist statute. I am confident we will learn the answer soon.]]>As Israelis Mourn, Jordanians Glorifytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.30852802013-04-15T12:01:57-04:002013-06-15T05:12:02-04:00Alan Dershowitzhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/
As Israelis mourn the 25,000 soldiers -- young men and women -- who have been killed in the course of defending the Jewish state against aggression and terrorism, Jordanian leaders (not including the King, at least thus far) are making a hero out of a Jordanian soldier who murdered seven Israeli school girls and wounded six others during a peace program in 1997. Ahmed Daqamseh, who expressed pride in his mass murder, was convicted of these crimes but spared the death penalty, despite the fact that Jordan executes large numbers of criminals for relatively trivial offenses.
Now after serving approximately two years for each of the murders, he is seeking his release and he has the support of a large majority of Jordanian parliamentarians, who regard him as a hero. The very word "hero" was used by the Jordanian Justice Minister in joining the chorus calling for his release.
Daqamseh's mother has said, "I am proud of my son and I hold my head high. My son did a heroic deed and has pleased Allah and his own conscience. My son lifts my head and the head of the entire Arab and Islamic nation. I am proud of any Muslim who does what Ahmed did."
Daqamseh himself has said, "I have no regrets." He continued, "The only thing I am angry about is the gun, which did not work properly. Otherwise, I would have killed all of the [children]." He also said he would do it again if given the opportunity.
The 13 school girls who were shot by the Jordanian soldier were on a peace mission at a place ironically called The Island of Peace. It is the man who shot these 13 school girls, wishes he had killed more, and promises to do it again, who is being called a hero by Jordanian public officials. The silence of King Abdullah speaks loudly about the widespread popular support that exists for this mass murderer of Jewish children.
In justifying his support for Daqamseh's release, the Justice Minister said, "If a Jew murdered Arabs, [the Israelis] build him a statue." In fact precisely the opposite is true. When a Jewish extremists (not a soldier) murdered Arabs at prayer, the Israeli government not only did not build him a statue, it forbade any statue from being built by private sources and has demonized the killer (who was himself killed), as a mass murderer deserving of no lionization.
Another indication of the widespread support is that 110 out of the 120 members of the lower house of Jordan's parliament have called him a hero and demanded his release. They are seeking "freedom for the soldier hero" and saying "we are all Ahmed Daqamseh." Leading this despicable effort to free a mass murderer is Ali Sneid, a man who claims to be of the left.
The effort to release Daqamseh has taken on elements of Islamic antisemitism by calling the continued imprisonment of this murderer "protection for the herds of the brothers of apes and pigs" and calling the victims of this mass murder by other anti-Semitic terms.
Nor is this hatred of Jews and the Jewish state by Jordanians limited to this particular case, despicable as that would be. Among grass root Jordanians, particularly those of Palestinian background, there is widespread hatred of all things Jewish, Israeli and even American. Islamic extremism is rampant in parts of Jordan, though suppressed by its King and his dictatorial minions. Jordan is ripe for yet another Arab Spring turned winter. All that stands between the current monarchy and an Islamic upheaval is massive American financial and military support for its charming King. King Abdullah presents a far more beneficent face of despotism than did any of the other Arab despots who were toppled, or in the process of being toppled, by the Arab Spring turned Islamic extremist winter. How long this situation will last is anyone's guess. But the possibility that before long Israel may have a neighbor to the east who is not as peaceful as the current Jordanian government, must be seriously considered.
If Daqamseh is released and treated as a hero, that unconscionable decision will tell us much about the direction of the Jordanian street. So next time you see the smiling face of King Abdullah on television speaking about peace, remember that many of his subjects regard the cold-blooded mass murderer of Jewish children as an Islamic hero.]]>Assessing President Obama's Triptag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.29343172013-03-22T16:36:47-04:002013-05-22T05:12:01-04:00Alan Dershowitzhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/
Whenever a high ranking American dignitary visits Israel, there is concern that something will happen -- new settlement building, further rocket attacks -- to spoil the visit. It happened again, as President Obama was visiting President Abbas, having had a positive meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu. This time the spoiler was neither Hamas nor the settlement builders (though rockets were fired and settlements expanded). It was the New York Times, running an extensive and illustrated story casting doubt on President Obama's signature gift to Israel: America's financial support for the joint anti-missile system called "Iron Dome."
The success of the Iron Dome has been central to Israeli-American relations, as well to the security policies of both countries. An anti-missile system capable of destroying up to 90 percent of Hamas rockets directed at Israeli population centers has made it possible for Israel to focus on prevention rather than deterrence. This means fewer and shorter counter-attacks in Gaza, which translates to fewer casualties on both sides. The success of the anti-missile program also promised enhanced protection against Iranian-inspired rocket attacks from Hezbollah, and perhaps even against a potential nuclear attack by Iran (though the technology for deflecting long range missiles is different than that used to destroy missiles from Gaza and Lebanon).
Along comes the New York Times with a devastating and detailed critique headlined "Weapons Experts Raise Doubts About Israel's Anti-missile System." Experts quoted in the article suggest that the success rate of Iron Dome is a small fraction of that claimed by Israel and the United States -- as low as 35 to 40 percent rather than 90 percent. Some experts claim it is even lower than that, which would make it an abject failure rather than the glowing success recently claimed by Vice President Joe Biden and other officials.
Whoever turns out to be correct factually, the perception will now be that Iron Dome is not nearly as effective as claimed. This will embolden Hamas, Hezbollah, and perhaps Iran. It will make Israelis more suspicious of their own government and less appreciative of America's considerable contribution to Iron Dome. It will also create increased insecurities among Israeli citizens who were counting on Iron Dome to protect them.
The timing of the New York Times article could not have been worse, coming out right in the midst of President Obama's visit with Israeli and Palestinian leaders and just before his talk to Israeli students. It raised a distracting cloud over his repeated assurances that America will continue to support Israel's security through projects like Iron Dome.
Despite this bad news, there was much good news from the visit. There were reports that President Abbas might be willing to begin negotiations before Israel implemented a settlement freeze, so long as Prime Minister Netanyahu provided private assurances that a freeze would begin after negotiations were underway. This is a slight variation on a proposal I had made to President Abbas back in the fall, to which he had agreed.
President Obama's visit had many goals. His viewing of the Dead Sea scrolls was intended to emphasize the deep Jewish and Christian relationship to the Land of Israel. His appearance at the Tomb of Theodor Herzl was calculated to assure Israelis that during his speech in Cairo, he had not intended to suggest that Zionism began with the Holocaust. His talk to the students manifested his need to speak directly to the Israeli people rather than only to its leaders, because Israel is a vibrant democracy. His casual and warm encounters with Prime Minister Netanyahu and his family were intended to show the world that their relationship is better than how it has been portrayed in the media. All of these symbolic stops achieved their goals.
It remains to be seen, of course, whether the unspoken goals of the trip were achieved: namely, moving the Israeli government and the Palestinian Authority closer to negotiations; and persuading the Israeli leadership that the American approach to preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons should obviate the need for Israel to act unilaterally in the near future.
President Obama did emphasize the truism that Israel must remain free to take whatever decision it feels necessary to protect itself against a nuclear armed Iran, but I suspect that this green light was openly flashed with the knowledge that Israel has no current plans to take advantage of it. Although differences remain between the red lines laid down by both countries, the two leaders seem closer together on this issue than ever before.
Finally, Obama's approval and trust among Israelis has improved as a result of his media interviews, his talk to the students, his positive approach to Israel's security and the absence of any demands that Israel make unilateral concessions prior to negotiations. All in all, it was a good beginning, despite the upsetting news about the Iron Dome. What happens next will determine whether there is a happy ending.
*An earlier version of this article appeared in Haaretz]]>Of Course Hamas Killed the Babytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.28767622013-03-14T14:47:43-04:002013-05-14T05:12:01-04:00Alan Dershowitzhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/actually killed by an errant Hamas rocket rather than by an Israeli missile, should have absolutely no moral implications. Of course the baby was killed by Hamas. He would have been killed by Hamas even if the missile that ended his life had been fired by Israel. Hamas is totally and wholly responsible for this death, as it is responsible for every civilian death in Gaza and in Israel. It is Hamas that always begins the battle by firing rockets at Israeli civilians. Generally, Israel does not respond. When it does, its rockets occasionally kill Palestinian civilians. That's because Hamas wants Palestinians civilians, especially babies, to be killed by Israelis rockets. They want Palestinian babies to be killed precisely so that they can display the kind of photographs that were shown around the world: a grieving father holding his dead baby, presumably killed by an Israeli rocket. For years, I have called this Hamas' "dead baby strategy." The recent United Nations finding simply confirms the reality of this cynical strategy.
The errant rocket that killed Omar Misharawi was fired by Hamas terrorists from a densely populated civilian area adjacent to the home of the BBC reporter Jihad Misharawi. Hamas selects such locations for firing its rockets precisely so that Israel will respond by firing into civilian areas and killing Palestinian civilians. They regard such dead civilians as "shahids," or martyrs for the cause. It is better for Hamas' publicity campaign if the rocket that kills the Palestinian baby was fired by the Israeli Defense Forces, but even if the rocket was fired by Hamas terrorists, Hamas will claim, as they do regarding this death, that the lethal rocket was fired by Israel. Often the evidence is inconclusive, though the forensic evidence in this case points clearly to a Hamas rocket.
The important point is that it doesn't really matter who actually fired the rocket that killed the baby. The baby was killed by Hamas as part of a calculated strategy designed to point the emotional finger of moral blame at the IDF for doing what every democracy would do: namely, defend its civilians from rocket attacks by targeting those who are firing the rockets, even if they are firing them from civilian areas. As President Obama said when he visited Sderot shortly before becoming President:
"The first job of any nation state is to protect its citizens. And so I can assure you that if... somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I'm going to do everything in my power to stop that. And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing."
Babies like Omar Misharawi will continue to die in Gaza and in Israel so long as the world media continues to serve as facilitators of Hamas' dead baby strategy. Every time a picture of a dead Palestinian baby being held by his grieving parents appears on television or on the front pages of newspapers around the world, Hamas wins. And when Hamas wins, they continue with their deadly strategy. The media, therefore, is complicit in the death of Omar Misharawi as it is in the deaths of other civilians who are victims of Hamas' dead baby strategy. Pictures of dead babies in the arms of their grieving fathers are irresistible to the media. That won't change. What should change is the caption. Every time a dead Palestinian baby is shown, the caption should explain the strategy that led to his or her death: namely that Hamas deliberately fires its rockets from areas in which babies live and into which Israel must fire if it is to stop its own babies from being killed.
It may sound heartless to claim that Hamas wants its own babies to be killed as part of its strategy of demonizing Israel. But there is no escaping the reality and truth of this phenomenon. Indeed it has been admitted by Hamas leaders such as Fathi Hammad:
"For the Palestinian people, death has become an industry, at which women excel, and so do all the people living on this land. The elderly excel at this, and so do the mujahideen and the children. This is why they have formed human shields of the women, the children, the elderly, and the mujahideen, in order to challenge the Zionist bombing machine. It is as if they were saying to the Zionist enemy: 'We desire death like you desire life.'"
Of course these Hamas leaders don't desire their own death. They build shelters for themselves and for the terrorists who fire the rockets at Israeli civilians. As soon as these rockets are fired from crowded civilian areas, the terrorist scurry into below-ground shelters, leaving babies, women and other civilians in the path of Israeli rockets that target the rocket launchers. This isn't martyrdom by the leaders and terrorists. It is cowardice. That too is part of the dead baby strategy: make martyrs of babies, while the leaders and terrorists hide in shelters. In Israel, it is precisely the opposite; shelters are for civilians; soldiers put themselves in harm's way. That's why the following illustration sums it all up:]]>The Pinkwashing Campaign Against Israel: Another Conspiracy Theorytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.27906692013-03-01T15:57:43-05:002013-05-01T05:12:01-04:00Alan Dershowitzhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/
To the anti-Semite, every depression, war, social problem, plague must have been the fault of the Jews. Whenever the Jews appear to be doing something good -- giving charity, helping the less fortunate, curing the sick -- there must be a malevolent motive, a hidden agenda, a conspiratorial explanation beneath the surface of the benevolent act.
To the anti-Semite, "the Jews" always act as a collective. They plot, conspire and work hand-in-hand toward the common goal of Jewish domination. The protocols of the "Elders of Zion" are the paradigm of the manner through which "the Jew" operates. Nothing is ever a coincidence. Everything is the calculated product of "protocols" or conspiratorial action.
Now the very twisted illogic that has characterized classic anti-Semitism is being directed at the Jewish state, which for the anti-Semite has become "the Jew" among nations. When Israel sent help to tsunami and hurricane victims, the Jewish state was accused of merely trying to garner positive publicity calculated to offset its mistreatment of Palestinians. When Israeli medical teams save the lives of Palestinian children, they must be up to no good. When it was disclosed that the Israeli army has the lowest rate of rape against enemy civilians, radical anti-Zionists argued that this was because Israeli soldiers were so racist that they did not find Palestinian women attractive enough to rape! Nothing the Jew or the Jew among nations does can be praised, because its purpose is always to "manipulate," to "conceal," to "divert attention away from" or to "distort" the evil that inheres in all Jewish actions and inactions. Everything the Jewish nation does is part of a grand conspiratorial plan.
That is the bigoted thesis of a new anti-Israel campaign being conducted by some radical gay activists who absurdly claim that Israel is engaging in "pinkwashing." This burlesque of an argument first surfaced in a New York Times op-ed that claimed that Israel's positive approach to gay rights is "a deliberate strategy to conceal the continuing violation of Palestinians human rights behind an image of modernity signified by Israeli gay life." In other words, the Jew among nations is now being accused of promoting the rights of gay people in order to whitewash -- or in this case pinkwash -- its lack of concern for Palestinian people.
How this pinkwashing is supposed to work, we aren't told. Is the media supposed to be so obsessed with Israel's positive policies toward gays that it will no longer cover the Palestinian issue? If so, that certainly hasn't worked. Are gays around the world supposed to feel so indebted to Israel that they will no longer criticize the Jewish nation? That surely hasn't worked, as evidenced by increasingly rabid anti-Israel advocacy by several gay organizations.
Well, to the unthinking anti-Semite, it doesn't matter how the Jewish manipulation works. The anti-Semite just knows that there must be something sinister at work if Jews do anything positive. The same is now true for the unthinking anti-Israel bigot.
Moreover, Israel's positive approach to gay rights is seen as part of some grand coordinated plan concocted by "the Elders" of the Zionist state who want to keep oppressing Palestinians. It is not the result of uncoordinated efforts by individuals, groups or institutions -- such as gay rights organizations, the Israel Supreme Court, conservative and reform rabbis, the Army -- that care about gay rights. No! When the Jewish state promotes gay rights, it does it for one malevolent and coordinated reason: to pinkwash its treatment of Palestinians. Was there a meeting? A memo? How were these diverse elements coordinated toward a common end?
In Israel, openly gay soldiers have long served in the military and in high positions in both government and the private sector, in universities and in the arts. Gay pride parades are frequent. Israel is, without a doubt, the most gay friendly country in the Middle East and among the most supportive of gay rights anywhere in the world. This, despite efforts by some fundamentalist Jews, Muslims and Christians to ban gay pride parades and legal equality for gays. (Are they too part of some grand plan?) In contrast to Israel are the West Bank and Gaza, where gays are murdered, tortured and forced to seek asylum -- often in Israel. In every Arab and Muslim country, homosexual acts among consenting adults are criminal, often punishable by death. But all this doesn't matter to the "growing global gay movement" against Israel, which according to The New York Times op-ed, regards these positive steps as nothing more than a cover for malevolent Israeli actions.
The pinkwash bigots would apparently prefer to see Israel treat gays the way Israel's enemies do, because they hate Israel more than they care about gay rights. Nor do these pink anti-Semites speak for the majority of gay people, who appreciate Israel's positive steps with regard to gay rights, even if they don't agree with all of Israel's policies. Decent gay people who have themselves been subjected to stereotyping, recognize bigotry when they see it, even -- perhaps especially -- among other gay people. That's why so many prominent gay leaders and public officials have denounced this "pinkwashing" nonsense.
Now this pinkwashing campaign is coming to the City University of New York. A pinkwashing conference is being sponsored by the Gay and Lesbian Studies Center at The Graduate Center on April 10-11, 2013. It will be yet another hate-fest against Israel, but this time it will cross the line into classic anti-Semitic tropes. Don't be fooled by its benign pink hue, or its academic pretext. At its core, the newly-fashioned charge of pinkwashing is little different from the old-fashioned charges leveled by anti-Semites -- namely, that neither the Jews nor the Jewish state ever does good things without bad motives. And this time, the hate conference is being co-sponsored by the Philosophy and Psychology Departments and The Graduate Center of the City University of New York, as well as by the Center for The Study of Gender and Sexuality at New York University.
Shame on anyone who exploits his or her sexual orientation to promote anti-Semitic bigotry. And shame on anyone who sponsors those who practice what amounts to pink anti-Semitism.]]>Did Brooklyn College's Political Science Department Violate the First Amendment?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.26711232013-02-12T13:47:13-05:002013-04-14T05:12:01-04:00Alan Dershowitzhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/were excluded, may have violated the First Amendment. Had the event been sponsored only by student and outside private groups, their decision to exclude pro-Israel students and to prevent the distribution of anti-BDS leaflets would have been a private matter, that at worst may have violated the rules of the college. But the official co-sponsorship of the event by an academic department may have turned their exclusionary decisions into illegal "state action."
For purposes of the First Amendment, the political science department is Brooklyn College, which is the City University of New York, which is the State of New York. It was the State of New York, therefore, that expelled pro-Israel students who wanted to distribute constitutionally protected leaflets and wanted to pose constitutionally protected political questions. Such state action violates the First Amendment and New York law.
Accordingly, the benighted action of the political science department in taking sides in the debate over boycotting Israeli academics and institutions, may now come back to haunt the City University of New York, which is taking this situation seriously. The Chancellor issued the following statement:
"At last week's event at Brooklyn College, sponsored by Students for Justice in Palestine and the College's Department of Political Science, allegations were made by members of the college community who attended that they were impeded from expressing views either orally or in writing. There were reports that some said they were asked without cause to leave the event. If this were true, it was wrong and we need to understand exactly what the circumstances were. At the request of President Karen L. Gould, I have asked General Counsel and Senior Vice Chancellor for Legal Affairs Frederick P. Schaffer to quickly investigate these allegations. This investigation will be coordinated by CUNY's Office of Legal Affairs, working with an independent consultant, and charged with reporting directly back to me."
There is, apparently, strong evidence to corroborate the accounts that pro-Israel students, especially those wearing yarmulkes or "looking" Jewish, were deliberately excluded, even though they secured written permission to attend. There is also corroboration of the accusation that pro-Israel students who managed to get into the event were thrown out when they refused to turn over to the organizers anti-BDS leaflets they wished to distribute. When these students complained to an official of the college, he reportedly replied that the anti-Israel students who were running the event were "calling the shots" and he could therefore do nothing.
But once the political science department became involved as a co-sponsor, the students alone could not call the shots, when it comes to the First Amendment. The university assumed responsibility for assuring that the free speech of all students was equally protected. The First Amendment forbids the State of New York from discriminating against pro-Israel or anti-BDS speech, as it apparently did here.
What happened at Brooklyn College demonstrates the wisdom of keeping academic departments from sponsoring non-academic controversial events, such as the BDS event. When academic departments become selective sponsors, the constitutional rules change, because the imprimatur of the university -- and thus the state -- is placed on the event.
The radical anti-Israel students who arranged the BDS conference thought they had obtained a benefit from the political science department's co-sponsorship -- and perhaps they did in the short term. But in the long term, they may rue the day they persuaded the department to become involved in what should have been a student event. Now there may be legal consequences. The sword of co-sponsorship may have become a shield to protect the First Amendment rights of the students who were prevented from handing out anti-BDS leaflets and asking anti-BDS questions. I wonder if we will hear from Mayor Michael Bloomberg and The New York Times editorial board about these violations of freedom of speech!]]>The High Cost of Defending Israeltag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.26399072013-02-07T16:29:08-05:002013-04-09T05:12:01-04:00Alan Dershowitzhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/
Let me begin with the charge of plagiarism--a charge originally made by the discredited academic, Norman Finkelstein, who has falsely charged virtually every pro-Israel writer with the same academic crime. In my case, the charge centered around a one-paragraph quotation from Mark Twain in my book The Case for Israel. I cited the paragraph to Mark Twain, but Finkelstein said that I should have cited it to a woman named Joan Peters, because he believes I found the quote in her book. But the truth is that I found the quote ten years prior to the publication of Peters' book and used it repeatedly in debates and speeches. When Finkelstein leveled his absurd charge, I immediately reported it to the Harvard University President and to the Dean of the Law School and ask that it be thoroughly investigated. Harvard appointed its former president, Derek Bok, to investigate the charge. After a thorough investigation he found it to be utterly frivolous. But to the dogs of defamation this only goes to prove that Harvard must be part of the pro-Israel conspiracy.
The second charge is that I am pro-torture, despite my repeated categorical statements in my writings that I'm opposed to all torture under all circumstances. I do believe that torture will be used, not should be used, in the event we ever experience a ticking bomb situation. Accordingly I have suggested that no torture should ever be permitted without a court approved warrant, of the type the ACLU has demanded in targeted killing cases. But to the dogs of defamation, this distinction is irrelevant. Because I am pro Israel, I must be pro torture. This is particularly ironic, since both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas routinely torture dissidents, without their leaders being called pro torture by the same hard left defamers who falsely accuse me.
The most recent unleashing of the dogs of defamation was stimulated by the position I took on a BDS conference at Brooklyn College. Although I support the conference going forward, and oppose any attempt to censor it, I raise troubling questions about whether the Brooklyn College political science department should be sponsoring and endorsing that advocacy event, if they would not be willing to sponsor and endorse an anti-BDS event by an equally radical anti-Palestinian right wing group. My position, of course, has been distorted, and I have been lumped with those who would censor the event. I have been called a hypocrite because apparently the political science department at UPENN once cosponsored an anti-BDS speech I gave there, despite the fact that I was totally unaware of this sponsorship and would have been opposed if I knew about it. I was informed and believed until now that the event had been sponsored by Hillel and the Jewish Federation.
Along the same lines, two members of the political science department at Brooklyn College have claimed that my speeches there were sponsored by the department and were as controversial as the BDS advocacy event. That is totally false. So far as I can remember I have made three speeches at Brooklyn College: One, the Konefsky lecture in the late 1960s or early 1970s which was a purely academic lecture focusing on the work of Professor Samuel Konefsky. There was nothing controversial about it. Second, a speech I was invited to give when I donated my papers to Brooklyn College. Again not very controversial. And third, a talk I gave in 2008 about my teachers at Brooklyn College and about a letter by Thomas Jefferson I had found in a book store. This can be heard online here. Again, not particularly controversial.
Why then is there such a concerted effort to attack me personally and to question my integrity every time I speak about Israel? It has little to do with me, because my attackers know that I can fight back and that my academic standing will not in any way be influenced by their attacks. The attacks are directed at young academics, without tenure, who would dare to speak up on behalf of Israel. The message is clear: If you support Israel, we will attack you like we attack Dershowitz, but you will be hurt much more that Dershowitz would. We will damage your reputation, hurt your student evaluations and decrease your chances for tenure. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that so many pro-Israel young academics refuse to speak up. I know because they call and discreetly tell me about the fear they have that they will be subjected to the same kind of McCarthyite tactics that I am subjected to.
That is why I will continue to fight back and respond every time the dogs of defamation are unleashed against me.]]>Ed Koch: The Death of a Liberal Israel Lovertag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.26152362013-02-04T16:04:03-05:002013-04-06T05:12:01-04:00Alan Dershowitzhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/
When Israel was established in 1948, it had the enthusiastic backing of the hard left -- the Soviet Union, the Communist Party, labor unions, radical university professors, progressive entertainers and others whose knees automatically jerked in a leftward direction. Israel's enemies tended to come from the hard right: oil interests, old state department types, traditional anti-Semites and those whose knees automatically jerked in a rightward direction.
This has all been changing over the past several decades, beginning with the Six Day War in 1967, when the Soviet Union and the Communist Party turned against Israel. This about-face had a trickle down effect on the hard left that has more recently impacted the center left as well. It has produced a generational shift. For many among today's younger Jews, Israel has become a right-wing cause, and the movement to boycott, divest and sanction Israel has become a left-wing cause.
Some pundits, such as Peter Beinart, believe this shift has come about largely as a result of changes in Israeli policy, particularly with regard to the continued occupation of the West Bank and the measures Israel has taken with regard to the Gaza Strip. I think it has more to do with changes in the politics of the left, beginning with the European left and migrating to our American left.
If Israel were to end the occupation, make peace with the Palestinians and agree to the establishment of a viable, non-militarized Palestinian state -- as it offered to do in 2001 and 2007 -- little would change, because much of the left is opposed to the very existence of a Jewish Zionist state even on the 1948 lines.
What does Ed Koch's death have to do with this -- everything! Koch made the traditional liberal case for Israel. He made it with his words, with his deeds and with his persona. He was an unashamed and unapologetic cheerleader for Israel as a liberal cause. He loved the Jewish state, despite its imperfections, just as he loved America despite its imperfections, and just as he loved liberalism despite its imperfections. His generation, which experienced real anti-Semitism in educational and employment opportunities, understood that if Israel were not the Jewish state -- the Jew among nations -- it would not be subjected to the crass double standard it has had imposed on it by the international community, academia and the media.
There is a generation gap, as Peter Beinart correctly reports, but the reason for it is much more emotional than it is rational. Young Jews are simply ashamed to support Israel, particularly in front of their lefty friends. Howard Jacobson, the author of the Finkler Question got it exactly right when he created a not so fictional group called "Ashamed Jews."
Ed Koch was never ashamed of his support for Israel or his in your face Jewishness. Nor was he reliable as a Democrat or Republican. His party line was always principle. He sometimes supported Democrats, sometimes Republicans. Sometimes he supported President Obama, sometimes he didn't. No one could take him or his vote for granted, because he always voted his values and his beliefs: in a strong America, a strong Israel, and strong liberalism.
There will never be another Ed Koch. He was an original, but he represented a significant, if shrinking, segment of American Jewry who refused to compromise their liberal values, their support for Israel or their Jewish pride. I count myself among his "Talmidim" -- his students. We are an endangered species in a world where acceptance among peers is valued above commitment to principle.
Ed Koch will never "rest in peace." That was not his way. He was always nervously squirming, while making others squirm as well. Comfort was not his goal. He understood that to be a proud and assertive Jew meant never being able to leave a sigh of relief and say "it's over, we are at peace, we can now put down our guard and relax." He knew that the struggle for Jewish self-determination never stays won.
When Shakespeare's Jewish character Shylock is asked at the end of The Merchant of Venice whether he accepts Christianity, he responds "I am content," thus proving he is no longer a Jew. Ed was never content. He lived and died as a real Jew, always pursuing the never-ending quest for justice.
This article first appeared in The Jerusalem Post.]]>Does Brooklyn College Pass the 'Shoe on the Other Foot' Test?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.26003422013-02-01T14:17:21-05:002013-04-03T05:12:01-04:00Alan Dershowitzhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/ has said that departments have the right to sponsor one-sided partisan events. Let's see if these "justifications" pass the "shoe on the other foot test."
What would these administrators say if the department of philosophy were to officially endorse the right to life and oppose a woman's right to choose abortion? What if the economics department had officially endorsed Mitt Romney during last year's election? What if the Spanish department had voted to endorse an academic boycott against Cuban or Venezuelan professors? What if the department of religion were to officially condemn homosexuality?
I can assure you that both the lyrics and the music would be very different. The chairman of the political science department, a radical leftist, would be complaining that his academic freedom was being denied by these departments officially endorsing positions with which he disagrees. The president of the college, known for her feminist views, would not likely remain silent in the face of an official departmental endorsement of the right to life. Nor would many faculty members justify a departmental condemnation of homosexuality on the ground of academic freedom or freedom of speech.
These invocations of free speech and academic freedoms are merely a smokescreen to cover the hypocrisy of those who claim that they are committed to open dialogue and the expression of all points of view. That is so much hooey. Of course, the event should go forward, but it should be sponsored by students and outside groups, not by a department of the college. The same should be true of pro-Israel events.
The very same professors who demand the right to advocate BDS against Israel would demand the right to suppress the free speech and academic freedom of those who support Israeli settlements and the denial of statehoods to the Palestinians. 'Free speech for me but not for thee" has always been the hallmark of extremists on both the left and right. These extremists believe they know the truth and that there is no reason for supporting, endorsing or even tolerating opposing viewpoints. They cannot be trusted to grade students neutrally and without bias.
I know that if I were a student at Brooklyn College today, I would not major in political science for fear that my support for Israel and my opposition to BDS might prejudice me in the eyes of professors whose department has endorsed BDS, thus discriminating against my point of view in the marketplace of ideas. How could I be sure they wouldn't discriminate against my point of view in grading or recommending students? This is the real issue in the hullabaloo over the decision by the Brooklyn College political science department to cosponsor and endorse the BDS campaign at Brooklyn College.
Nor is this only a hypothetical or abstract fear. One political science student at Brooklyn College said she was afraid to criticize her department because "that's going to put a target on my back." Other students talked about a "chilling effect" that the department's decision would have on them. And yet another student said that she had "an uncomfortable feeling" about raising her hand and arguing "with a professor who voted for it" and who tried to justify his vote in the classroom.
The president of Brooklyn College says she believes that departments have the right to take controversial positions and to sponsor and endorse controversial events. Where is the line to be drawn? Would the Brooklyn College political science department have the right offer a course entitled, "Why BDS against Israel is a good thing?" Would the faculty have the right to grade students based on whether their exams agree or disagree with the department's official party line on BDS? Would the department have the right to deny the request of a faculty member to teach a course on why BDS against Israel is a bad thing? Surely the answer to these questions is no and even the chairman of the political science department at Brooklyn College would probably agree. But his department has endorsed BDS against Israel, and it would not cosponsor or endorse an equivalent speech on the other side of the issue: namely, by a radical, pro-settlement, anti-Palestinian statehood, zealot. I doubt his department would cosponsor and endorse a speech by a moderate pro-Israel advocate who favored the two state solution and opposed settlement building. That issue is being tested because Brooklyn College Hillel is asking the political science department to "cosponsor" and "endorse" an anti-BDS talk by me. The shoe is now on the other foot! And it is causing painful blisters.
There are only two reasonable approaches to what departments should be entitled to do: either they should sponsor and endorse events on all sides of controversial issues, or they should get out of the business of selectively sponsoring and endorsing only one side of such issues. The approach taken by the political science department at Brooklyn College is absolutely unacceptable: namely, to endorse and sponsor only one side of a controversial issue while refusing to cosponsor and endorse the other side of the issue. The president of Brooklyn College is wrong when she says that departments should have the right to selectively sponsor and endorse only one side of a controversy. That is a long step on the road to turning academic departments into biased, partisan and one-sided propaganda centers, reminiscent of "political science" departments in the former Soviet Union that "encouraged" their students to follow the official party line.]]>Brooklyn College Political Science Department's Israel Problemtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.25825612013-01-30T15:20:05-05:002013-04-01T05:12:01-04:00Alan Dershowitzhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/
The poster for the BDS event specifically says that the event is being "endorsed by... the political science department at BC." The BDS campaign accuses Israel of "Apartheid" and advocates the blacklisting of Jewish Israeli academics, which is probably illegal and certainly immoral. The two speakers at the event deny Israel's right to exist, compare Israel to the Nazis and praise terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah.
The president of Brooklyn College claims that this co-sponsorship does not constitute an endorsement by the college and that this is an issue of freedom of speech and academic freedom. But when a department of a university officially co-sponsors and endorses an event advocating BDS against Israel, and refuses to co-sponsor and endorse an event opposing such BDS, that does constitute an official endorsement. Freedom of speech, and academic freedom require equal access to both sides of a controversy, not official sponsorship and endorsement of one side over the other. The heavy thumb of an academic department should not be placed on the scale, if the marketplace of ideas is to remain equally accessible to all sides of a controversy.
I have no problem with a BDS campaign being conducted by radical students at Brooklyn College or anywhere else. Students have a right to promote immoral causes on college campuses. Nor do I have a problem with such an event being sponsored by the usual hard left, anti-Israel and anti-American groups, such as some of those that are co-sponsoring this event. My sole objection is to the official sponsorship and endorsement of BDS by an official department of a public (or for that matter private) college.
I was once a student at Brooklyn College, majoring in political science. Back in the day, departments did not take official positions on controversial political issues. They certainly didn't sponsor or endorse the kind of hate speech that can be expected at this event, if the history of the speakers is any guide. The president of the university says this is a matter of academic freedom. But who's academic freedom? Do "departments" -- as distinguished from individual faculty members -- really have the right of academic freedom? Does the political science department at Brooklyn College represent only its hard left faculty? What about the academic freedom of faculty members who do not support the official position of the department? One Brooklyn College faculty member has correctly observed that:
"[B]oycotting academics is the opposite of free speech. It symbolizes the silencing on people based on their race and religion."
Does the political science department not also represent the students who major in or take courses in that subject? I know that as a student I would not want to be associated with a department that officially supported divestment, boycott and sanctions against Israel. My academic freedom would be compromised by such an association. Also, I would worry that a department that was so anti-Israel would grade me down or refuse me recommendations if I were perceived to be pro-Israel, or even neutral. I would not feel comfortable expressing my academic freedom in such a department. I'm sure there are many students at Brooklyn College who feel the same. What can they do to express their academic freedom? Should they fight fire with fire by advocating divestment, boycotts and sanctions against the political science department or against Brooklyn College? Would that too be an exercise of academic freedom?
If I were a Brooklyn College student today and an opponent of BDS against Israel, I would not major in political science. I would worry that my chances of getting into a good law school or graduate program, would be put at risk. I would pick a department -- or a school -- that was less politicized and more academically unbiased.
Academic freedom does not include the power of department or faculty members to prosthelytize captive students whose grades and future depend on faculty evaluations. That's why academic departments should not take political positions that threaten the academic freedom of dissenting students or faculty.
I can understand the department of political science sponsoring a genuine debate over boycotts, divestment and sanctions in which all sides were equally represented. That might be an educational experience worthy of departmental sponsorship. But the event in question is pure propaganda and one-sided political advocacy. There is nothing academic about it. Would the political science department of Brooklyn College sponsor and endorse an anti-divestment evening? Would they sponsor and endorse me, a graduate of that department, to present my perspective to their students? Would they sponsor a radical, pro-settlement, Israeli extremist to propagandize their students? Who gave the department the authority to decide, as a department, which side to support in this highly contentious debate? What are the implications of such departmental support? Could the political science department now vote to offer courses advocating BDS against Israel and grading students based on their support for the department's position? Should other departments now be lobbied to support divestments, boycotts and sanctions against China, Venezuela, Cuba, Russia, the Palestinian Authority or other perennial violators of human rights?
Based on my knowledge of the Brooklyn College political science department, they would never vote to sponsor and endorse an anti-BDS campaign, or a BDS campaign against left-wing, Islamic, anti-Israel or anti-American countries that are genuine violators of human rights. Universities, and some departments in particular, are quickly becoming more political than academic. This trend threatens the academic freedom of dissenting students and faculty. It also threatens the academic quality of such institutions.
The Brooklyn College political science department should get out of the business of sponsoring one-sided political propaganda and should stop trying to exercise undue influence over the free marketplace of ideas. That is the real violation of academic freedom and freedom of speech.
Shame on the Brooklyn College political science department for falsely invoking academic freedom and freedom of speech to deny equal freedoms to those who disagree with its extremist politics.]]>Israeli Elections and Palestinian Negotiationstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.25417092013-01-24T10:11:14-05:002013-03-26T05:12:01-04:00Alan Dershowitzhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/
In September I spoke to President Abbas and suggested to him a formula for restarting negotiations: He would agree to sit down and begin negotiations without Israel having frozen settlements, with the understanding that only after he began good faith negotiations, would Israel initiate a settlement freeze. The plan also contemplated a quick and rough division of the West Bank into three areas: those that would almost certainly remain part of Israel; those that would almost certainly become part of a Palestinian state; and those that are reasonably in dispute. As to the first, there would be no limitation on building; but as to the second and third, a freeze would remain in effect until final borders were agreed upon, so long as the negotiations continued in good faith.
Abbas agreed to this formulation, after conferring with Saeb Erekat. He even signed a paper that set out this plan.
We both agreed that it was unlikely that negotiations would resume until after the Israeli election. And I said that I would reraise the issue at that time. So I am.
The current combination of factors -- the centrist tilt of the Israeli election, the reelection of President Obama and the recognition by the United Nations of Palestine as an observer-state -- makes this a propitious time for negotiations.
Resuming negotiations would send a powerful message to President Obama that Israel does indeed know its own best interests, since resolving the Israel-Palestine dispute, with assurances of Israel's security, is clearly in Israel's best interest. Most Israelis seem to agree with that assessment, as polls and election results strongly suggest. Most Palestinians also seem to support a two-state resolution, though the poll numbers there have weakened considerably over the past months.
There are many in Israel who doubt that the Palestinian leadership is really prepared to make the kind of sacrifices that will be required to bring about a resolution, especially with regard to the so-called refugees. And there are many Palestinians who doubt that the Israeli leadership, even following the election, will be prepared to make the kind of territorial compromises necessary to bring about peace.
The only way to know for sure is to begin negotiations, with no preconditions and with open minds and open hearts.
The world must remember that it was the Palestinian leadership, under Yasser Arafat, that rejected the generous offer by Prime Minister Ehud Barak and President Bill Clinton in 2000-2001. And the world must remember that it was the Palestinian Authority, under President Abbas, that failed to respond to the even more generous offer made by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert just a few years ago. If the current Palestinian leadership now refuses to sit down and negotiate in good faith, or if it refuses to accept a realistic offer from the new Israeli government, the international community -- which has a notoriously short memory when it comes to Israel -- will once again see who wants peace and who does not.
Nothing is likely to happen in the days to come, while Prime Minister Netanyahu tries to assemble an enduring coalition. But in the process of building such a coalition, the Prime Minister should think globally as well as locally. He should opt for a coalition that maximizes his flexibility in dealing with the Palestinian Authority. I know that Prime Minister Netanyahu very much wants to be the person who brings about peace with security between Israel and the Palestinians. In order to do so, he must work hard to construct a coalition that does not tie his hands. This will not be an easy task. Nor are the Palestinians his only international concern. Iran poses a far greater danger to Israel's security than do the Palestinians. The unraveling of the Arab Spring and the unpredictable situation in Syria pose additional challenges.
The United States and the rest of the world will be watching to see how Prime Minister Netanyahu deals with his local issues -- namely constructing a viable coalition -- while giving himself maximum flexibility to deal with global issues.
In the end, the Israeli people and the leaders they elect will prove to the world that Israel knows its own best interests and is in the best position to implement them. That is what democracy is all about, and Israel's recent elections display democracy at its best.
*This article first appeared in Ha'aretz on 1/23.13]]>President's Nomination of Hagel May Encourage Iran's Nuclear Ambitionstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.24256562013-01-07T12:42:30-05:002013-03-09T05:12:01-05:00Alan Dershowitzhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/sanctions against Iran and to employing the military option if necessary.
These views are inconsistent with the very different views expressed by President Obama. The president has emphasized on numerous occasions that he will never allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons and will use military force if necessary to prevent that "game changer."
The nomination of Hagel thus sends a mixed message to the mullahs in Tehran, who will likely interpret it as a change from a red light to a yellow or green one when it comes to their desire to develop nuclear weapons. Sending a mixed message at this point can increase the chances that Iran will miscalculate and act in a foolheartedly manner thus requiring the actual use of the military option -- an eventuality that nobody wants.
The goal of America's policy toward Iran has always been to frighten the mullahs into believing President Obama's threat to use military force if sanctions fail. "I don't bluff," President Obama has famously and publicly stated. It is imperative that the Iranian leadership believe this. If they do, they may well decide that the sanctions they are currently undergoing are too painful to endure, if the end result is that they will never be permitted to develop nuclear weapons. If they don't believe President Obama's threat, then the sanctions alone will not dissuade them from pursuing their nuclear goal. The nomination of Senator Hagel will strengthen the hand of those within the Iranian leadership who think that President Obama is bluffing.
It is also important that the Israeli leadership believes that President Obama really has Israel's back when it comes to preventing Iran from endangering the Jewish state by obtaining nuclear weapons. Any loss of trust with this regard may result in an Israeli decision to take unilateral military action to protect its citizens against nuclear attacks.
This is the wrong time to send mixed messages by nominating a man who has, at best, a mixed record with regard to sanctions and the military option against Iran and with regard to having Israel's back.
Senator Hagel will have an opportunity to clarify, and hopefully to change, his previous statements with regard to these issues. He should be asked probing questions about sanctions, about the military option and about Israel's security. In his answers, he must persuade the Iranian leadership that there is no distance between his current views and those of the president who has nominated him. The president must also persuade the Iranian leadership that his nomination of Hagel does not constitute any backing down from his commitment to use military force, if sanctions don't work.
Independence may be a virtue for a Senator, but it is a vice when it presents conflicting messages at a time when it is imperative that the Iranian leadership understand that the Obama administration, indeed the United States as a whole, speaks with one voice when it says that Iran will never be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, even if that requires the use of military force if all other options fail.
Normally a president, especially a president reelected to a second term with a substantial majority, should be entitled to pick his own secretary of defense. But when the president's decision risks sending a mixed message that could increase the chances of having to employ the military option against Iran, the Senate has an especially important role to play. The burden is now on Senator Hagel to persuade the Senate, the American people, and the leaders of Iran that he is fully supportive of the president's commitment not to contain a nuclear armed Iran, but to prevent such a catastrophe from occurring, even if that requires the use of military force to achieve that commendable goal.
Nor is this a liberal-conservative or Democrat-Republican issue. Reportedly, the Hagel nomination has been very controversial within the White House itself, with some of President Obama's closest advisers being critical of it. Many Democrats, both elected officials and rank and file voters, are deeply concerned about the wisdom of the president's nomination of Senator Hagel. Neither is this an issue that concerns only Jewish or pro-Israel voters. There are serious policy issues at stake here. Those of us who voted for President Obama and who want to be certain that Iran is never allowed to develop nuclear weapons, as the president promised, have legitimate concerns about this nomination. We hope that these concerns can be allayed by the president and his nominee, but if they are not, it will be the highest of patriotic duties to oppose Senator Hagel's nomination.]]>Legal Implication of the United Nations Resolution on Palestinetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.22207162012-11-30T17:14:04-05:002013-01-30T05:12:01-05:00Alan Dershowitzhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershowitz/
If all the territory captured by Israel in its defensive war is being illegally occupied then it might be open to the newly recognized "Palestinian State" to try to bring a case before the International Criminal Court against Israeli political and military leaders who are involved in the occupation. This would mean that virtually every Israeli leader could be placed on trial. What this would entail realistically is that they could not travel to countries which might extradite them for trial in the Hague.
These absurd conclusions follow from the theater of the absurd that occurred when the General Assembly, for the thousandth time, issued an irrelevantly one sided declaration on Palestine. As Abba Eban once put it: "If Algeria introduced a General Assembly Resolution that the world was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass 100 to 10 with 50 abstentions." That's pretty much what happened the other day. I wonder whether the European countries that voted for the Resolution knew what a tangled web they were weaving.
Nor was this Resolution a recognition of the two-state solution, since a considerable number of states who voted for it have refused to recognize Israel's right to exist. What they were looking for was a one state resolution -- that one state being yet another Islamic country that voted for Hamas in the last election and that is likely to be governed by Sharia Law that will not allow Jews or Christians equal rights.
Neither will the General Assembly's actions move the Palestinians closer to accepting the ongoing Israeli offer to begin negotiations toward a two-state solution with no prior conditions. The Palestinians now have little incentive to negotiate a state, which would require considerable compromise and sacrifice on all sides. They now think they can get their state recognized without the need to give up the right of return or to make the kinds of territorial compromises necessary for Israel's security. The United Nations action will only discourage the Palestinians from entering into serious negotiations with Israel.
The United Nations' action will also incentivize Hamas to continue firing rockets into Israel on a periodic basis in order to provoke Israeli retaliation. Many in Hamas believe that the recent fighting in Gaza actually helped the Palestinians get more votes in the General Assembly. They are certainly taking some of the credit for these votes.
All in all, the United Nations vote will make it harder to achieve a peaceful two state solution, acceptable to both sides. But that has been the history of General Assembly actions with regard to Israel, beginning with the lopsided vote in 1975 that challenged Israel's very existence by declaring Zionism -- the national liberation movement of the Jewish people -- to be a form of racism. Although the General Assembly was ultimately pressured into rescinding that blood libel, its bigoted spirit still hovers over numerous United Nations agencies which continue to regard Israel as a pariah. It could be felt in the General Assembly hall when so many countries that refused to recognize Israel voted to recognize Palestine.
This is all a prescription for continued warfare, lawfare and enmity. It is not a prescription for resolving a complex and difficult issue in a realistic manner. But what else is new at the United Nations!]]>