Alan Dershowitz: NO SALE
by Mitchell Plitnick
The Third Way: A Different View of the Middle East, February 2, 2007
http://blog.mideastanalysis.org/?p=9
Alan Dershowitz: NO SALE, Part 1
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.
Alan Dershowitz: NO SALE, Part 2--Arab Money
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 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 at 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 influence 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.
Alan Dershowitz: NO SALE, Part 3--Clearing the Fog
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?
posted by Sylvie K.
No comments:
Post a Comment