This post will be part of my Dershowitz Watch series. Big Al has been tooting his big mouth again all over the place as is his wont.
The Forward notes his typically flamboyant rhetorical response to the vote by English university professors to support boycotting Israeli universities:
Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law School professor and prominent pro-Israel advocate, said that to protest the vote he will attempt to mobilize 1,000 American university professors of diverse backgrounds to join him in declaring themselves honorary Israeli professors.
“I now consider myself an Israeli professor, and I will act as if I am an Israeli professor,” Dershowitz said. “If they boycott Israel,” he added, “they’re boycotting me.”
One has to admire Big Al’s attempt at pro-Israel solidarity. But really, it sounds a bit nutty to declare oneself “an honorary Israeli professor.” What does this mean in purely practical terms? How will you actually do anything to help Israel or combat the boycott? And does he really do Israeli professors or universities a favor in this? Does he really think that he is such a crucial figure that English academics will weep when they learn that they’ve lost contact with him? To me, this is just typical Dershowitz megalomania and self-aggrandizement.
I note with pleasure that this same Forward article utilizes my blog post (and credits Tikun Olam) about Yigal Arens’ being blackballed from an Israeli academic conference on web terrorism. I first learned about the story from Akiva Eldar in Haaretz and most recently Muzzlewatch.
Muzzlewatch has some more luscious bits about Dersh that are too juicy to pass up. Apparently, distinguished evolutionary biologist Robert Trivers wrote the Harvard hack a personal e-mail attacking his piteous defense of Israel’s war against the Lebanese people. Trivers quoted the message in a separate Wall Street Journal letter:
“Regarding your rationalization of Israeli attacks on Lebanese civilians, let me just say that if there is a repeat of Israeli butchery toward Lebanon and if you decide once again to rationalize it publicly, look forward to a visit from me. Nazis — and Nazi-like apologists such as yourself — need to be confronted directly.”
Dershowitz was supposedly so alarmed that Trivers would come at him brandishing a dueling pistol that he reported the alleged threat to the Boston police. Harvard, in turn, cancelled a scheduled talk by Trivers in which he anticipated applying his award-winning academic research on self-deception to Dershowitz’s political views. Big Al says he had nothing to do with it. Given his sterling record of probity and rhetorical honesty, should we take him at his word?
Speaking as someone who is attacked & wished ill not only in this blog but in many other places on the web, I’d have to say that Dersh is pathetic in not being able to tell the difference between an unfortunate and overly dramatic attempt at a rhetorical flourish (on Trivers part) and a genuine threat. Methinks the big guy doth protest too much. He blows up Trivers comment into a physical threat to call more attention to poor old Al, victim of bigots and anti-Semites the world over.
On a related note, I find it ironic that Dershowitz is crying in his beer over Trivers’ abuse when the big man himself has been only too willing to defend ardently a particularly slimy attack by Kahanist Israeli academic, Steven Plaut, against fellow Israeli professor Neve Gordon. The latter wrote a favorable review of Norman Finkelstein’s Beyond Chutzpah in Haaretz. The aggrieved Plaut then tore into Gordon calling him a “Jew for Hitler” and another jolly Kahanist epithet, a “Juden-Rat” (get it?). Plaut also claimed Yaser Arafat was “Gordon’s guru” because the latter joined the Palestinian leader during a particularly nasty period of the Israeli siege against his compound.
To his credit, Gordon fought back and sued Plaut for libel and won. The judge awarded $18,000 to Gordon for his trouble. Plaut, who’d done his partner in hate (this is, Dershowitz) such a good turn in attacking Gordon, turned his back to Dershowitz for some “I’ll scratch your back if you’ll scratch mine.” The latter penned this typical poison pen letter (linked above) in the Jerusalem Post about Gordon’s court victory. It’s full of overblown rhetoric, innuendo, untruths and overstatements.
But hey, Al Dershowitz isn’t going to be stopped by a little thing called truth or fairness. Why be fair when you have a chance to knock a man over the head with a rhetorical hammer? I especially love this little number:
…If Finkelstein and Gordon aren’t themselves explicitly neo-Nazi, they’re at least very highly regarded by those who are – and for good reason
You notice that Al tiptoes up to that statement “If Finkelstein and Gordon aren’t themselves explicitly neo-Nazi…” before retreating a bit (but only a bit) by saying that they might as well be neo-Nazis since they’re allegedly beloved by them. This is of course ludicrous rhetorical argument. If I make an argument in good faith and someone I heartily disapprove of twists my argument into something I didn’t intend, am I responsible for such an abuse? To put it even more starkly: am I a neo-Nazi or as good as one if a neo-Nazi exploits my words for his own shady use? The answer is most emphatically No. To argue otherwise is intellectually bankrupt and disingenuous. One other rabid right-wing pro-Israel nut argues in precisely the same manner, David Horowitz and his slug/slimefest, Frontpagemagazine. I can remember the latter’s feeble attempt to call Brit Tzedek Jew-hating because a board member had been quoted at an Islamic website.
We should further note that one slimy hand washes another: Plaut has publicly taken up the cudgels against Norman Finkelstein in his current efforts to gain tenure at DePaul University with this beaut, The Second City’s Twin Academic Neonazis. Notice that while Dersh was too cute by half in his “neo-Nazi” claim, Plaut dispenses with any ambiguity and charges them outright with the “crime.” The chief campaigner against Finkelstein is none other than–you guessed it–Big Al. These hateful, defaming louts are one big happy tag-team wrestling family.
I guess I should consider myself in august company to have a defamatory website created by Steven Plaut to mock me: Little Dickie’s Diaper Droppings. I have a question for Professor Dershowitz though–does he really want to get into bed with lunatics like Plaut who use pornography (among other techniques) to defame their victims? Al should just be glad that Trivers didn’t write about him the porno poetry Plaut has fraudulently atttributed to me:
I’m a little jerkoff
That [sic] I shout
A know-nothing twit and
a terrorist no doubt
When I get “religious”
then I just
stroke my penis to see what comes out.
As to who’s stroking whom, I’d say there’s a lot more of it going on between Dersh and Plaut.
UPDATE: Since originally writing this post, I have learned that an anonymous individual claims responsibility for the fake blog and says neither Steven Plaut nor Rachel Neuwirth has participated. So while I have no idea whether this person is being truthful, it is possible that Plaut is either not involved in the blog, is partially involved, or that the blog claimant is lying and Plaut is fully responsible. I don’t yet know for sure which is the case.
The fake blog was created in the immediate aftermath of a series of posts I wrote criticizing Rachel Neuwirth,which leads me to believe that she has had some direct or indirect involvement in the creation of this website. Again, I cannot yet determine the full extent of that involvement though it appears likely to me there is at least some, if not a good deal.
I don’t understand why you think the judgment against Plaut was a good thing. Do you, as an American and a Jew think stifling free speech is a good thing? Calling people names is not a crime. Also, you can not extrapolate calling someone a name into that being a call for violence to be done to that person. That was the excuse that Stalin used for shooting or exiling to Siberia his critics…he claimed anyone who criticized him wanted him dead. Fortunately, among Jews political violence is quite rare (although not non-existent) and so we should be extra lenient before silencing anyone.
BTW-regarding Gordon’s case against Plaut, there was a similar case in Israel where someone accused a biology researcher who did experiments on animals either a “Nazi” or that he was carrying out a “Shoah” against animals. He sued the one who called him that, and the case was thrown out. Thus, we see a double-standard regarding Plaut. He was convicted for political reasons. I think that on appeal, the conviction against him will be thrown out as well. People like Gordon, Michael Lerner and others are very free with making lawsuits against those who are critical of them, and I would think that people who call themselves “progressives” should be the FIRST to defend free speech, like the ACLU did in the 1970’s with the infamous Skokie March of Neo-Nazis, as abhorrent as their philosophy may be. The ACLU held that princples must be adhered to at all costs.
You & Dershowitz both make the same mistake of confusing U.S. free speech protections with Israeli law. You’ll recall that Israel has no constitution unfortunately. If it did & free speech were protected then you would be right in yr claim. But as it doesn’t you are not. I’m not an expert in Israeli law as you appear to believe to be. So I can’t tell you what laws apply to this case. But to claim that Plaut has the same free speech rights that I have here in the U.S. betrays willful ignorance of yr own legal system (as I assume you are either Israeli or Anglo-Israeli).
As to whether or not the appeal overturns the lower court ruling, we shall see. I’m not prepared to substitute yr legal expertise for that of the appeals court so I won’t make any silly predictions as you have. But I certainly hope Plaut receives the punishment he so richly deserves.
Is your judgment about what constitutes acceptable behavior or speech merely that they not kill others & everything else is fair game??? BTW, there has been intra-Jewish political violence throughout our history from the Biblical period up to the present day.
I’m sorry but people who support Kahanists at this site don’t get a free ride when they make such claims. You’ll have to provide evidence of this incident before I’ll even consider it as something worth dealing with.
Why are you defending Neve Gordon and Norman Finkelstein? They are not critics of the occupation, they are critics of the existence of Israel. How can you reconcile that with your support of Israel? Also, I would rather be in Yigal Arens position of being disinvited from a conference than in Steve Plaut’s position, where he may have to cough up 18 grand
Can you present any evidence that either deny Israel’s right to exist?
It’s easy for you to say that you’d be prepared to be banned fr. an Israeli academic conference if you were in Yigal’s shoes. This is his career. He is a distinguished researcher in his field. For him to be blackballed in his native country is injurious to his reputation & career. That’s a big deal though perhaps not to you.
If Plaut wanted to avoid getting penalized he shouldn’t act like such a shit. If you want to be a shit you’ll have to pay the price.
I am still unclear what you mean that “Plaut has to pay the price”. So he called Gordon names. How exactly is calling someone names a crime? And why do you say “I support
Kahanists?” I don’t even know who Plaut is. I am discussing freedom of speech. Either it applies to everyone or it applies to no one.
A judge in Israel has determined that Plaut broke Israeli law and has to pay Gordon money. That’s what I meant by Plaut has to pay a price for his behavior. The judge determined that the invective used by Plaut was false and defamatory and that Plaut made these false charges publicly & thereby damaged Gordon’s reputation. If you’re Israeli & don’t acknowledge a crime was committed when an Israeli judge does then perhaps you don’t believe in yr own legal system.
And if you “don’t know who Plaut is” why are you supporting him? I usually like to know something about someone before I defend them in a public forum.
If you want to talk about freedom of speech you’re going to have to talk about it in an Israeli context. Is there even such a concept in Israeli law? If so, you ought to study what the parameters are. The judge clearly weighed them herself & found Plaut’s defense lacking.
And if you wish to import U.S. constitutional law to Israel you’ll have to start lobbying for that. I’d welcome it myself. But given the views you express here, I wonder whether you’d welcome guaranteeing freedom of speech, assembly, press, & guaranteeing religious rights to the Israeli Arab minority. Not to mention guaranteeing them equality & political rights much like our constitution guarantees U.S. minorities.
Mr Stern, I’m pretty sure it’s the criminal occupation of Palestine that is tarring Israeli society, not the boycott.
Yes, that Stern comment struck me too. Pls. tell me what is the diff. between being boycotted for one’s political views and being boycotted because your nation oppresses another people? There are a lot more similarities than differences to my mind. And is it merely an ‘error in judgment’ to blackball Arens? Or is it something more injurious and sinister? I think the latter.
Finkelstein explicitly supports Hexbollah-see quote from his website. If one supports Hexbollah, then one must support the elimination of Israel, “I did make a point of publicly honoring the heroic resistance of Hezbollah to foreign occupation .Their historic contributions are undeniable.” He appeared on the official Hezbollah television network al-Manar, because, he said, “If I’m willing to appear on CNN – the main propaganda organ for America’s terrorist wars–why shouldn’t I appear on al-Manar?”
No, you don’t get off so easily. He supports Hezbollah’s resistance to Israel’s occupation of Lebanese & Syrian territory. That does not at all mean he supports wiping Israel off the face of the map. You’ll have to do better.
I have never said Finkelstein is my favorite personality or even that I agree w. everything or even much of what he says. In many ways, he reminds me of Dershowitz, his evil twin. But I’ll be damned if I’ll allow you to make him into an exterminationist.
I am not “defending Plaut”, I am defending freedom of speech. You certainly have heard the famous comment attributed to Voltaire “I may disagree with what you are saying, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”. Israel is famous for verbal violence. Prof. Moshe Zimmerman said “the Jewish children of Hevron remind my of the Hitler Youth”. Sculpter Yigal Tumarkin said “when I see the Haredim and their children I can understand the Nazis”. In both cases, attemtps were made to have the prosecuted for “racist incitement” which is officially against the law, just like you claim what Plaut said is “against the law”. In both cases the state prosecutor said he would not prosecute because of “freedom of speech”. What I see here is a selective application of law on political lines.
I am not sure how libel is defined. I know in the US it is very difficult to get on conviction on those grounds. I think if Plaut had said “Gordon, you are a wife beater”, and the Gordon could show that he wasn’t, then Plaut would ,as you say “have to pay the price”. He did say that Gordon, by serving as a self-professed “human shield” for Arafat while Arafat was conducting his suicide bomber war in his Mukata, was serving the enemies of the Jewish people. That is his opinion. If Zimmerman and Tumarkin’s remarks are “freedom of speech”, then so are Plauts (regardless of who he is or what he thinks, which I don’t know).
You condoned his speech by saying it was “merely” calling people names. And let me ask you a question, if you were a survivor with a number tatooed on yr skin would you continue to rationalize Plaut’s speech calling you a “neo-Nazi” and “Judenrat??” And I would point out to you that Professor Gordon, who Plaut defamed is an IDF veteran severely wounded (& now largely disabled) in a battle fighting in defense of Israel. As far as I know, Steven Plaut hasn’t fired a weapon once in defense of Israel. What right does that little pipsqueak have to slime Neve Gordon??
There is one very serious diff. bet. Neve Gordon and the settler children who spit in the face of Palestinian old men & women 10 times their age. Gordon has never in his life done a single thing that could justify calling him a Nazi. While it is indeed arguable that settler children are indeed deeply hateful & racist. How far removed do you think Kahanism or extreme settler ideology is from Nazi racism?
There appears to be another major diff. bet. these cases & the Gordon-Plaut case. Hate speech is a criminal, and not a civil offense. The bar for prosection for a criminal case is much higher than for a civil case (which Gordon’s is).
You’ve had your last word on the subject. Trust me, there’s little more than can be said that is new. And you’ve repeated yr arguments multiple times. So let it go. If you don’t, I won’t publish any future comments on this.
I have never heard of Plaut or Gordon so I will not express an opinion on the case, but i’d like to comment on freedom of speech in Israel. It’s true that israel doesn’t have a constitution but Israel has laws and has laws based on judicial precedent. I belive that Plaut’s freedom of speech in Israel is not much different than in the US. From wikipedia in Hebrew – In a decision from 1953 Judge Agranat affirmed freedom of speech based on Israel’s declaration of independance and this freedom has been reafirmed in other cases brought before the court. It is true that there are restrictions to free speech as there are in the United States. For example, there was a case in the US where a man was put in jail for calling on Americans not to be drafted at the time of WWI.
Amir: My understanding is that Plaut was found guilty of libel &/or defamation. So I don’t know how those Israeli laws intersect w. free speech provisions. But clearly in this case the judge felt that libel trumped free speech. It is possible that such a case might be harder to win here in the States. It’s also possible that Plaut might’ve had a decent defense under Israeli law & simply has a bad lawyer.
However, as a human being Plaut is a load of swill. Can you imagine telling an Israeli professor disabled from a war wound suffered during the battle of Rosh Hanikra that he is a Nazi & Judenrat? All this because the victim wrote a favorable review of a Norman Finkelstein book in Haaretz?
I just read the 42 page decision of the case (http://www.law.co.il/computer-law/nivgordon.pdf) – in Hebrew of course. “this is a classic case of a conflict between one person’s freedom of speech to another right to their reputation – two essential rights” Plaut labelled Gordon a Jew for Hitler (though Plaut claimed he was referring to Finklestein) after the favorable review, and Judenratt after he acted as a human shield for Arafat when he was holed up in the Mukata. The judge concluded that a reasonable reader would conclude that Gordon was a Jew for Hitler and a Judenrat while it has not been proven that he is, therefore Plaut slandered Gordon. Plaut’s defence was lame (at least the way the judge presented it in her dicision). “It wasn’t me, I wasn’t referring to him etc.” I’m not a lawyer, but it seems to me his defence should have that every reasonable reader would understand these statements were hyperbole. Just like Larry Flint didn’t really mean to say tha
that falwell had sex with his mother. (sorry about the cut post, I have keyboard problems.)
In 2002 Gordon wrote an open letter to an senior officer concerning an action taken in the refugee camp balata which was printed in an Israeli paper. He ends the letter with the question “how does it feel to be war criminal?” Needless to say this officer is not a convicted war criminal. It shows the hypocricy in Gordon’s attitude to free speech.
Correction. Not -“how does it feel to be war criminal?” but “how did you become a war criminal?”
The UN ruled that when Barak unilaterally pulled Israeli forces out of southern Lebanon that the withdrawal had been complete to the recognized international border. Then please explain how Finkelstein can support “Hizbullah’s fight against Israeli occupation of Lebanese territory”, as you put it? You also mention “Syrian territory”, but Hizbullah does not
operate on Syrian territory, nor does it represent Syria, so how can Finkelstein support Hizbullah aggression against Israel?
Someone quite involved with this case also told me that Plaut’s defense was extremely poor.
Compare the 2 cases of which you speak: in one case Gordon wrote a review of a book & was called a Judenrat for his troubles. In the case you mention, an Israeli officer committed a human rights violation possibly involving death (you don’t provide the particulars so I can’t say precisely what happened) which Gordon judged worthy of being considered a war crime. Admittedly, no court has yet found the officer guilty of such a crime. But is it your contention that such a charge and conviction are so beyond the realm of possibility that no reasonable person or court could ever draw such a conclusion? In the Plaut case, no reasonable person could ever construe Gordon as a Judenrat or Jew for Nazis. Only a lunatic like Plaut could believe such a thing.
You are forgetting Shebaa Farms, which even Israel concedes it has no claim to. The territory is either Lebanese or Syrian (depending who you speak to) & the conflict can only be fully resolved when this territory is returned.
Israel has NOT conceded Shabaa Farms, the newspaper Ha’aretz has. In any event is kidnapping, murder and rocket attacks the best way to resolve the matter?
You are misinformed & yr gratuitous attack on Haaretz is silly. Israel has conceded that the territory will eventually be returned to either Lebanon or Syria. It is waiting for a decision bet. the 2 as to who to return it to. Pls. provide any credible source that supports yr view that Israel has not conceded Shebaa Farms.
Don’t get on yr high horse. Do a little reading on this site & you will discover my views of Hezbollah’s tactics. Just because Finkelstein is enamored of Hezbollah doesn’t mean I am. Pls. don’t make the mistake that most right-wingers make here of lumping my views in w. whoever you happen to dislike most among progressive Jews.
Comment deleted.
[ed., The purpose of my blog is not to promote groups like the Free Muslim Coalition. My blog is not a free billboard for yr political views. I urge you to promote this group on sites more conducive to yr views. If you’d used a valid e mail address in publishing this comment I could’ve communicated personally my reasons for deleting this comment to you.]
Please give me a source that says Israel no longer claims the Shaaba farms.
Ha’aretz stated that Israel should give it up, but the government has
refused to. If it belonged to Lebanon, then the UN would have stated that. They didn’t, which means it is part of the Golan Heights.
Hello Spyros,
You make a number of very valid observations.
All of the world’s major religions, at one time or another, have each been suborned by those seeking to promote their own and very often violent agenda. God’s allegiance has all too frequently been claimed by clergy, politicians and combatants alike in the quest for some final ‘victory.’ Quite why God should favour one section of His children over another is a question rarely asked. In God’s own interaction with Man, the relationship has always been based more on the individual rather than the group.
Attempts to polarise Christianity, Islam and Judaism have hardly helped matters in the Middle East. Whether such polarisation can be reversed is a moot point. That it exists is certainly evident. To counteract the situation, a depolarisation might be the only remedy, heralding a less sanguine, more human dimension in the outcome of events there.
I’m reminded of that old sci-fi film ‘The day the Earth stood still.’ This is the one where, at the very end, the choice for mankind comes down to an abandonment of all major conflict on Earth or face the wrath of ‘Gort,’ an eight foot tall robot capable of dealing out death and destruction on a planetary scale. Though it’s well over fifty years since his first appearance, ‘Gort’ still sends a chill into my bones whenever the film is shown, even on the small screen. It could be that we need something just as cold and impersonal – and as devastating – to control what’s going on in so many theatres of war. Since it’s most unlikely some passing alien will shortly oblige us with anything like the original, we may have to create our very own version of ‘Gort.’
In this context, all of us get to become ‘Gort, ‘ who might then be considered the first truly global policeman. I think there is a pressing need for such a creature.
http://yorketowers.blogspot.com
JY
Israel never “claimed” Shebaa Farms. It acknowledges it conquered this territory from Syria:
& recognizes that it will be transferred back to Syria when a peace agreement is finalized:
Syria however has at times acknowledged that the territory should not be considered Syrian, but rather Lebanese. The question isn’t whether the territory is Israeli or not, but whether, when there is peace Israel will return it to one country or the other.