Difference between revisions of "Alan Dershowitz"

From Powerbase
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎New Response to Palestinian Terrorism)
Line 36: Line 36:
 
==New Response to Palestinian Terrorism==
 
==New Response to Palestinian Terrorism==
  
−
On March 11, 2002 Dershowitz published an article in [[The Jerusalem Post]] entitled "New Response to Palestinian Terrorism."<ref>Alan M. Dershowitz, [http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/jpost/access/110385358.html?dids=110385358:110385358&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Mar+11%2C+2002&author=ALAN+M.+DERSHOWITZ&pub=Jerusalem+Post&edition=&startpage=06&desc=New+response+to+Palestinian+terrorism "New Response to Palestinian Terrorism."], ''The Jerusalem Post'', Accessed 17-August-2009</ref> In it, he says that "to succeed [in deterrence and retaliation], Israel must turn the Palestinian leadership and people against the use of terrorism and the terrorists themselves." He proposed that "Israel should announce an immediate unilateral cessation in retaliation," which would be a short moratorium "to give the Palestinian leadership an opportunity to respond to the new policy." Further: <blockquote>Following the end of the moratorium, Israel would institute the following new policy if Palestinian terrorism were to resume. It will announce precisely what it will do in response to the next act of terrorism. For example, it could announce the first act of terrorism following the moratorium will result in the destruction of a small village which has been used as a base for terrorist operations. The residents would be given 24 hours to leave, and then troops will come in and bulldoze all of the buildings.<p>The response will be automatic. The order will have been given in advance of the terrorist attacks and there will be no discretion. The point is to make the automatic destruction of the village the fault of the Palestinian terrorists who had advance warnings of the specific consequences of their action.</blockquote>He goes on to add that "[f]urther acts of terrorism would trigger further destruction of specifically named locations. The 'waiting list' targets would be made public and circulated throughout the Palestinian-controlled areas."
+
In 2002 Dershowitz published an article in [[The Jerusalem Post]] entitled "New Response to Palestinian Terrorism."<ref>Alan M. Dershowitz, [http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/jpost/access/110385358.html?dids=110385358:110385358&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Mar+11%2C+2002&author=ALAN+M.+DERSHOWITZ&pub=Jerusalem+Post&edition=&startpage=06&desc=New+response+to+Palestinian+terrorism "New Response to Palestinian Terrorism."], ''The Jerusalem Post'',11-March-2002, Accessed 17-August-2009</ref> In it, he says that "to succeed [in deterrence and retaliation], Israel must turn the Palestinian leadership and people against the use of terrorism and the terrorists themselves." He proposed that "Israel should announce an immediate unilateral cessation in retaliation," which would be a short moratorium "to give the Palestinian leadership an opportunity to respond to the new policy." Further: <blockquote>Following the end of the moratorium, Israel would institute the following new policy if Palestinian terrorism were to resume. It will announce precisely what it will do in response to the next act of terrorism. For example, it could announce the first act of terrorism following the moratorium will result in the destruction of a small village which has been used as a base for terrorist operations. The residents would be given 24 hours to leave, and then troops will come in and bulldoze all of the buildings.<p>The response will be automatic. The order will have been given in advance of the terrorist attacks and there will be no discretion. The point is to make the automatic destruction of the village the fault of the Palestinian terrorists who had advance warnings of the specific consequences of their action.</blockquote>He goes on to add that "[f]urther acts of terrorism would trigger further destruction of specifically named locations. The 'waiting list' targets would be made public and circulated throughout the Palestinian-controlled areas."
  
 
Dershowitz's proposal stimulated much criticism at Harvard University and beyond.<ref>David Villarreal, [http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=180648 "Dershowitz Editorial Draws Fire,"] ''[[The Harvard Crimson]]'' [[March 18]], [[2002]], accessed [[January 25]], [[2007]].</ref> [[James Bamford]], a columnist with ''[[The Washington Post]]'', argued that "[[House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict|demolishing the homes]] of innocent relatives of those involved in [[suicide bombing]]," which Dershowitz "analyzed" in that book, is "a practice outlawed under international law."<ref name=Bamford/><ref name=LewinGreen>Cf. Nathan Lewin, [http://www.shma.com/may02/nathan.htm "Detering (sic) Suicide Killers" (Reply to Arthur Green)], ''Sh'ma'' May 2002, accessed [[January 25]], [[2007]]; Arthur Green, [http://www.shma.com/may02/arthur.htm "A Stronger Moral Force,"] ''Sh'ma'' May 2002, accessed [[January 25]], [[2007]]. In the context of this debate between himself and Arthur Green, Nathan Lewin, a Washington, D.C. lawyer, writes: "The extremely modest proposals that some people are now willing to accept – national identity cards and roving eavesdrops (and even the "automatic" destruction of Palestinian villages that Alan Dershowitz proposed in The Jerusalem Post of March 11, 2002) – are the proverbial use of aspirin to treat brain cancer. They may occasionally disrupt terrorist plans but will have no major impact on the terrorist threat." In this reply to Green, Lewin proposes executions of family members of terrorists as "individual deterrence" to terrorism, which also, in the views of Bamford and other critics of Dershowitz's "modest proposal" already cited, violates "international law."  ["Note: The debate between Nathan Lewin and Arthur Green on how to deter suicide killers, which appears below, are two parts of a whole. Please do not circulate one article without the other."  (The journal title ''Sh'ma'' is explicated in ''[[Shema Yisrael]]''.)]</ref> [[Norman Finkelstein]], in his book ''[[Beyond Chutzpah]]'', went even further, commenting that "it is hard to make out any difference between the policy Dershowitz advocates and the Nazi destruction of [[Lidice]], for which he expresses abhorrence-except that Jews, not Germans, would be implementing it."<ref>[[Norman Finkelstein]], ''Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History '' (University of California Press, 2005) 176.</ref>
 
Dershowitz's proposal stimulated much criticism at Harvard University and beyond.<ref>David Villarreal, [http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=180648 "Dershowitz Editorial Draws Fire,"] ''[[The Harvard Crimson]]'' [[March 18]], [[2002]], accessed [[January 25]], [[2007]].</ref> [[James Bamford]], a columnist with ''[[The Washington Post]]'', argued that "[[House demolition in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict|demolishing the homes]] of innocent relatives of those involved in [[suicide bombing]]," which Dershowitz "analyzed" in that book, is "a practice outlawed under international law."<ref name=Bamford/><ref name=LewinGreen>Cf. Nathan Lewin, [http://www.shma.com/may02/nathan.htm "Detering (sic) Suicide Killers" (Reply to Arthur Green)], ''Sh'ma'' May 2002, accessed [[January 25]], [[2007]]; Arthur Green, [http://www.shma.com/may02/arthur.htm "A Stronger Moral Force,"] ''Sh'ma'' May 2002, accessed [[January 25]], [[2007]]. In the context of this debate between himself and Arthur Green, Nathan Lewin, a Washington, D.C. lawyer, writes: "The extremely modest proposals that some people are now willing to accept – national identity cards and roving eavesdrops (and even the "automatic" destruction of Palestinian villages that Alan Dershowitz proposed in The Jerusalem Post of March 11, 2002) – are the proverbial use of aspirin to treat brain cancer. They may occasionally disrupt terrorist plans but will have no major impact on the terrorist threat." In this reply to Green, Lewin proposes executions of family members of terrorists as "individual deterrence" to terrorism, which also, in the views of Bamford and other critics of Dershowitz's "modest proposal" already cited, violates "international law."  ["Note: The debate between Nathan Lewin and Arthur Green on how to deter suicide killers, which appears below, are two parts of a whole. Please do not circulate one article without the other."  (The journal title ''Sh'ma'' is explicated in ''[[Shema Yisrael]]''.)]</ref> [[Norman Finkelstein]], in his book ''[[Beyond Chutzpah]]'', went even further, commenting that "it is hard to make out any difference between the policy Dershowitz advocates and the Nazi destruction of [[Lidice]], for which he expresses abhorrence-except that Jews, not Germans, would be implementing it."<ref>[[Norman Finkelstein]], ''Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History '' (University of California Press, 2005) 176.</ref>
−
 
  
 
==Publications==
 
==Publications==

Revision as of 20:31, 16 August 2009

Alan Dershowitz

Alan Morton Dershowitz (born 1 September 1938) is an Jewish-American lawyer and political commentator. He is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School.[1] Dershowitz is also an outspoken advocate of Israel and has been involved in a number of high profile disputes with critics of Israeli policy. Dershowitz's academic output has faced strong criticism from opponents on both the right and left wing of the political spectrum[2][3].

Education and Career

Dershowitz studied a law degree at Yale University and graduated in 1962. He was an assistant professor at Harvard Law School from 1964 to 1967. He was awarded an MA in 1967 and has been a professor at Harvard Law School since. [4]

Norman Finkelstein and The Case for Israel

Norman Finkelstein alleged in his book Beyond Chutzpah that of the 52 quotations and endnotes in the first two chapters of Dershowitz's book The Case for Israel, 22 are almost exact replicas of another book. The other book In Time Immemorial by Joan Peters was also criticised by Finkelstein. Finkelstein argued that instead of quoting Peters as the source, Dershowitz cites the original sources from Peters' footnotes[5].

Finkelstein also alleges that Dershowitz's defence of Israel's human rights record during the second intifada is based on flawed or fraudulent data, which Finkelstein challenges with reports from organisations such as Amnesty International, the US-based Human Rights Watch and the Israeli human rights organisation, B'Tselem. Says Finkelstein, "I juxtapose what he says is going on there and what is actually going on there."[6].

Finkelstein describes Dershowitz book as "among the most spectacular academic frauds ever published on the Israel-Palestine conflict." Finkelstein picks out many similarities between the books by Peters and Dershowitz, for example he says:

On a note both humorous and pathetic, Peters, in From Time Immemorial and claiming to be inspired by George Orwell, coins the term "turnspeak" to signal the inversion of reality (pp. 173, 402). Dershowitz, apparently confounded by his massive borrowings from Peters, credits the term "turnspeak" to Orwell, accusing critics of Israel of "deliberately using George Orwell’s ‘turnspeak’" (p. 57) and "Orwellian turnspeak" (p. 153). Is this scandalous scholarship, or is it plagiarism, or is it both?[7]

Dershowitz responded by arguing that:

Mr Finkelstein has accused me of not having written "The Case For Israel" but when I sent his publisher my handwritten draft, they made him remove that claim. He has accused virtually every pro-Israel writer, including me, of "plagiarism". I asked Harvard to conduct an investigation of this absurd charge. Harvard rejected it, yet he persists.[8]

The Case for Torture

Professor Dershowitz argues that laws safeguarding human rights were created in the aftermath of the first and second World Wars. He argues that the context for those laws is no longer relevant in the age of the suicide bomber. He lays out three key reasons for this:

"First, there is often no known entity to attack, since the suicide terrorists have died and the leaders who sent them have gone into hiding among civilians and may well be preparing renewed terrorist attacks".
"Second, there is no good reason for a democracy to have to absorb a first blow against its civilian population, especially if that blow can be catastrophic".

"Third, there is little possibility that potentially catastrophic first blows can be deterred by the threat of retaliation against a phantom enemy who welcomes martyrdom"[9].

Dershowitz argues for the legalisation of torture of terror suspects in an effort to protect democracy. He sums this position up by saying:

"While it may well be necessary for democracies to fight terrorists with one hand tied behind their backs, it is neither necessary nor desirable for a democracy to fight with two hands tied behind its back, especially when the ropes that bind the second hand are anachronistic laws that can be changed without compromising legitimate human rights. The laws must be changed to permit democracies to fight fairly and effectively against those who threaten its citizens. To paraphrase Robert Jackson, who served as the United States chief prosecutor at Nuremberg - the law must not be "a suicide pact""[10].

New Response to Palestinian Terrorism

In 2002 Dershowitz published an article in The Jerusalem Post entitled "New Response to Palestinian Terrorism."[11] In it, he says that "to succeed [in deterrence and retaliation], Israel must turn the Palestinian leadership and people against the use of terrorism and the terrorists themselves." He proposed that "Israel should announce an immediate unilateral cessation in retaliation," which would be a short moratorium "to give the Palestinian leadership an opportunity to respond to the new policy." Further:

Following the end of the moratorium, Israel would institute the following new policy if Palestinian terrorism were to resume. It will announce precisely what it will do in response to the next act of terrorism. For example, it could announce the first act of terrorism following the moratorium will result in the destruction of a small village which has been used as a base for terrorist operations. The residents would be given 24 hours to leave, and then troops will come in and bulldoze all of the buildings.

The response will be automatic. The order will have been given in advance of the terrorist attacks and there will be no discretion. The point is to make the automatic destruction of the village the fault of the Palestinian terrorists who had advance warnings of the specific consequences of their action.

He goes on to add that "[f]urther acts of terrorism would trigger further destruction of specifically named locations. The 'waiting list' targets would be made public and circulated throughout the Palestinian-controlled areas."

Dershowitz's proposal stimulated much criticism at Harvard University and beyond.[12] James Bamford, a columnist with The Washington Post, argued that "demolishing the homes of innocent relatives of those involved in suicide bombing," which Dershowitz "analyzed" in that book, is "a practice outlawed under international law."[13][14] Norman Finkelstein, in his book Beyond Chutzpah, went even further, commenting that "it is hard to make out any difference between the policy Dershowitz advocates and the Nazi destruction of Lidice, for which he expresses abhorrence-except that Jews, not Germans, would be implementing it."[15]

Publications

  • 2005: The Case for Peace : How the Arab-Israeli Conflict Can be Resolved
  • 2004: Rights From Wrongs: A Secular Theory of the Origins of Rights
  • 2004: America on Trial: Inside the Legal Battles That Transformed Our Nation--From the Salem Witches to the Guantanamo Detainees
  • 2003: America Declares Independence
  • 2003: The Case for Israel
  • 2002: Shouting Fire: Civil Liberties in a Turbulent Age
  • 2002: Why Terrorism Works: Understanding the threat, responding to the challenge
  • 2001: Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000
  • 2001: Letters to a Young Lawyer
  • 2000: The Genesis of Justice: ten stories of biblical injustice that led to the Ten Commandments and modern law
  • 1999: Just Revenge (fiction)
  • 1998: Sexual McCarthyism: Clinton, Starr, and the emerging constitutional crisis
  • 1997: The Vanishing American Jew: in search of Jewish identity for the next century
  • 1996: Reasonable Doubts: The Criminal Justice System and the O.J. Simpson Case
  • 1994: The Abuse Excuse: and other cop-outs, sob stories, and evasions of responsibility
  • 1994: The Advocate's Devil (fiction)
  • 1992: Contrary to Popular Opinion
  • 1991: Chutzpah
  • 1988: Taking Liberties: a decade of hard cases, bad laws, and bum raps
  • 1985: Reversal of Fortune: Inside the von Balow Case
  • 1982: The Best Defense
  • 1973: In Defense of Shahak, Boston Globe

Related Links

Notes

  1. ↑ Alan M. Dershowitz, Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Harvard Law School, Accessed 14-August-2009
  2. ↑ Alexander Cockburn, Alan Dershowitz, Plagiarist, The Nation, 13-October-2009, Accessed 14-August-2009
  3. ↑ Hadley Arkes,The Rights and Wrongs of Alan Dershowitz, The Claremont Institute, Accessed 14-August-2009
  4. ↑ 'Alan Morton Dershowitz', The Complete Marquis Who's Who (R) Biographies, 10 February 2009, accessed via Lexis Nexis on 29 May 2009
  5. ↑ Gary Younge, J'accuse, The Guardian, 10-August-2005, Accessed 14-August-2009
  6. ↑ Gary Younge, J'accuse, The Guardian, 10-August-2005, Accessed 14-August-2009
  7. ↑ Norman G. Finkelstein, Alan Dershowitz Exposed: What if a Harvard Student Did This?, Norman G. Finkelstein, Accessed 14-August-2009
  8. ↑ Alan Dershowitz, Norman Finkelstein: the case against, The Guardian, 14-June-2007, Accessed 14-August-2009
  9. ↑ Alan Dershowitz, Alan Dershowitz: Should we fight terror with torture?, The Independent, 03-July-2006, Accessed 17-August-2009
  10. ↑ Alan Dershowitz, Alan Dershowitz: Should we fight terror with torture?, The Independent, 03-July-2006, Accessed 17-August-2009
  11. ↑ Alan M. Dershowitz, "New Response to Palestinian Terrorism.", The Jerusalem Post,11-March-2002, Accessed 17-August-2009
  12. ↑ David Villarreal, "Dershowitz Editorial Draws Fire," The Harvard Crimson March 18, 2002, accessed January 25, 2007.
  13. ↑ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Bamford
  14. ↑ Cf. Nathan Lewin, "Detering (sic) Suicide Killers" (Reply to Arthur Green), Sh'ma May 2002, accessed January 25, 2007; Arthur Green, "A Stronger Moral Force," Sh'ma May 2002, accessed January 25, 2007. In the context of this debate between himself and Arthur Green, Nathan Lewin, a Washington, D.C. lawyer, writes: "The extremely modest proposals that some people are now willing to accept – national identity cards and roving eavesdrops (and even the "automatic" destruction of Palestinian villages that Alan Dershowitz proposed in The Jerusalem Post of March 11, 2002) – are the proverbial use of aspirin to treat brain cancer. They may occasionally disrupt terrorist plans but will have no major impact on the terrorist threat." In this reply to Green, Lewin proposes executions of family members of terrorists as "individual deterrence" to terrorism, which also, in the views of Bamford and other critics of Dershowitz's "modest proposal" already cited, violates "international law." ["Note: The debate between Nathan Lewin and Arthur Green on how to deter suicide killers, which appears below, are two parts of a whole. Please do not circulate one article without the other." (The journal title Sh'ma is explicated in Shema Yisrael.)]
  15. ↑ Norman Finkelstein, Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History (University of California Press, 2005) 176.
Retrieved from "https://powerbase.info/index.php?title=Alan_Dershowitz&oldid=93773"