Serious defense of Israel shone alongside clever and zany protest at the United Nations Conference Against Racism in Geneva, Switzerland earlier this week.
For representatives of countries like China, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Cuba to sit on a Council that obsessively attacks Israel instead of focusing on widespread, egregious human rights abuses around the world–including abuses these governments themselves perpetrate routinely–would be funny if it were not nauseating. Similarly, for delegates to sit and lap up the racist tirade of Mahmoud “the-Holocaust-is-a-Myth” Ahmadinejad at a conference that purports to fight racism is comedy worthy of Mel Brooks, except it is not fiction.
But because alongside the viciousness of it, the absurdity is undeniable, it was somehow fitting that protestors included both Harvard law prof Alan Dershowitz, who made an eloquent defense of Israel, and a group of French Jewish students wearing rainbow wigs who shouted “racist!” and tossed a red nose at the would-be-Hitler-of-today to highlight what a farce the conference was.
Dersh pointed out that nations like Israel, which have internal mechanisms for investigating human rights abuses and are open societies where people can criticize their governments without fear are not in need of monitoring and lectures from countries like China, Egypt, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia, where people can’t speak out without fear and where human rights abuses are widespread and egregious.
The French Jewish students’ humorous and bold act took guts. The fact it could be funny reflects the reality that enough people of good will have said “Never again” to true, institutionalized racism and dehumanization, and to tyrants who seek world domination. Heaven help us all if the enemies of freedom and democracy–who, not surprisingly, are Israel’s enemies–were ever to be in a position of greater power. These countries already abuse the powerless, and those within their borders who seek intellectual, sexual, or spiritual freedom. For those who suffer their fascism, and for those of us who are sincere defenders of human rights, there is nothing funny about that.
3 Comments
Dershowitz is a good example of a very liberal attorney who is a strong supporter of Israel. He’s a great debater and unlike most public figures these days, are willing to take on their adversaries even on issues I don’t agree with him on.
From Wikipedia:
2002 Harvard-MIT Divestment petition
In spring 2002, as reported later by the Harvard Crimson, a “petition, which calls for Harvard and MIT to divest from Israel and from American companies that sell arms to Israel, [and which] also calls for the U.S. government to stop supplying weapons until four specific conditions are met by the Israeli government,” gathered over 600 signatures, including 74 from the Harvard faculty and 56 from MIT faculty members.
Among the signatures was that of Harvard’s Winthrop House Master Paul D. Hanson, who “signed the petition as a professor of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations” and whom Dershowitz “publicly challenged…to a debate over the Israel divestment petition.” But “saying Hanson had turned down his offer, Dershowitz staged a solo debate in the Winthrop Junior Common Room [at Harvard].
I saw a debate once against with Alan Keys. Keyes didn’t have a prayer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SS0jccFYBg8&feature=related
Yep. They are all afraid of the great Dersh when it comes to debates. My personal favorite incident was after Jimmy Carter published his rant, “Israel: Peace Not Apartheid” and Dersh challenged him to a debate and Carter declined. The kicker was, Carter had claimed that the slanderous title of his book was intended to “provoke discussion and debate.”
Ha.
They are all afraid of the great Dersh when it comes to debates.
Yes. Almost all at least.
Here is a classic: Alan Dershowitz debating Noam Chomsky on Israel and Palestinian issues at Harvard.
In this clip, Dershowitz wins the coin toss and starts the debate with a 10 minute intro. He starts off discussing the history he and Chomsky share: turns out in the 1940s, Dershowitz was a camp counselor when Chomsky was a counselor at the same camp.
Then he goes on to discuss the many agreements the two of them have on Israel and Palestinian issues. Then, he lays out the significant differences between the two and why they differ. He characterizes many of the differences as “attitudinal.”
See:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zkmLTBe8p8
At this point, Dershowitz challenges Chomsky to agree on some fundamental principles to try to move the issue forward.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUl5cpluC2Q&feature=related
Pretty good though Chomsky seems a bit tired and not really up to the debate.
Post a Comment