Mr. Dershowitz said....there are numerous ways to interpret Mr. Pistorius’s demeanor. One possibility is that he is telling the truth and is filled with horror and remorse at a genuine, horrific mistake. Another is that he is lying but is tormented by guilt, regret and the burden of having to stick to a fake story.See anyone you recognise there?
He could also be lying but have come to believe his account to be true. “I’ve had people who have really persuaded themselves that they didn’t do it, because they’ve been rehearsing and rehearsing and now it’s become part of their psyche,” Mr. Dershowitz said.
Showing posts with label Alan Dershowitz. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Alan Dershowitz. Show all posts
April 20, 2014
Dershowitz and the truth: are they by no chance related?
Check this out in the New York Times. It's various lawyers, academic, practising and both, commenting on the Pistorius case in South Africa. They asked Alan Dershowitz for his take on the whole thing. Of course, Dersh defends criminals for a living and for a hobby:
June 30, 2013
Defending Norman Finkelstein
As I have taken issue quite strongly with Norman Finkelstein before, for example here, and here, and here, I feel I need to also take issue with a recently publish article by Steven Salaita, published on Electronic Intifada, that equates Norman Finkelstein with Alan Dershowitz. The article, a textbook example of smear by association, is unbecoming and EI editors should have done the author the favor of refusing to publish it.
I disagree with both Finkelstein's analysis of the political moment and his notions about social movements strategies. On the first matter I think the "opportunity" allegedly presented by the wide international consensus over partitioning Palestine is a mirage. There is an international consensus that one must talk about partitioning Palestine and nothing else. There is no consensus about actual partition, and this isn't likely to change. Norman Finkelstein believes one can use moral persuasion to force the powers that be to act according to what they preach. I believe this is fantasy. Finkelstein believes that it is possible to build a successful mass social movement based on mainstream, generally depoliticized, middle-class Americans and Europeans driven by moral outrage that would compel governments to obey their own laws and follow they own principles. To achieve that, the most important thing activists should do is avoid saying anything that might offend or turn off the average New York Times reader. I think that is a losing and unworkable plan and there is no historical example of such a strategy ever working (but plenty of examples of real social movements pressured to adopt such self-defeating strategies, something Martin Luther King bitterly complained about while sitting in the Birmingham jail). Wide and effective social movements only coalesce on their own aspirations, and ruling classes yield to them only when their material interests are threatened in a significant way and then only when they have exhausted their other options. That is why, first of all, the primary public whose opinion matters is not New York Time readers but Palestinians. That is why also the second most important public is, again, not mainstream opinion, but Americans and Europeans and, even more so, people in the South, who are in various ways and for various reasons relating to their own conditions already more politicized than the mainstream.
I would wish those disagreements should be discussed openly and intelligently, because they are important, and there is a lot more to be said and having these discussions and debate is educational and strengthens the work of building movements for justice. Unfortunately, it is impossible for people in the Palestine solidarity movement to have an intelligent debate with Finkelstein. He drumbeats his talking points, studiously refuses to notice responses to them and resorts to smears and insults when challenged, coupled with an offensive certainty that nobody, and especially those who spend all their day doing it, has anything to teach him about how to organize politically. Finkelstein now thinks he has been "blacklisted" by some "guru" because of his controversial opinions. Apart from this being yet another example of his self-indulgence, it is twice wrong. First, because there is no "guru" with the capacity to blacklist him, the movement being extensively and even perhaps excessively decentralized, and second because--and I say this as someone who occasionally participates in making (local) decisions about inviting speakers--it is not his opinions it seems to me that make him unwelcome but his insufferable and condescending demeanor.
That's a shame, and there is an understandable desire by some to respond in kind. That is how we get to articles such as the one that prompted this post. But we shouldn't, for three reasons. First, because, it should be elementary, Finkelstein's way of responding to critics to his political left is a form of bullying, and there is no excuse for that. We don't need that kind of behavior in our our movements, and we shouldn't legitimize it on the principle that "he started it." Second, the purpose of bullying is to foreclose discussion. Finkelstein does it because he does not want to engage with anyone to his left. But having wide and open discussion about strategy is a good thing on its own and a benefit to activists. There have been thoughtful replies to Finkelstein's arguments (for example, here and here) and these replies sharpen our understanding and improve the work of advocacy on and solidarity with the Palestinian struggle. Smearing Finkelstein by underhanded comparisons with Dershowitz is, beyond being unseemly, a way to avoid discussions that are necessary and useful.
But the most important reason why this is wrong is that it reflects a failure to understand Finkelstein's performance as a political act. As he himself says, "it's politics." Namely, the purpose of rhetoric is not to tell the truth but primarily to gain power by building majorities. Finkelstein's smears are reserved for people he perceives to be on his left, namely, in terms of the broad hegemonic order, more marginal than he is. Those activists he perceives (according to his own words), rightly or wrongly, as close enough to the mainstream, such as Anna Baltzer, get a much nicer treatment. Thus, Finkelstein's attacks on BDS are a variant of the tried and true strategy of centrist "progressive" forces to monopolize the space of "legitimate," "realistic," opposition (think the Democratic Party, Move-On, the British Labour party, etc.) by portraying everything to their left as starry-eyed idealists, detached pie-in-the-sky radicals, Guru-following cultists, frighten-the-children spoilers, and--the worse offense--unrealistic. There is however a grain of truth in every legend: there are certainly in any camp we find ourselves in those who are exactly like that. I'm sure you've met some. The beauty of this strategy for marginalizing BDS and foreclosing the building of real effective international challenges to Israeli apartheid is that it relies on empowering precisely those voices, for whom Finkelstein's "betrayal" just goes to show the dangers of building large movements and why one should segregate oneself in echo chambers of ideological purity. But whereas supporters of the status quo gains something from excluding more radical voices, the latter gain nothing from excluding themselves (those who make a living running tiny left sects have of course a different calculus, which might explain their enthusiasm for Finkelstein).
Every movement for justice that grows will constantly face attempts to tame it, to marginalize, to divert it, and to co-opt it. One solution is to find a strategy that is guaranteed to eschew growth. The other is to accept the challenge and the risk, and to build the education capacity and the resilience that would hopefully allows surviving and growing through these attacks. For that to happen, debates should we welcome and wrongheaded views that appeal to honest supporters and potential supporters should be heard and countered with reason and not by counter-bullying, and attacks from the center should not become opportunities for retreating into the righteousness of making every debate into a mudslinging or bullying contest.
I disagree with both Finkelstein's analysis of the political moment and his notions about social movements strategies. On the first matter I think the "opportunity" allegedly presented by the wide international consensus over partitioning Palestine is a mirage. There is an international consensus that one must talk about partitioning Palestine and nothing else. There is no consensus about actual partition, and this isn't likely to change. Norman Finkelstein believes one can use moral persuasion to force the powers that be to act according to what they preach. I believe this is fantasy. Finkelstein believes that it is possible to build a successful mass social movement based on mainstream, generally depoliticized, middle-class Americans and Europeans driven by moral outrage that would compel governments to obey their own laws and follow they own principles. To achieve that, the most important thing activists should do is avoid saying anything that might offend or turn off the average New York Times reader. I think that is a losing and unworkable plan and there is no historical example of such a strategy ever working (but plenty of examples of real social movements pressured to adopt such self-defeating strategies, something Martin Luther King bitterly complained about while sitting in the Birmingham jail). Wide and effective social movements only coalesce on their own aspirations, and ruling classes yield to them only when their material interests are threatened in a significant way and then only when they have exhausted their other options. That is why, first of all, the primary public whose opinion matters is not New York Time readers but Palestinians. That is why also the second most important public is, again, not mainstream opinion, but Americans and Europeans and, even more so, people in the South, who are in various ways and for various reasons relating to their own conditions already more politicized than the mainstream.
I would wish those disagreements should be discussed openly and intelligently, because they are important, and there is a lot more to be said and having these discussions and debate is educational and strengthens the work of building movements for justice. Unfortunately, it is impossible for people in the Palestine solidarity movement to have an intelligent debate with Finkelstein. He drumbeats his talking points, studiously refuses to notice responses to them and resorts to smears and insults when challenged, coupled with an offensive certainty that nobody, and especially those who spend all their day doing it, has anything to teach him about how to organize politically. Finkelstein now thinks he has been "blacklisted" by some "guru" because of his controversial opinions. Apart from this being yet another example of his self-indulgence, it is twice wrong. First, because there is no "guru" with the capacity to blacklist him, the movement being extensively and even perhaps excessively decentralized, and second because--and I say this as someone who occasionally participates in making (local) decisions about inviting speakers--it is not his opinions it seems to me that make him unwelcome but his insufferable and condescending demeanor.
That's a shame, and there is an understandable desire by some to respond in kind. That is how we get to articles such as the one that prompted this post. But we shouldn't, for three reasons. First, because, it should be elementary, Finkelstein's way of responding to critics to his political left is a form of bullying, and there is no excuse for that. We don't need that kind of behavior in our our movements, and we shouldn't legitimize it on the principle that "he started it." Second, the purpose of bullying is to foreclose discussion. Finkelstein does it because he does not want to engage with anyone to his left. But having wide and open discussion about strategy is a good thing on its own and a benefit to activists. There have been thoughtful replies to Finkelstein's arguments (for example, here and here) and these replies sharpen our understanding and improve the work of advocacy on and solidarity with the Palestinian struggle. Smearing Finkelstein by underhanded comparisons with Dershowitz is, beyond being unseemly, a way to avoid discussions that are necessary and useful.
But the most important reason why this is wrong is that it reflects a failure to understand Finkelstein's performance as a political act. As he himself says, "it's politics." Namely, the purpose of rhetoric is not to tell the truth but primarily to gain power by building majorities. Finkelstein's smears are reserved for people he perceives to be on his left, namely, in terms of the broad hegemonic order, more marginal than he is. Those activists he perceives (according to his own words), rightly or wrongly, as close enough to the mainstream, such as Anna Baltzer, get a much nicer treatment. Thus, Finkelstein's attacks on BDS are a variant of the tried and true strategy of centrist "progressive" forces to monopolize the space of "legitimate," "realistic," opposition (think the Democratic Party, Move-On, the British Labour party, etc.) by portraying everything to their left as starry-eyed idealists, detached pie-in-the-sky radicals, Guru-following cultists, frighten-the-children spoilers, and--the worse offense--unrealistic. There is however a grain of truth in every legend: there are certainly in any camp we find ourselves in those who are exactly like that. I'm sure you've met some. The beauty of this strategy for marginalizing BDS and foreclosing the building of real effective international challenges to Israeli apartheid is that it relies on empowering precisely those voices, for whom Finkelstein's "betrayal" just goes to show the dangers of building large movements and why one should segregate oneself in echo chambers of ideological purity. But whereas supporters of the status quo gains something from excluding more radical voices, the latter gain nothing from excluding themselves (those who make a living running tiny left sects have of course a different calculus, which might explain their enthusiasm for Finkelstein).
Every movement for justice that grows will constantly face attempts to tame it, to marginalize, to divert it, and to co-opt it. One solution is to find a strategy that is guaranteed to eschew growth. The other is to accept the challenge and the risk, and to build the education capacity and the resilience that would hopefully allows surviving and growing through these attacks. For that to happen, debates should we welcome and wrongheaded views that appeal to honest supporters and potential supporters should be heard and countered with reason and not by counter-bullying, and attacks from the center should not become opportunities for retreating into the righteousness of making every debate into a mudslinging or bullying contest.
February 25, 2013
Norman Finkelstein seeks reconciliation....with Dershowitz
I looked at our tracker a couple of hours ago and noticed that we had got lots of hits from Norman Finkelstein's site. It took me a little while to establish what this blog had to do with his headline:
Hmm, poor old Norm, I thought, getting it in the neck again from the Dershmeister. But below the headline is a copy of an email to the Palestine Solidarity Network:
Now we can all play this game of comparing two opponents of each other to each other, like say, comparing anti-zionists to Alan Dershowitz. I'm always struck by the similarities between zionist arguments and antisemitic ones. But this latest hissy fit by Norm suggests that, in spite of attempting to get his first videoed attack on BDS pulled, Finkelstein has no intention of rethinking his position. And just to recap on that, his position is that the State of Israel exists on the basis of international law and therefore we cannot demand the enforcement of those aspects of international law which might lead to the abolition of the State of Israel or lead to an Israel without Jewish supremacy. He further insists that since the abolition of Jewish supremacy in occupied Palestine/Israel cannot be achieved because the public (or maybe the most powerful governments in the world at the mo') don't like it, it is cult-like to try for this. Furthermore, to bolster his argument he has misrepresented aspects of the BDS campaign and its activists.
What would be interesting would be for Alan Dershowitz to come out strongly in support of Norman Finkelstein. This is unlikely because both of them have a lot of personal baggage bound up in their differences, but who knows what might happen? Dershowitz supports Jewish supremacy. Finkelstein acquiesces to it. Both support the so-called two state solution. Are their positions really so far apart?
ALAN DERSHOWITZ WARNS BAY AREA: FINKELSTEIN IS COMING! DON'T LET HIM SPEAK!
Hmm, poor old Norm, I thought, getting it in the neck again from the Dershmeister. But below the headline is a copy of an email to the Palestine Solidarity Network:
Subject: [PSN] Finkelstein in SF in AprilSo that would explain the hits but where does he get off comparing his detractors to Dershowitz? The email doesn't look like a demand that he not be allowed to speak. It looks like a suggestion that he not speak with the support of Palestine Solidarity Network or in any venue they control. And how many venues could that be?
To: “palestine_solidarity_network” <palestine_solidarity_network@googlegroups.com>
Date: Friday, February 22, 2013, 4:38 PMNorman Finkelstein is planning to come to SF in April and is looking for speaking engagements. In light of the offensive and libelous claims he’s made about the Right of Return and about the BDS movement recently, I’d strongly advise against co-sponsoring events with him. Zionist sites have been quoting him extensively, so that hosting him would just give them more ammunition. If you didn’t follow this, read more here http://jewssansfrontieres.blogspot. com/2012/07/norman- finkelstein-continues-to- spread.html ; http:// electronicintifada.net/blogs/ ali-abunimah/finkelstein- renews-attack-bds-cult-calls- palestinians-who-pursue-their- rights. The main point is that this isn’t just constructive criticism, but baseless accusations based on hasbara points.
Now we can all play this game of comparing two opponents of each other to each other, like say, comparing anti-zionists to Alan Dershowitz. I'm always struck by the similarities between zionist arguments and antisemitic ones. But this latest hissy fit by Norm suggests that, in spite of attempting to get his first videoed attack on BDS pulled, Finkelstein has no intention of rethinking his position. And just to recap on that, his position is that the State of Israel exists on the basis of international law and therefore we cannot demand the enforcement of those aspects of international law which might lead to the abolition of the State of Israel or lead to an Israel without Jewish supremacy. He further insists that since the abolition of Jewish supremacy in occupied Palestine/Israel cannot be achieved because the public (or maybe the most powerful governments in the world at the mo') don't like it, it is cult-like to try for this. Furthermore, to bolster his argument he has misrepresented aspects of the BDS campaign and its activists.
What would be interesting would be for Alan Dershowitz to come out strongly in support of Norman Finkelstein. This is unlikely because both of them have a lot of personal baggage bound up in their differences, but who knows what might happen? Dershowitz supports Jewish supremacy. Finkelstein acquiesces to it. Both support the so-called two state solution. Are their positions really so far apart?
February 08, 2013
Brooklyn BDS event was, erm, an event
Well the Judith Butler and Omar Barghouti BDS meeting took place at Brooklyn College last night in spite of the mobilisation of various Israel lobbyists to prevent it. "Arguments" against the meeting taking place ranged from the impression that the college was supporting BDS to the college was paving the way for a second holocaust. Really, someone, an assemblyman no less, said that.
The content of Judith Butler's presentation is at The Nation but this little chunk is lifted from what looks like a grudging piece from the +972 Mag site by Lisa Goldman:
The content of Judith Butler's presentation is at The Nation but this little chunk is lifted from what looks like a grudging piece from the +972 Mag site by Lisa Goldman:
One could be for the BDS movement as the only credible non-violent mode of resisting the injustices committed by the state of Israel without falling into the football lingo of being “pro” Palestine and “anti” Israel. This language is reductive, if not embarrassing. One might reasonably and passionately be concerned for all the inhabitants of that land, and simply maintain that the future for any peaceful, democratic solution for that region will become thinkable through the dismantling of the occupation, through enacting the equal rights of Palestinian minorities and finding just and plausible ways for the rights of refugees to be honored. If one holds out for these three aims in political life, then one is not simply living within the logic of the “pro” and the “anti”, but trying to fathom the conditions for a “we”, a plural existence grounded in equality.The +972 piece is titled Despite controversy, Brooklyn College BDS panel is a non-event. Now I could well be missing some irony here. Reading the article it looks like she might be saying that such a straightforward issue should be a non-event and in some ways it should. But the fact that powerful or influential players (eg, Alan Dershowitz) mobilised to prevent the event taking place and the fact that other equally powerful players (New York's Mayor Bloomberg) expressed their support made the mere fact that the meeting took place at all an event in itself.
February 03, 2013
What has "the potential for a second Holocaust"?
Go on, have a guess.
Hmm, let's have a look at the New York Times:
Now let's have a see of who is opposing the talk:
Hmm, let's have a look at the New York Times:
Next week, two leading voices of B.D.S., which stands for “Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions,” are scheduled to speak at the college at an event cosponsored by a student group and the college’s political science department, prompting a furious response from pro-Israel groups on campus and others who say the department’s sponsorship amounts to tacit endorsement.Ok, so it's about BDS, and talking about BDS and, in particular, talking about BDS at Brooklyn College.
Now let's have a see of who is opposing the talk:
“You do not have a right, and should not put the name of Brooklyn College on hate,” said William C. Thompson Jr., the former city comptroller, who is running for mayor, at a news conference with more than a dozen elected officials, students and B.D.S. opponents outside the campus on Thursday. “They should be heard, but not with the official stamp of this college.”William C.Thompson? Never heard of him. Who else?
On one side are Alan Dershowitz, the prominent Harvard Law School professor, whopublished a column in The Huffington Post criticizing the sponsorship as academically biased, and the Anti-Defamation LeagueAh, now them I've heard of. Anyone else?
Assemblyman Dov Hikind, an Orthodox Jew and a Brooklyn College alumnus, had not seen it that way. Speaking at Thursday’s protest, Mr. Hikind said he believed the college was implicitly supporting B.D.S.Now I remember him from my previous post. But really is there anyone else who could bring a new sense of proportion to this zionist campaign?
“We’re talking about the potential for a second Holocaust here,” said Assemblyman Alan Maisel of Brooklyn.What a guy...
April 02, 2012
Fighting for the Zionist Dream?
But where are zionists fighting for their dream? A friend of mine sent me a link to a Jerusalem Post article about a violent attack on a footballer. Here's a chunk of the article:
It occurred to my friend that Ali Khatib may have been assaulted because he is an Arab. In other words, his assailants could well have been fighting for the zionist dream.
An editorial in today's Ha'aretz certainly takes that view. It is headed, It's time to intervene against racism in Israeli soccer and it gives the following details:
A brawl broke out Saturday night at the soccer match between Maccabi Petah Tikva and Hapoel Haifa, at the end of which Haifa midfielder Ali Khatib was taken to hospital.
If you click on the link some time soon you will see the page festooned with adverts for an event called Fighting for the Zionist Dream. It's Jerusalem Post hosted event including various zionist bigwigs including the ubiquitous, Alan Dershowitz.Khatib was allegedly headbutted by Petah Tikva’s goalkeeping coach before being kicked while on the ground by a man supposedly connected to the Petah Tikva management. The two men were detained and remanded to custody until Monday at 4 p.m.
It occurred to my friend that Ali Khatib may have been assaulted because he is an Arab. In other words, his assailants could well have been fighting for the zionist dream.
An editorial in today's Ha'aretz certainly takes that view. It is headed, It's time to intervene against racism in Israeli soccer and it gives the following details:
So, it's not quite clear which events amounted to "fighting for the zionist dream" but maybe Alan Dershowitz can shed some light on racist violence in Israeli football.In March alone, there were four recorded violent incidents linked to Israeli soccer.Thousands of Hapoel Tel Aviv fans rioted after the team lost the Tel Aviv derby, throwing objects onto the field and blocking the players of both teams from leaving it. A few days later, two Maccabi Petah Tikva fans burst onto the field and tried to assault a referee; then we had the 300 Beitar Jerusalem fans who ran amok at the Malha Mall, yelling "Death to the Arabs" and beating up Arab cleaning workers; and on Saturday two officials of the Maccabi Petah Tikva club attacked Hapoel Haifa player Ali Khatib, who was head-butted by one and kicked in the face by the other.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)