Dershowitz is not an anti-Arab bigot


The Milton S. Eisenhower (MSE) Symposium is intended to raise awareness on issues of profound local, national and global importance. The speaker series achieves this lofty goal by inviting the world’s foremost leaders in social activism, politics, academia and journalism to address some of the world’s brightest students. The open exchange of ideas is important to our intellectual growth. After all it is during these formative years that we engage new ideas and that we come into our own as thoughtful individuals.

It thus comes as a great surprise that several student groups have leveled ad hominem attacks against Alan Dershowitz, a prominent legal scholar and leading voice for civil liberties, going so far as to call for him to be disinvited.
In the most recent petition calling to disinvite Professor Dershowitz, Students for Justice in Palestine makes four principal claims: (1) It is improper to call Dershowitz a Middle East scholar and the positions he has taken on these issues are anti-Arab; (2) MSE cannot be balanced if two of its speakers are “outspoken, staunch advocates of Israel”; (3) Dershowitz breeds fear and hostility toward Palestinian, Arab and Muslim students in his alleged claim that the opponents of the Israeli Occupation and proponents of boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel are anti-Semitic; and (4), while Dershowitz is permitted to address students, MSE is an improper forum because SJP believes that he fails to meet the symposium’s academically rigorous standards.

The title of Professor Dershowitz’s long-awaited talk is “Global Perspectives on Justice and Civil Liberties.” Given that Dershowitz is a prominent legal scholar, the youngest professor of law in Harvard University’s history and has participated in some of the most significant criminal cases of our time, it is fitting that Dershowitz was invited to address law and justice.

That SJP would attack his credibility on issues Middle East-related is disingenuous because the authors of the petition neglect the fact that his talk concerns his areas of specialty (at least by Harvard’s yardstick). Provided MSE’s objectives, it seems sensible that Dershowitz would be featured amongst this year’s acclaimed speakers.

Let us for a moment consider Dershowitz’s stance on the Middle East, notably on Israel-Palestine, because if he were bigoted we would also oppose his inclusion in the conference. Professor Dershowitz is staunchly pro-Israel and equally so pro-Palestinian. He is a political liberal who, contrary to the claims of SJP, supports a just solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the form of the two-state solution — a position officially backed by the U.S. and E.U. — and publicly criticizes settlement expansion. Likewise, Dershowitz calls on Palestinian leadership to be responsive to the needs of its people and to engage the Israelis in productive dialogue. In fact, Dershowitz has himself challenged Israeli and Palestinian leadership to make difficult political concessions for the sake of peace. To classify Dershowitz as anti-Arab, anti-Muslim and anti-Palestinian, therefore, is a thinly veiled attempt to stifle constructive dialogue on an issue that requires the thoughtfulness and sensitivity that Dershowitz brings to the table.

Dershowitz’s opposition to the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement derives from this same unwavering dedication to the two-state solution. He opposes the BDS movement because it is destructive and divisive. Economic and academic boycotts would cut Israelis off — regardless of political ideology — from the world of ideas and international markets and would merely serve to embolden hard-liners in Israel, whose very support is premised upon the notion that Israel must go it alone. Likewise, BDS against Israel would remove the onus entirely from the Palestinian Authority and would give Mahmoud Abbas little reason to remain at the negotiating table.

BDS is not only counterproductive, it is wrong as a matter of principle. It is based upon the flawed impression that Israel’s record on human rights warrants its position as a world pariah. Despite the flaws that any democracy that regularly faces existential threats would have, the liberties Israelis enjoy in a region generally devoid of freedom are to be lauded. Israel has nearly 1.6 million Muslims, many of whom occupy the most prestigious posts in Israeli society. Ishmael Khaldi, a Muslim in Israel’s foreign service and Abdel Rahman Zuabi, a Muslim Arab who sat on Israel’s Supreme Court, epitomize the opportunities offered to all Israeli citizens, regardless of ethnicity or religion. Khaldi said the following about the circumstances of Israeli minorities:

“I am a proud Israeli — along with many other non-Jewish Israelis such as Druze, Bahai, Bedouin, Christians and Muslims, who live in one of the most culturally diversified societies and the only true democracy in the Middle East. Like America, Israeli society is far from perfect, but let us deal honestly. By any yardstick you choose — educational opportunity, economic development, women and gays’ rights, freedom of speech and assembly, legislative representation — Israel’s minorities fare far better than any other country in the Middle East,” he said.

As gays, women and other minorities are repressed and murdered in countries such as Iran, Syria and China, BDS, claiming to advocate universal human rights, seeks to demonize and delegitimize Israel, the most democratic and free society in the Middle East. Anti-Semitic? You tell me.

Instead of working tirelessly to silence a champion of civil liberties and human rights, SJP and other student groups that have leveled attacks against Alan Dershowitz — who themselves claim to be opposed to intimidation and silencing — should attend his lecture. There they can engage with Dershowitz rather than hurling stones from behind the pages of the school newspaper.

Noah Feit and Ellie Schmidt are pre-med, post-baccalaureate students at the University.

5 responses to “Dershowitz is not an anti-Arab bigot

  1. There is quite a bit here that is problematic, but I want to just comment quickly on the article’s characterization of BDS. After all, Israel is the vastly more powerful party here, and it has continued expanding settlements, occupation, and the rest of it for far too long (also, given who runs Israel at the moment, the idea that BDS will embolden the “hard-liners” is laughable). Decades of dialouge has led to nothing, and BDS aims to put pressure on Israel to recognize Palestinian rights. Of course, rather than deal with this issue, the authors of this article deflect, saying “but look how diverse, how welcoming Israel is! And look, its so much worse in other places! We’re better than Syria!” I’ve never totally undestood this argument though. Do they mean that we are all imagining things, that Israel is actually not so bad, or are they saying that because it recognizes certain minority rights, we should just forgive it for decades of violent settler-colonial dispossession?

    This was exactly the tactic that defenders of apartheid in South Africa were employing, right up until the end. From 1989 on why people are wrong to single-out South Africa (because it was so much worse in the rest of Africa!):

    “Yet South Africa is the only country in Sub-Saharan Africa that can feed itself. Blacks possess one of the highest living standards in all of Africa. Although black living conditions in South Africa (as in America) cover a wide spectrum, the housing is unequalled anywhere on the continent. Soweto is a proper city complete with schools, stores, theaters, sport stadiums and tennis courts. In some areas, blacks drive their children to private schools in German cars. Few states in black Africa can boast such a range of features. In Mamelodi (Pretoria) four bedroom houses are made available to blacks at a total purchase price of $250”


    • We get it. SJP is a group of like-minded individuals, many of who would readily disgrace black history for anti-Semitic political propaganda. Stop bringing up the Dershowitz issue, so fellow students can cease hearing your verbal vomit.


  2. “…hurling stones from behind the pages of the school newspaper.”

    You both have effectively coopted the discourse that labels any resistance as illegitimate. You are here trying to silence your peers, and it is obvious that you have not read or perhaps understood the SJP letter. In addition, H==ow is writing a democratic, open letter of protest throwing stones? In fact, you are the ones using the campus newspaper to legitimize your factually flawed and offensive claims.


    • are you kidding me? which party in this debate, b/w SJP and the authors of this article, is the silencing one? could it be that it’s the one trying to preempt an upcoming speech by demanding disinvitation? isn’t it obvious that the silencing isn’t being done by the one using discursive means to avoid chilling effects?

      even pure literalism exposes the bald lies you continue to tell yourself: campus will be a quieter place if all it takes is a few protest letters (no matter how shrill) to get rid of a speaker with something to say.


Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s