Dershowitz: Amnesty Int. Has Become Apologist for Terrorism & Enemy of Democracy

[shira]

Last month the Columbia chapter of Amnesty International invited me to deliver a talk on human rights in the Middle East. I accepted the invitation, anxious to present a balanced view on human rights, focusing on the Israeli-Arab-Palestinian issue. As a supporter of the two state solution and an opponent of many of Israel’s settlement decisions, I regard myself as a moderate on these issues. That was apparently too much for the national office of Amnesty International to tolerate. They demanded that the Columbia chapter of Amnesty International disinvite me. They did not want their members to hear my perspective on human rights....

...The real reasons Amnesty International tried to censor my speech to its members is that I am a Zionist who supports Israel’s right to exist as the nation-state of the Jewish people. As such, I have been somewhat critical of Amnesty International’s one-sided approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For example, I wrote an article criticizing Amnesty International’s report on honor killings in the West Bank. An honor killing occurs when a woman has been raped and her family then kills her because of the shame her victimization has brought. Despite massive evidence to the contrary, Amnesty International mendaciously claimed that honor killings had increased in the West Bank since the Israeli occupation and that the fault for this increase in Arab men killing Arab women, lies with Israel. The reality is that there are far fewer honor killings in the West Bank than there are in adjoining Jordan, which is not under Israeli occupation, and that the number of honor killings in the West Bank has been reduced dramatically during the Israeli occupation. But facts mean little to Amnesty International when Israel is involved....

...In general, Amnesty International —especially its European branch located in London—has abandoned its commitment to human rights in preference for an overtly political and ideological agenda. Its position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has become particularly troubling. In addition to providing an abuse excuse to Palestinian honor killers in the West Bank, it has demonized Israel for its attempts to protect its citizens from Hamas war crimes. In a recent report it condemns Israel for its military actions in Gaza without even mentioning the Hamas terror tunnels that provoked Israel’s defensive actions. These tunnels—I was in one of them just before the war—were built for one purpose and one purpose only: to kill and kidnap Israeli citizens. The tunnel I was in exited right near an Israeli kindergarten with more than 50 children. The sole purpose of the tunnel was to send Hamas death squads into Israel to kill and kidnap as many of these children as possible.

No country in the world would tolerate the existence of such tunnels, and international law permits defensive actions to shut them down. Yet Amnesty International never mentions the tunnels and makes it seem that Israel sent troops into Gaza simply to kill as many Palestinians as possible. Amnesty International has become an apologist for terrorism and an enemy of democracy. Its failed effort to stifle my free speech and the rights of Columbia students to listen to me is symbolic of what a once great organization has become: a cheerleader for human wrongs rather than human rights.

http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/11/10/dershowitz-amnesty-international-has-become-an-apologist-for-terrorism-and-enemy-of-democracy/

[DonCoquixote]

1. Is this coming from the same guy

that advocated the torture of Arabs become part of OUR policy?

http://www.alandershowitz.com/publications/docs/torturewarrants.html
http://www.spectacle.org/0202/seth.html

Why yes it is...

Look, I can understand why Zionists distrust The European Union and the United nations. However, in the name of Zionism, America has gotten into 20 years of sustained war, to the point where we keep crossing lines in the sand that we said we would never cross, like Torture. Mr. Dershowitz has become the cheerleader for human wrongs; this is especially sad because he is too arrogant to acknowledge the elephant in the room: that this same edict against torture kept those Bible Lving Christian folk from tryign to torture Jews. Even Bill Maher can acknowledge that Zionism's Chrstian allies do NOT have the Jews best interest at heart.

[oberliner]

3. "in the name of Zionism, America has gotten into 20 years of sustained war"

Good thing there is no anti-semitism at DU.

[grossproffit]

4. I'm shocked much of the time at what's posted on this forum.

Last edited Wed Nov 12, 2014, 09:18 AM - Edit history (1)

[whathehell]

6. Since when does anti-Zionism equal anti-Semitism?

It sounds the same as saying that DUers who do NOT support Right Wing

Militarism are "anti-American"

[oberliner]

7. It doesn't

Last edited Wed Nov 12, 2014, 10:55 AM - Edit history (1)

But sometimes Zionism is used as a substitute term to avoid being accused of antisemitism.

For instance, referring to Zionist control of government, banks, Hollywood, etc.

The implication of claiming that Zionists have manipulated the United States into 20 years of war seems potentially troublesome.

[whathehell]

8. Okay, but I would say that "sometimes" is the operative word here..

I would agree that ideas like "Zionist control of government, banks, government",
etc. sounds quite anti-Semitic.

Zionists manipulating the US into 20 years of war?..I'm not sure about that one,
as Israel DOES appear, to hold inordinate sway over our Middle East policy.

[DanTex]

13. But not this time. The Israeli lobby has in fact exerted influence over our government.

Who can possibly deny this?

[oberliner]

14. That's not what the quote was

The quote was: "in the name of Zionism, America has gotten into 20 years of sustained war"

That is different from "The Israeli lobby has exerted influence over our government"

[DanTex]

16. But they have the same basic meaning. Zionism is fair game.

There's no anti-semitism there. Mostly, what I see in this board are accusations of anti-semitism leveled at anyone who criticizes Zionism or Israeli policy.

In fact, arguably "in the name of Zionism" is even weaker than the statement that the Israeli government has influence, because it doesn't imply that we are doing it at the behest of Israelis or Zionists, but only that we are doing it because we as a nation support the Zionist cause. For example, if it were "in the name of militarism", that doesn't mean that there are militants controlling us.

The point is, the US support of Israel and Zionism has gotten us into problems. I would disagree that this is the sole cause of the wars we've been fighting, but it certainly doesn't help.

[shira]

28. The Iraq Gulf War had nothing to do with Zionism...

...but had everything to do with supporting US oil interests in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, etc.

Afghanistan and Iraq II was all Bush post 911 and finishing the job Bush I started.

And now with Libya, ISIS in Syria... That's not Israel either.

Try again.

[DanTex]

30. Well, events have multiple causes.

The Israeli treatment of the Palestinians, and America's support and military aid, is definitely a factor contributing to instability, extremism, and anti-Americanism in the Middle East. It's not the sole or direct cause of any specific war, but it has played a role in getting to where we are now.

[shira]

31. Pretty weak. n/t

[DanTex]

32. It's the truth, though. Not always as black-and-white as you'd like it to be.

[shira]

34. It's conjecture. No direct cause-effect at all.

The mideast outside Israel would totally suck whether or not Israel exists. It'd arguably be worse w/o Israel's presence there. The West would have to spend much more in blood and treasure to keep it stable w/o Israel there.

[DanTex]

35. Worse without Israel's presence, huh. LOL.

[shira]

36. Yeah, w/o Israel the West would have to station way more troops....

....and armor in the area on a permanent basis.

It's called reality. I recommend it.

[DanTex]

37. You know, this might be the craziest thing I've ever read on DU. Wow.

[shira]

38. Yeah, wow. Here's Alexander Haig...

Israel is the largest American aircraft carrier in the world that cannot be sunk, does not carry even one American soldier, and is located in a critical region for American national security.

[Jefferson23]

39. How is American national security going?

You crack me up.

[DonCoquixote]

19. anti zionism does not equal anti semitism

because as Noam Chomsky, Noami Klien, and many others can tell you, the Zinoist movement does NOT speak for all Jews.

[oberliner]

33. Agreed

But sometimes people use the word Zionist to reference Jews because it is not acceptable to say such things about Jews directly.

Like how people say "Islamists" rather than Arabs or Muslims and make a point to say that they aren't racist against Arabs or Muslims, just Islamists or what have you.

[shira]

9. The torture claim is bogus. From the 2nd paragraph of the OP...

The excuse they provided were two old and out of context quotes suggesting that I favored torture and collective punishment. The truth is that I am adamantly opposed to both. I have written nuanced academic articles on the subject of torture warrants as a way of minimizing the evils of torture, and I have written vehemently against the use of collective punishment of innocent people—whether it be by means of the boycott movement against all Israelis or the use of collective punishment against Palestinians. I do favor holding those who facilitate terrorism responsible for their own actions.

[Jefferson23]

10. Bogus? Hardly the case. From 2002, his own words: Want to torture? Get a warrant

In his sick mind, this is how one goes about it..he was clear then..I guess he's trying to
clean up his image before he drops dead of old age.



IF AMERICAN law enforcement officers were ever to confront the law school hypothetical case of the captured terrorist who knew about an imminent attack but refused to provide the information necessary to prevent it, I have absolutely no doubt that they would try to torture the terrorists into providing the information.

Moreover, the vast majority of Americans would expect the officers to engage in that time-tested technique for loosening tongues, notwithstanding our unequivocal treaty obligation never to employ torture, no matter how exigent the circumstances. The real question is not whether torture would be used -- it would -- but whether it would be used outside of the law or within the law.

Every democracy, including our own, has employed torture outside of the law.

Throughout the years, police officers have tortured murder and rape suspects into confessing -- sometimes truthfully, sometimes not truthfully.

The "third degree" is all too common, not only on TV shows such as "NYPD Blue," but in the back rooms of real police station houses. No democracy, other than Israel, has ever employed torture within the law. Until quite recently, Israel recognized the power of its security agencies to employ what it euphemistically called "moderate physical pressure" to elicit information from terrorists about continuing threats.

This "pressure" entailed putting the suspect in a dingy cell with a smelly sack over his head and shaking him violently until he disclosed planned terrorist attacks. Israel never allowed the information elicited by these methods to be used in courts of law as confessions. But it did use the information to prevent terrorist acts.

Several attacks were prevented by this unpleasant tactic. In a courageous and controversial decision, the president of the Israeli Supreme Court wrote a majority opinion banning the use of this tactic against suspected terrorists.

The Israeli Supreme Court left open the possibility, however, that in an actual "ticking bomb" case -- a situation in which a terrorist refused to divulge information necessary to defuse a bomb that was about to kill hundreds of innocent civilians -- an agent who employed physical pressure could defend himself against criminal charges by invoking "the law of necessity."

http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/openforum/article/Want-to-torture-Get-a-warrant-2880547.php

[shira]

11. Where does he say he's in favor of torture, which he states is illegal? n/t

[Jefferson23]

12. I can't read it for you.

In favor of it? No one writes such a thing unless they're looking for a loop hole.
Why do you think he seeks to cover it with a warrant...you like to play games, don't you?

Alan Dershowitz, the happy egomaniac tool for Israel.

[shira]

15. It's not there, you're just bullshitting.

He doesn't come out in favor or support of torture.

You made that up.

[DanTex]

17. Of course it's in there. You just refuse to read.

For example:

An application for a torture warrant would have to be based on the absolute need to obtain immediate information in order to save lives coupled with probable cause that the suspect had such information and is unwilling to reveal it.

The suspect would be given immunity from prosecution based on information elicited by the torture. The warrant would limit the torture to nonlethal means, such as sterile needles, being inserted beneath the nails to cause excruciating pain without endangering life.

How nice. Alan Dershowitz wants to make it legal to insert needles beneath people's nails. You got yourself a winner!

[shira]

20. It's not there. He wrote in the OP...

I have written nuanced academic articles on the subject of torture warrants as a way of minimizing the evils of torture,

1. He says torture is evil, wrong, illegal.
2. He understands like anyone with a brain that torture will continue no matter what.
3. Therefore, since it will continue he's trying to make it difficult to carry out (only in special cases, with warrants signed by a judge, non-lethal).

I understand the need to demonize your opponents. You guys are good at doing it. It's basically all you've got when you can't win an argument on facts or logic. But no worries, you're convincing yourself you've won an argument for which you have no rational answers. Good for you! When you've got nothing, you always have ad hominem.

I understand you and your like-minded friends.

I understand that none of you has touched the OP and all you have is slanderous ad-hominem.

[DanTex]

24. Yeah, he realizes that coming out in favor of torture wasn't good PR, so he's trying to backtrack.

Surprising that people actually fall for it, especially when presented with an article where he explicitly calls for legalizing sticking needles under people's fingernails. I'm anxiously looking forward to his next piece, "Rape will happen no matter what, so let's legalize it." And I imagine you'll stand by your man after that one comes out too.

[Jefferson23]

25. ha ha

[shira]

26. No backtracking. Everyone knows that was his position all along.

At least those who can read.

[Jefferson23]

22. lol. n/t

[grossproffit]

2. They've become a parody of themselves. eom

[grossproffit]

5. Just ordered his new book via Amazon.

Terror Tunnels: The Case for Israel's Just War Against Hamas

Looking forward to reading it, starting tonight.

[azurnoir]

18. Dersh 2012-Dems drop Media Matters or Obama will lose

Dershowitz warns Democrats to drop Media Matters

Harvard University Professor Alan Dershowitz recently warned Democrats that they will lose the presidential election this year if they stick with Media Matters for America.

Dershowitz, a strong defender of Israel, reportedly made the remark during a press conference earlier this month in which he defended Israel against a group at University of Pennsylvania that is urging the university to boycott, divest and sanction the Jewish state for its longtime dispute with Palestinians over borders and security.

Among the speakers at a conference held by PennBDS (Pennsylvania boycott, divest and sanction) was Max Blumenthal, son of Sidney Blumenthal, a powerful Washington attorney and Bill and Hillary Clinton ally.
........................................

Asked about the article, Dershowitz reportedly recounted the many fallacies in it and then remarked about its author.

"Let me tell you, Max Blumenthal and Media Matters will be singlehandedly responsible for (Obama) losing this election. They (the Democrats) cannot win the election and keep this affiliation with them," he is quoted saying, according to American Thinker's Laurie Lowenthal Marcus, who tweeted the comment to Blumenthal.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/13/dershowitz-warns-democrats-to-drop-media-matters/

[shira]

21. And yet another personal attack. Nothing substantive against the OP. n/t

[azurnoir]

27. So posting Dershowitz's own words is an attack?

that says something in and of itself

[shira]

29. Depends. If his words on torture are twisted to mean something else....

...like we see above, then yes.

[Jefferson23]

23. Too funny, he's a happy tool. n/t