Dershowitz Takes Aims At ‘Israel’s Enemies’

[shira]

The intensity of the discussion at the Harvard Coop bookstore yesterday evening rivalled that of the Presidential debate, as Professor Alan M. Dershowitz promoted his latest, highly controversial book, “In the Case Against Israel’s Enemies: Exposing Jimmy Carter and Others Who Stand in the Way of Peace.”

The Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at the Harvard Law School, Dershowitz said that he uses the book, his 28th work, to challenge such public intellectuals as Noam Chomsky and President Jimmy Carter, who, in his opinion, de-legitimize the Israeli state.

A long time advocate of the Israeli state, Dershowitz said that Israel has long been subject to “a double standard” by the rest of the world, including the United Nations.

According to Dershowitz, there are three root causes of this anti-Israeli sentiment: Israel is a Jewish state; Israel is an ally of the US, and suffers from “veiled anti-Americanism”; and Israel does not produce oil, making the state useless.

<snip>

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=524650

[Phred42]

1. Ol AL finally smelling the coffee burning?

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

2. Chomsky exposing Dershowitz for what he is:

1/2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0ROZEt0ugw

2/2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBclWDYuoxI

[shira]

3. chomsky...

has a history with holocaust deniers and has been quoted as saying holocaust denial is not anti-semitism. He cannot be taken seriously on any matters concerning Jews.

What's fascinating is that you linked to a youtube video on 911 "fake planes". Do you take that crap as seriously as you do Chomsky?

[LeftishBrit]

5. Chomsky does not have a 'history with holocaust deniers' in the sense you imply

He is an absolutist about freedom of speech, and had defended the right of holocaust deniers to express their views; but he most certainly does not endorse these views.

The issue of when whether the evil of repressing freedom of speech is ever outweighed by the evil of permitting hate-speech is an interesting one in itself; and my own views, FTR, are a bit less absolutist than Chomsky's. But saying that Chomsky 'has a history with holocaust deniers' is unfair.

[shira]

9. Chomsky goes further than just defending free speech

His words on Faurisson:

"Dr. Robert Faurisson has served as a respected professor of twentieth-century French literature and document criticism for over four years at the University of Lyon-2 in France. Since 1974 he has been conducting extensive historical research into the "Holocaust" question.

Since he began making his findings public, Professor Faurisson has been subject to a vicious campaign of harassment, intimidation, slander and physical violence in a crude attempt to silence him. Fearful officials have even tried to stop him from further research by denying him access to public libraries and archives.

We strongly protest these efforts to deprive Professor Faurisson of his freedom of speech and expression, and we condemn the shameful campaign to silence him.

We strongly support Professor Faurisson's just right of academic freedom and we demand that university and government officials do everything possible to ensure his safety and the free exercise of his legal rights."

=======================================

Extensive historical research on the holocaust?
And why is "Holocaust" in quotes?
What kind of "findings" does Chomsky believe this denier discover?
Further research? Like that on neo-nazi websites?

========================================

Chomsky was also quoted:


“I see no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of gas chambers, or even denial of the holocaust. Nor would there be anti-Semitic implications, per se, in the claim that the holocaust (whether one believes it took place or not) is being exploited, viciously so, by apologists for Israeli repression and violence. I see no hint of anti-Semitic implications in Faurisson’s work...”

========================================

Who can take Chomsky seriously on anything he writes/opines regarding Jews? Remember Israel Shahak - who claimed Jews worship Satan? Here's what Chomsky wrote of Shahak:

“an outstanding scholar, with remarkable insight and depth of knowledge. His work is informed and penetrating, a contribution of great value.”

========================================

This should forever disqualify Chomsky from being taken seriously on any matters regarding Jews. Holocaust denial is not scholarship. Neither does a claim of Satan worship by Jews qualify as scholarship. Both are classic examples of anti-semitism.

[Mr_Jefferson_24]

8. So I did -- my mistake -- thanks for pointing that out.

Here's part 1:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dL8Ql5XwVA

[Shaktimaan]

10. That was funny, thanks.

Chomsky referred to Dershowitz as a "10th rate lawyer." But he is a law professor at Harvard after all. In fact he became a full prof there at age 28; the youngest in its history. He's defended Patricia Hearst, Leona Helmsley, Jim Bakker, Mike Tyson and O.J. Simpson... why would they hire a 10th rate lawyer instead of the best in the country?

Chomsky also called him a "passionate opponent of civil liberties." But he has been described by Newsweek as America's "most peripatetic civil liberties lawyer and one of its most distinguished defenders of individual rights."

Lastly, Chomsky insanely said that Dershowitz's apologetics for Israel were "reminiscent of the worst days of Stalinism." Yeah, that's right. He compared Dershowitz to STALIN. Wow! (Do I even really need to point out how Dershowitz differs from Stalin?)

All this in under four minutes too!

What a retarded display of truly nonsensical personal attacks.

[Shaktimaan]

4. what's with the 9/11 garbage?

I didn't watch it, but it didn't look like Noam Chomsky to me. Maybe you were learning about 9/11 from some other fringe lunatics just before you learned all of this equally insane garbage about Israel?

[LeftishBrit]

6. Chomsky opposes the MIHOP theories about 9-11 (nt)

[Shaktimaan]

11. Hey, check out what I just stumbled across.

Chomsky in 1992. I highlighted the important parts to get a quick gist of what he's saying here.

The only realistic political settlement, for the time being, in the past ten or twelve years, that would satisfy the right of self-determination for both national groups is a two-state settlement. Everybody knows what it would have to be: Israel within approximately the pre-June 1967 borders and a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and a return of the Golan Heights to Syria, or maybe some other arrangement. This would be associated with maybe demilitarized zones and international guarantees of some sort or another, but that's the framework of a possible political settlement. As I say, I don't think it's the best one, but that's the realistic one, very realistic. It's supported by most of the world. It's supported by Europe, by the Soviet Union, has been for a long time, by almost all the non-aligned countries, it's supported by all the major Arab states and has been for a long time, supported by the mainstream of the PLO and, again, has been for a long time, it's supported even by the American population, by about two to one according to the polls. But there are also people who oppose it. It's opposed by the rejection front in the Arab world, the minority elements of the PLO, Libya, a few others, minority rejectionist elements, but crucially it's opposed by the leaders of the rejection front, namely the United States and Israel. The United States and Israel adamantly oppose it. The United States will not consider it. Both political groupings in Israel reject it totally. They reject any right of national self-determination for the indigenous population in the former Palestine. They can have Jordan if they want, or the former Syria, or something, but not the area that they now hold under military occupation. In fact they're explicit about it.

There are carefully fostered illusions here that the Labor Party is interested in compromise over the issue. But if you look closely, there's no meaningful compromise. The position of the Labor Party remains what was expressed by their representative, who is now President, Chaim Herzog, who said that "no one can be a partner with us in a land that has been holy to our people for 2000 years." That's the position. They're willing to make minor adjustments. They don't want to take care of the population in the West Bank, because there are too many Arabs; they don't want a lot of Arabs around, so what they would like to do is take the areas and the water and the resources they want from the West Bank but leave the population, either stateless or under Jordanian control. That's what's called a "compromise solution." It's a very cynical proposal, even worse in many respects than annexation. But that's called here compromise and the reason is that we are again educated elites in the United States and national discussion takes a strictly racist view of this. The Palestinians are not human, they do not deserve the rights that we accord automatically to the settlers who displaced them. That's the basis of articulate American discussion: pure, unadulterated racism.

http://www.chomsky.info/books/dissent01.htm

Wow! RIGHT before the Oslo Accords and everything! He could not have possibly called this more wrong. Notice how he thinks that Israel and the US are the main obstacles to the 2 state concept but he fails to even once mention Hamas. I think it's good to look at this because it shows us where Chomsky's head is at with regards to the conflict. He sees things through a certain prism and that's it.

[oberliner]

7. He's also been an outspoken supporter of Obama

Hopefully he will help sway some undecideds our way!

[jonnyblitz]

12. yeah, he'll secure the "Islamaphobes for Obama" vote

:eyes: what a racist piece of shit the torture apologist is. :puke:

[Shaktimaan]

13. what the heck makes you say that he's racist?

By the way, he's certainly not a torture apologist either. You clearly have misunderstood his opinion on that.