In a controversial interview, Harvard University professor Alan Dershowitz has called not only for the White House to sever ties with Media Matters, but has called upon Media Matters to fire staff member M.J. Rosenberg for this criticism of supporters of Israel. Clearly, this is not a first amendment issue that arises when the government is asked to engage in censorship or coercion with regard to critics. However, the demand for Rosenberg’s termination does raise serious concerns over the freedom for writers to raise often controversial topics and positions. Rosenberg was voicing a common objection over Israeli policy and the demands for his termination sends a chilling message for anyone who voices such positions.
For the record, Dershowitz and I often agree, though we have diverged on subjects like torture. However, Dershowitz has previously been criticized for his comments against other academics and students for their views of Israel or the Jewish community. The issue of criticism of Israel on campus has produced a number of intense academic fights in the last couple of years, here and here and here.
Dershowitz insisted that Media Matters “crossed the line into anti-semitism” by not firing Rosenberg over his alleged “bigotry.” Rosenberg has questioned the basis for military action against Iran and used the term “Israel firster” to describe American leaders and advocate who put the interests of Israel before the United States.
However, Dershowitz insists that this term is anti-Semitic when applied to Jews. In addition to calling for him to be fired, he has campaigned to discourage donors of Media Matters over Rosenberg’s views.
Rosenberg is a critic of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and, in a column last month, asserted that “Israel firster” is an “accurate” term for “those people (of whatever ethnic background) who invariably support Israel’s policies over those of the United States.”
Dershowitz insisted that “[t]he tent is not big enough to include people who have engaged in bigotry against the Jewish people.”
Rosenberg has also criticized the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) as having a name “giving it credit for one more loyalty than it holds.” Notably, Rosenberg was editor of AIPACs weekly newsletter Near East Report and was, from 1998-2009, the director of policy at Israel Policy Forum.
As both an academic and columnist, I have a serious problem with this type of campaign against a writer. I believe Dershowitz and others have every right to denounce the term “Israel firster” in their own writings and to denounce Rosenberg for what they view as irresponsible rhetoric if that is what they believe. However, to campaign for his firing runs against the grain for those of us who live under the guarantees of either academic freedom or freedom of the press, or both. It is no way to win such an argument to demand the silencing of a critic. Instead, it leaves the impression of an effort to create a chilling effect for any writers who are considering voicing similar views.
I cannot claim much exposure to the writings of Rosenberg. However, these comments are not enough to make such a case for me. I do not believe that you should ascribe racist or anti-Semitic motives when there are other explanations for an argument. In this case, Rosenberg was arguing that there are some leaders who put Israel first — leaders of various backgrounds and religions. The same argument has been made against some Irish politicians over support for the IRA and other groups. The point that he is making is that the current policies vis-a-vis Israel are harmful to U.S. interests and fueling global instability. There are plenty of good points to be made on either side of that debate.
In a column, Dershowitz detailing past positions of Rosenberg. Dershowitz notably has also claimed that Obama is the Neville Chamberlain of the 21st Century — comparing him to a weak man who tried to appease Hitler because of his attempts at appeasement. Of course, that compares those on the other side as akin to Nazis.
Rosenberg is known for super-heated rhetoric — which is present by writers on both sides including (as noted above) Dershowitz. His critics (and this debate) would be better served by addressing the underlying point on why our current policies are in the best interests of the U.S. rather than attacking those expressing such views.
Any one here in favor of third-world status for the U.S.? Then by all means, support a war with Iran. The last two nearly broke us — they certainly resulted in severe curtailment of civil liberties at home and diminished standing abroad. War will jack up energy costs, cripple a very shaky economy, create crippling debt, unite the entire middle east and a great portion of the world in an effort to destroy Israel and unleash a wave of state-sponsored terrorism against the United States and its interests and allies — and a lot of folks besides Iran will decide that their continued survival depends on their obtaining nuclear weapons:if Iran had only had a nuke, no one would have dared wage war against her. Hurry up before it’s too late!
My reaction to this latest is, “Who are you and what have you done with Alan Dershowitz.” Alas, he used to be such a strong proponent of civil rights and the First Amendment. Now he appears to have jumped the shark.
Mike S, you and I have disagreed about Israel on this forum before (though I think we usually disagree on matters that are not core issues), but you really are spot on here. (And sorry to hear you were run out of other places.) It pains me to remember that I first learned about Dershowitz as a champion of civil liberties.
Of course, what Dershowitz is doing here is no different than what he did when he led the campaign to deny Norman Finkelstein tenure at DePaul, or his many other attacks on people who dare to oppose what Dershowitz believes are the only views one can have on Israel. This is the latest in a ever-lengthening history of such attacks and attempts to silence. I am surprised Dershowitz has not turned his guns on Haaretz, for the conversation on its pages is far more varied (Dershowitz would probably call it anti-Semitic) than anything in the US.
Gene H, I doubt altrusim is behind Dershowitz’s motivations or reasonings.
I suspect Dershowitz realizes the deep sentiment in America against another war, or for the US to grant unconditional support to any nation including Israel. To counter this tide, he and his allies attack those who speak out publicly and try hard to label them as Jew hating anit-Semites. Personally, my best friends are Jews and not one would argue with my position.
“And why, exactly, whould Deshowitz give a damn for the 1st Amendment except when it protects him in his crusade of war against all who would dare criticize the current hardline regime controlling Israeli politics?”
Aside from that whole swearing an oath to uphold the Constitution and protect it from enemies both foreign and domestic and the duty that entails?
No reason at all.
Well said Nal.
Ken McBride, you are spot on.
And why, exactly, whould Deshowitz give a damn for the 1st Amendment except when it protects him in his crusade of war against all who would dare criticize the current hardline regime controlling Israeli politics? And the very last thing Dershowitz would want known to the US public is only Netanyahu and his coalition are rattling sabers and threatening war. The population of Israel do not support war.
After ten years of war, a war crime in Iraq, a strategic blunder and a humanitarian tragedy, and an appalling quagmire in Afghanistan with thousands of Americans killed and wounded, trillions of wealth expended, you would expect that Americans would be loathed to engage in another war! However, we hear again the same drumbeat for war with Iran by the neoconservative misinformation chorus that another potential “Mushroom Cloud” threatens!
Israel holds the U.S. in disdain, for it believes it has unlimited support of the American Israeli lobby, the religious right and the neoconservative Republicans in Congress. This is evident by Israel‘s obstruction of the Palestinian peace process or to constrain Israeli settlements in contested Palestinian areas. Is the current rise in gasoline prices a contrived conspiracy by Israel? The increase cost of oil is due to speculation, not supply, results from Israel’s threaten attack on Iran and the responding threats by Iran to interrupt the world’s flow of oil from the Persian Gulf. Israel has stated they will not warn the U.S. in their forthcoming preemptive attack on Iran, which should surprise no one. Let us not forget Israel’s vicious attack on the USS Liberty (AGTR-5) on 8 June 1967 killing 34 Americans.
President Obama is being held hostage by Israel, American Israeli lobby and the neoconservative Republicans as he approaches a final strategic decision concerning Iran. Iran is an Islamic theocratic regime supportive of terrorism and merciless oppression of its own people. However, President Obama promised to negotiate with Iran in combination with international sanctions in contrast to his Republican political opponents. It is far better to negotiate with Iran than attend the funerals of U.S. military personnel at the Arlington National Cemetery or visit the tragically wounded at the Bethesda Naval Hospital. In regard to shared national sacrifice, we continue the immoral and morally corrosive policy of asking less than 1% of our young to bear the burden of war without any sacrifice of the majority, not even taxes to pay for the wars, while another 1% realizes unprecedented wealth.
Israel seems willing to accept diplomacy by the U.S. with Iran only as long as it fails! Israel hopes by intimation, threats, assassinations, ruin of the Iranian economy to provoke the Iranian government into an act of violence against the West, those the Iranians view are strangling its trade, undermining its industry, assassinating its citizens and imposing bellicose ultimatums seeking regime change. Obviously, it would be best for Iran and the world community if Iran did not pursue nuclear weapons, which has not been confirmed, but the same applies to Pakistan, India or North Korea! Whatever forces of moderation exist in Iran will disappear when the first cruise missile or smart bomb strikes Iran! The Iranians will prove to be a different enemy than the Iraqis with long term asymmetric warfare possible on a global basis, not restricted to the Middle East but to include Europe and North America. NO WAR WITH IRAN!
Nal,
I thank you….. I would say wonderful news…. But this is the stuff wars are made of… Sorry…if this is not so obvious…. In reading a few international news paper…. I don’t know who hates who more….
Complete nonsense from Dershowitz…the term was coined by a zionist. Abram Leon Sachar who was a zionist and the founder of Brandeis University and it fits. Dershowitz is basically creating the mathamatic formula…criticize Israel, you’re an anti-Semite…and if your Jewish…as MJ Rosenberg is…you’re simply reduced to “self-hating” this means no criticism can be launched.
“Israel Firsters” aren’t automatically Jewish either….look at the rhetoric of Michelle Bachmann, Santorum, etc. They are Israel Firsters when it comes to many policies and they aren’t jewish.
This attack is being facilitated by FoxNews in its attempt to smear the firm that has held it to account.
This formula of any criticism of Israeli lobbying in America as ‘anti-semitic’ only creates more anti-semitic garbage. Dershowitz can’t see his own bias but I can. I had the privilege of being there when he and Finkelstein had it out on DemocracyNow in 2003. He’s really pathetic, frankly. His views on torture and other items lead me to question where he’s a “liberal” as FoxNews appoints him.
The attack on MJ Rosenberg is not on topic but ad hominem. They can’t respond to his points only to trying to smear him with ad hominem abusive attacks. That alone tells me they have no response.
“His critics (and this debate) would be better served by addressing the underlying point on why our current policies are in the best interests of the U.S. rather than attacking those expressing such views.”
Amen to that.
I’m no expert on the subject of Israel, but I can see how the writings of M.J. Rosenberg can easily get under the skin of Alan Dershowitz. Even so, I’d expect the esteemed attorney could muster a more refined – and far more effective – criticism, than the hackneyed anti-Semitism rant. It is just such reactions, that dull the sensitivities of those who might otherwise assess his complaint with clarity.
Professor Dershowitz’ unsophisticated response of, “let’s hang the messenger” mirrors those who yammer “racism” in any logical discussion, of the societal distortions occurring in this country, when cities try to accommodate millions of Hispanic folks in far too short a time. Valid concerns do not originate from hostility, directed toward a people for no reason other than their heritage.
Valid concerns exist when the proof is in the pudding on your plate.
Glenn Greenwald:
The “anti-Semitism” smear campaign against CAP and Media Matters rolls on
They are particularly panicked by their eroding power to monopolize the discourse. When Time Magazine’s Joe Klein is warning of “Israel-Firsters” and pointing out the role they played in bringing about the Iraq War and now trying to repeat that feat with Iran, and when The New York Times‘ Tom Friedman is warning that U.S. policy is “held hostage” by the Israel Lobby and the U.S. Congress is “bought and paid for by the Israel Lobby,” it’s clear that things have changed.
Great job Mike…..
What Mike said.
Apparently Alan has forgotten what the 1st Amendment means.
Alas poor Alan Dershowitz, we once knew him well. This was a man who once was among the great civil libertarian lawyers in this country. Both he and I as Jews are very attached to Israel. However, we differ greatly on AIPAC and on Bibi Netanyahu. Critique of Israel is in many cases not synonymous with being anti-Jewish, yet Mr. Dershowitz and others do their cause harm by claiming it is. There is a good case to be made for the continued existence of Israel, but one need not cast aspersions on Israeli critics to make that case.
Part of the reason I wound up at Professor Turley’s blog was that I was “run out” of both Democracy Now.com and Alternet.com for my defense of Israel’s right to exist and their reaction that I was a Right-Wing nut. Those here who had read my take on Israel in the past years I think understand that I am hardly a Right wing militant, nor do I think that attacking Iran is a good idea.
As for Mr. Dershowitz, his positions in his latter years of foreign policy and on the issue of torture have disappointed me greatly, since I once was a fervent admirer of his stands on Civil Liberties. It is a cruel truth that aging and the growth of wisdom are not corollaries.
He wouldn’t be the first CIA asset to do that, nor the last.
Didn’t hillary come out first and say if Israel acts they act alone against Iraq….. Then….. We support them….. Hmmm….maybe both have valid points….
If you can’t win on the merits of your argument, then intimidate your opponents into silence. A sign of a meritless argument.
Great article Professor. If a writer cannot make good faith arguments, we are all harmed. Harvard students would not get all of the facts on ths issue if they followed Prof. Dershowitz’s demands.