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.
Can’t wait to read it all. You post too fast for me to read.
Look, am full of Robert Baer’s book The Devil We Know from 2008.
In it he points out that the only wars Israel has lost was in 2000 and 2006 (if memory serves). The opponents, shia islamist in Lebanon supported by Iran troops (500). He also points out that removing Saddam AND his army took away the only hinder to Iran subverting Iraq through proxies since the first iraqi government. Iraq is 60 percent Shia, 15 percent Sunni and then the Kurds am not sure about. He means that Iran, in 2008, had already won 60 per cent of the war, coldly calculating that America would not stay the course there but was content to see them bled and the american public to tire.
They also count on the American staying power in the Persian Gulf not to last, and the control of Gulf oil falling to them. And they picture themselves taking over the Gulf States and answering for Holy Mecca.
I think the folks in Washington are aware of this, and knows that their only chance is a pre-emptive knockout. What holds them back?: China and Russia. Who’s pressuring them: Israel and its lobby. Also holding them back is money. But Bush did it without money, so…….this last paragraph is my assumptions. haven’t gotten so far in the book to today, so to speak.
I also feel that Big oil would like to get their hands on Irani oil again.
You could be right ekeyra. Great link.
What first amendment?
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120301/15425317936/chipping-away-first-amendment-new-trespassing-bill-could-be-used-to-criminalize-legitimate-protests.shtml
Mike Spindell 1, March 2, 2012 at 12:15 pm
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.
=================================
Me too, even though I am not Jewish. Long live Israel. Long live Iran. Long live America.
Friday, Mar 2, 2012 8:38 AM Eastern Standard Time
The incomplete media debate on Iran
By Glenn Greenwald
http://www.salon.com/2012/03/02/the_incomplete_media_debate_on_iran/singleton/
Excerpt:
…
“For months, Americans have been subjected to this continuous, coordinated, repetitive messaging from Israeli officials, amplified through the U.S. media. This is generally how the establishment American media conducts the debate over whether to attack Iran: here are Israeli officials explaining why an attack is urgent and why the U.S. must conduct it. Now here are American officials explaining why an attack can wait a little while longer but that it will happen if necessary to stop Iran from having a nuclear weapon. Occasionally, here are American foreign policy experts arguing why an attack would be too difficult and costly. What is missing from the debate are the views held not only by Iranian leaders but also large populations in numerous capitals and nations around the world: that Iran has the right to pursue its nuclear program; that it is Israel and the U.S. — not Iran — that poses the greatest threat to world peace; that American and Israeli aggression against non-nuclear states (along with their massive stockpile of nuclear weapons) is what makes it rational for a nation to want to proliferate, etc. One does not have to agree with any of those views to recognize how widely they are held in the world and how much of a place they (therefore) merit in the discussion.
If one searches hard enough, one can likely find American media accounts attempting to describe or present the views of Iran on this conflict or other nations which support it — just like NBC News can point to a single Iranian source among the tidal wave of American and Israeli government and military officials who brief its top executives and shape their understanding of the issue. But overwhelmingly, the American media continuously amplifies the views of American and Israeli officials while all but suppressing the views of those on the other side. For every one Iranian official Americans are permitted to hear from (and they are treated with extreme skepticism by American journalists), they hear from countless Israelis (who are treated with the utmost deference). The same thing happens on an even more extreme scale with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (one almost never hears from Palestinians in our media debates), and more extremely still when it comes to demonizing America’s designated enemies (who are virtually never heard from, and are sometimes even officially excluded from media reports). This is the dynamic by which the American establishment media, often without even consciously realizing they’re doing it, severely narrows and distorts our national political debates while pretending to host free-ranging and vibrant discussions.” (and the article continues)
Raff,
My pleasure…. My new playtoy has me on my toes as well….It auto corrects…things I did not know….. But, I can get access to more that 350 international newspapers…. Apparently there is something going on all over the world…. Not sure what…but I like the read….
If Dershowitz (and FOX) really cared about anti-Semitism in the US, he would be sounding off about stories like this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/menachem-rosensaft/arthur-jones-holocaust_b_1312530.html
Oro Lee 1, March 2, 2012 at 1:10 pm
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!
====================================
Well said.
AY,
I always screw up with the auto correct so I was worried with that one! 🙂
Raff,
Here…. Fister…… Physter…… Any help?
I think lrobby99 wins the kewpie doll for the day. It’s all assuring there is only one message in the US
“it leaves the impression of an effort to create a chilling effect for any writers who are considering voicing similar views.”
Mr. Turley, you give the Israel Firsters too much credit when you assume that this “chilling effect” is unintentional. I would propose that silencing all but the unquestioning Israel cheerleaders is the primary intention of this course of action. It’s the new way international political decisions are made: Rational discourse is out, mudslinging and ad hominem is in.
Why Occupy AIPAC?
Roane Carey on March 1, 2012
http://www.thenation.com/blog/166559/why-occupy-aipac
Excerpt:
Every year, in an impressive display of raw lobby power, the AIPAC Policy Conference descends on Washington. And every year, a huge number of senators and congressmen from both parties, as well as the American president, compete to see who can be the most obsequious toward what AIPAC falsely calls “the pro-Israel movement.”
Never have the stakes been higher. It’s well known that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wants to go to war with Iran. He would like the United States to do the job or join Israel in an attack, or, at the very least, not stand in Israel’s way. On the eve of this year’s conference, Netanyahu gave new meaning to the word chutzpah by letting it be known he’ll demand Obama’s guarantee that Washington will go to war if Iran’s nuclear program advances beyond specific “red lines”; see these reports by Haaretz’s Barak Ravid and the Guardian’s Chris McGreal.
Bibi is playing a high-stakes intimidation game: he knows he can count on Congress to follow the AIPAC line, as it has for many years. Legislators from both parties are already demanding White House cooperation with Israeli war aims. And he may be betting that he can make Obama pay a price this November if the president doesn’t cooperate. The fact that former Mossad director Meir Dagan and other Israeli security experts, as well as US military officials like Joint Chiefs of Staff chair Martin Dempsey, are worried about the catastrophic consequences of such a war seems not to have swayed Bibi in the least.
Why is Netanyahu so certain he can sway an American president? Partly because of the power of AIPAC (in league with a broad circle of AIPAC affiliates, including the Christian Zionist lobby), which has for decades worked assiduously to keep Congress closely aligned with the most belligerent Israeli policies, chief among them the illegal colonization of the occupied Palestinian territories, now in its forty-fifth year. Legislators who get out of line are targeted in their re-election campaigns, and the lobby and its close allies use McCarthyite tactics to intimidate the press and policy circles. Infamous recent examples include smears against the Center for American Progress and Media Matters by former AIPAC-er Josh Block, which was amplified in the broader media, and by an outfit called the Emergency Committee for Israel, which ran a grotesque full-page ad attacking CAP and Media Matters in today’s New York Times.
It’s time for this to stop. In fact, it’s time to Occupy AIPAC. This weekend, CODEPINK Women for Peace, along with the Institute for Policy Studies, Just Foreign Policy, the US Palestinian Community Network, Interfaith Peace-Builders and Jewish Voice for Peace, is organizing a summit in Washington at the same time as the AIPAC Policy Conference. Endorsed by more than 100 organizations around the country, the summit is going to shine a spotlight on AIPAC’s abusive practices and discuss a more rational Middle East policy, for both Israel and the United States.
I’ll use the term “Israel Firster”, and I’ll use it without fear of the anti-Semitc label that has in the past and, apparently, is still attached to critics of right wing Israeli/AIPAC-stoked fearmongering and policies that give knee jerk support to Israel over American interests in the region. Not to mention corrosive effects on the function of Congress, though it’s hard to imagine that body being more dysfuctional regardless.
Dershowitz must be becoming more desperate that the fearmongering tactics are losing their dog whistle effect. Dershowitz needs to get a good dose of his own arrogant medicine, though I think that day is far off. Sorry to disagree with the professor, but Dershowitz’ stand on this issue taints everything he does and says. He can’t be trusted, except to be and AIPAC shill, and deserves no respect IMO.
Gene,
as an Israel firster, Dershowitz has forgotten his proper allegiance. Boy, I really had to be careful typing “firster”!
Great link anon nurse. It is nice when sanity rules the day. Even if only occasionally.
On Iran Strike, Israelis Trust Obama Over Bibi
Friday 2 March 2012
by: Robert Naiman, Truthout
“AIPAC is expected to push Congress for legislation next week that would facilitate an Israeli military strike on Iran. If you think sending Israelis to bomb shelters against their will isn’t necessarily “pro-Israel,” why not tell your representatives in Congress? The Friends Committee on National Legislation has established a toll-free number for you to use: 1-855-686-6927.”
Robert Naiman is policy director at Just Foreign Policy and president of Truthout’s board of directors.
http://www.truth-out.org/iran-strike-israelis-trust-obama-over-bibi/1330698148
I saw a lawyer (a naturalized citizen) argue before the court: “Judge, opposing counsel has done his best to impugn my character and ability not only as a lawyer but also as a decent member of this community and as citizen of this great state. Assuming all that is true, what does it have to do with whether his response was timely filed?”
Even a blind hog sometimes finds an acorn now and then, and even bigots tell the truth when it matches their bias.
Even if “Israel-first” is anti-semitic as opposed to a short hand reference for some other concept, it doesn’t take anything away from (1) comparing the run up to war with Iran to the run up to war with Iraq, and (2) noting that a majority of Israeli citizens do not support the government’s position.
How dare anyone in the US have an opinion that does not conform to the Likud line! They should be driven out of this country & forced to live in some hellhole that tolerates such apostasy. I’d suggest Israel where this sort of thing is part of the daily discourse & differences of opinion are permitted. Certainly we cannot afford such a luxury here in the US!
Mike S. is correct. Prof. Dershowitz has developed a constitutional blind spot of all matters affecting Israel. The Media Matters flap is only the latest example.
Memo to Prof. Dershowitz: Criticism of Israel and Israeli policy is protected speech, regardless of the motivations of the speaker or the vehemence with which he speaks. That is so basic that it ought not be necessary to remind you. But it apparently is, so consider yourself reminded.