Why Alan Dershowitz is Wrong about BLM

christiefan915

Catalyst
Contributor
On Friday, Alan Dershowitz — the famous lawyer and staunch Israel defender — wrote an op-ed in the Boston Globe calling Black Lives Matter anti-Semitic for its criticism of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian. The piece was a classic example of misdirection not uncommon from vociferous pro-Israel commentators; taking criticism of Israel and spinning it as inherently anti-Semitic. The best way to show the mechanics of this misdirection, to expose it for its logical inconsistency, is to analyze each section of Dershowitz’s argument and point out where it goes wrong.

“It is a real tragedy that Black Lives Matter — which has done so much good in raising awareness of police abuses — has now moved away from its central mission and has declared war against the nation state of the Jewish people. In a recently issued ‘platform,’ more than 60 groups that form the core of the Black Lives Matter movement went out of their way to single out one foreign nation to accuse of genocide and apartheid.”

Dershowitz point that BLM has “moved away from its central mission” is presumptive and inaccurate. It is presumptive because Dershowitz has no say in what BLM’s central mission is or ought to be — that is, obviously, up to BLM. The statement is inaccurate because even if we believe Dershowitz’ implication that BLM’s “central mission” should only be about, in his words, “raising awareness of police abuses,” BLM’s criticism of Israel doesn’t divert from this.

The BLM platform has six sections... Only one subsection mentions Israel ... the subsection title has nothing to do with Israel. It is “A Cut in US Military Expenditures and A Reallocation of those Funds to Invest in Domestic Infrastructure and Community Wellbeing.” It’s hard to argue that Israel’s place in the platform diverts from the “central mission” when Israel is so peripheral in the first place. BLM’s point is not to criticize arbitrary human rights abuses; it is to criticize those abuses directly supported by the United States. The U.S. provides $3.1 billion dollars in military aid to Israel. That’s the largest amount of military aid U.S. gives to any country in the world.

Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic. Like other democracies, including our own, it has faults. Criticizing Israel’s settlement and occupation policies is fair game. But singling Israel out and falsely accusing it of “genocide” can be explained in no other way than blatant hatred of Jews and their state.”
Paragraph 5 is the thesis of Dershowitz’ argument. He tries to preempt criticism that would (and should) come his way by saying that “criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic.” But literally two sentences later, he calls a criticism of Israel anti-Semitic. What Dershowitz means to say is that criticism that he is okay with is not anti-Semitic. But as long as he doesn’t agree with it, it definitely is.

(Continued)

https://medium.com/@prasrajasekaran...-wrote-an-op-ed-in-the-5cb05a023dc#.3waj1jimw
 
“Until and unless Black Lives Matter removes this blood libel from its platform and renounces it, no decent person — black, white, or of any other racial or ethnic background — should have anything to do with it. We should continue to fight against police abuses by supporting other organizations or forming new ones. But we must not become complicit in the promotion of anti-Semitism just because we agree with the rest of the Black Lives Matter program.”

Blood libel is a reference to how, back in the Middle Ages, Jewish people were wrongly accused of using the blood of Christians in rituals. Dershowitz’ use of this analogy is representative of his style: an overwrought pathos that sees any controversial criticism of Israel as purely anti-Semitic.

“There must be zero tolerance for anti-Semitism, regardless of the race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation of the bigots who promote, practice or are complicit with it. Being on the right side of one racial issue does not give one a license to be on the wrong side of the oldest bigotry.”

This might be the most infuriating part of Dershowitz’ piece. Calling anti-Semitism the “oldest bigotry” is an underhanded attempt at prioritizing anti-Semitism over other forms of bigotry. It is a purely divisive maneuver that undermines BLM’s struggle, and it directly contradicts Dershowitz’ own message of fighting all forms of racism equally.

“To give Black Lives Matter a pass on its anti-Jewish bigotry would be to engage in racism. Black anti-Semitism is as inexcusable as white anti-Semitism or white racism. There can be no double standard when it comes to bigotry.”

I would argue the real double-standard is in calling racist arguably the most prominent anti-racist organization in the world, without a shred of evidence. That, too, for its defense of a people who have been under military occupation for nearly 70 years.

https://medium.com/@prasrajasekaran...-wrote-an-op-ed-in-the-5cb05a023dc#.3waj1jimw
 
On Friday, Alan Dershowitz — the famous lawyer and staunch Israel defender — wrote an op-ed in the Boston Globe calling Black Lives Matter anti-Semitic for its criticism of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian. The piece was a classic example of misdirection not uncommon from vociferous pro-Israel commentators; taking criticism of Israel and spinning it as inherently anti-Semitic. The best way to show the mechanics of this misdirection, to expose it for its logical inconsistency, is to analyze each section of Dershowitz’s argument and point out where it goes wrong.

“It is a real tragedy that Black Lives Matter — which has done so much good in raising awareness of police abuses — has now moved away from its central mission and has declared war against the nation state of the Jewish people. In a recently issued ‘platform,’ more than 60 groups that form the core of the Black Lives Matter movement went out of their way to single out one foreign nation to accuse of genocide and apartheid.”

Dershowitz point that BLM has “moved away from its central mission” is presumptive and inaccurate. It is presumptive because Dershowitz has no say in what BLM’s central mission is or ought to be — that is, obviously, up to BLM. The statement is inaccurate because even if we believe Dershowitz’ implication that BLM’s “central mission” should only be about, in his words, “raising awareness of police abuses,” BLM’s criticism of Israel doesn’t divert from this.

The BLM platform has six sections... Only one subsection mentions Israel ... the subsection title has nothing to do with Israel. It is “A Cut in US Military Expenditures and A Reallocation of those Funds to Invest in Domestic Infrastructure and Community Wellbeing.” It’s hard to argue that Israel’s place in the platform diverts from the “central mission” when Israel is so peripheral in the first place. BLM’s point is not to criticize arbitrary human rights abuses; it is to criticize those abuses directly supported by the United States. The U.S. provides $3.1 billion dollars in military aid to Israel. That’s the largest amount of military aid U.S. gives to any country in the world.

Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic. Like other democracies, including our own, it has faults. Criticizing Israel’s settlement and occupation policies is fair game. But singling Israel out and falsely accusing it of “genocide” can be explained in no other way than blatant hatred of Jews and their state.”
Paragraph 5 is the thesis of Dershowitz’ argument. He tries to preempt criticism that would (and should) come his way by saying that “criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic.” But literally two sentences later, he calls a criticism of Israel anti-Semitic. What Dershowitz means to say is that criticism that he is okay with is not anti-Semitic. But as long as he doesn’t agree with it, it definitely is.

(Continued)

https://medium.com/@prasrajasekaran...-wrote-an-op-ed-in-the-5cb05a023dc#.3waj1jimw
My guess he won't succeed in his attempt to intimidate the "60" groups...........
 
BLM may have started out as a legitimate response to racist police brutality [even if they do reject statistics lol] but it has morphed into an amorphous hodgepodge of radical leftists voicing radical leftist causes. First black reparations and now this nonsense.

But it's an election year and Hillary must be installed at all costs, so the Democrats will tiptoe around BLM's latest outrage. It makes it a little dicey because this offends even liberal Jews and theres a risk it can develop into a wedge issue between Jews and Blacks.

Asserting that Israel is engaged in genocide is fringe antisemetic bigotry---and it's far worse than anything Trump has said.

Dershowitz is right, BLM should be called out on their bigotry, but they won't because black turnout is critical to Hillary's campaign.

Don't be surprised if BLM loses their funding after the election. When they're no longer useful.
 
BLM may have started out as a legitimate response to racist police brutality [even if they do reject statistics lol] but it has morphed into an amorphous hodgepodge of radical leftists voicing radical leftist causes. First black reparations and now this nonsense.

But it's an election year and Hillary must be installed at all costs, so the Democrats will tiptoe around BLM's latest outrage. It makes it a little dicey because this offends even liberal Jews and theres a risk it can develop into a wedge issue between Jews and Blacks.

Asserting that Israel is engaged in genocide is fringe antisemetic bigotry---and it's far worse than anything Trump has said.

Dershowitz is right, BLM should be called out on their bigotry, but they won't because black turnout is critical to Hillary's campaign.

Don't be surprised if BLM loses their funding after the election. When they're no longer useful.

Well isn't that how politics is played??

Look @ what they did to Sheehan...

She was the big hero that everyone wanted to go to texas & cry w/ & then when she was unwilling to follow them into good wars & killings they dumped her out like yesterdays trash..
 
And what is your point, after all that? That Jewish people deserve what they get? That BLM doesn't need to empathize with Israel because oppressed Levant people happen to have terrorists?

I am staunchly progressive. I stand with the victims of Gaza. But that fact does not allow me to describe Israel as a genocidal country. Do you remember the USS Liberty? Yes, Israel fucked us. It is fucking guaranteed that they fucked us. But they were fighting for survival. We didn't appreciate their tenacity. I just wish that the brave men and women of the USS Liberty were given their due. Israel lied. They attacked an innocent surveillance ship with air and gunboat aggression. Our leaders at the time, (I'm talking to you, Lyndon Banes Johnson, you fucking prick for not defending innocent Americans).
 
Back
Top