Saturday, October 18, 2008
Maybe double. Here he is trying to justify his support for Obama: Why I support Israel and Obama
...There may be some difference in nuance among the candidates, especially with regard to negotiations with Iran, but supporters of Israel should not base their voting decision on which party or which candidates support Israel more enthusiastically. In the United States, Israel is not a divisive issue, and voting for President is not a referendum on support for Israel, at least among the major parties.
I want to keep it that way. I want to make sure that support for Israel remains strong both among liberals and conservatives. It is clear that extremists on both sides of the political spectrum hate Israel, because they hate liberal democracies, because they tend to have a special place in their heart for tyrannical regimes, and because they often have strange views with regard to anything Jewish. The extreme left, as represented by Noam Chomsky, Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, Norman Finkelstein and, most recently, Jimmy Carter has little good to say about the Jewish state. But nor does the extreme right, as represented by Pat Buchanan, Robert Novak, Joseph Sobran and David Duke. When it comes to Israel there is little difference between the extreme right and the extreme left. Nor is there much of a difference between the centrist political left and the centrist political right: both generally support Israel. Among Israel's strongest supporters have always been Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The same is true of the centrist political right, as represented by Mitt Romney, George W. Bush, Orrin Hatch and John McCain.
Why then do I favor Obama over McCain? First, because I support him on policies unrelated to Israel, such as the Supreme Court, women's rights, separation of church and state and the economy. But I also prefer Obama to McCain on the issue of Israel. How can I say that if I have just acknowledged that on the issues they both seem to support Israel to an equal degree? The reason is because I think it is better for Israel to have a liberal supporter in the White House than to have a conservative supporter in the oval office. Obama's views on Israel will have greater impact on young people, on Europe, on the media and on others who tend to identify with the liberal perspective. Although I believe that centrists liberals in general tend to support Israel, I acknowledge that support from the left seems to be weakening as support from the right strengthens. The election of Barack Obama - a liberal supporter of Israel - will enhance Israel's position among wavering liberals...
I am not without sympathy to Dershowitz's position. Support for Israel ought to be kept a bipartisan matter as much as possible. AIPAC's efforts to remain in the middle are laudable for instance. And it's easy for me, since I disagree with Obama and the Dems on most things. It doesn't bother me that there are Jews on both sides, keeping the enemy close as it were.
Contrary to Dershowitz, I would argue that the fringe left is far more influential on the mainstream than the fringe right is, and further, I find it remarkable that a man who has spent so much time in combat with one of our worst ex-presidents wouldn't be able to look into the future and see a bit more clearly what he is going to be creating for the future with an ex-President Obama. That guy is not only a disaster in the making for the next four or eight years, his damage will stretch far into the future as well. Better that Dershowitz would sit this one out, but we all do what our consciences dictate.
[h/t: Fred]
Dershowitz is a lawyer.
Shakespeare summed his sort up in a comment, no not that one, but from "Richard III":
"Where's your conscience now?"
"In the Duke of Gloucester's purse!"
He denounced spousal abuse until he got on the O. J. Simpson dream team; he opposed sexual harassment, particularly by a superior at work, until he got on President Clinton's defense team.
The best way for Carter to make Dershowitz disavow his work on Israel would be for Jimmiah to hire him. Indeed, David Irving could also have profited by such an example.
Support for Israel is mandatory. Solomon's right that support for Israel ought to be a bi-partisan affair, or more accurately, something that liberals and conservatives agree on regardless of party affiliation, if any.
As innocent and mild as that statement is, our enemies can distort it and cite it as a prima facie demonstration of the stranglehold the nasty Israel Lobby has on political discourse.
For all that Dersh, Steve Grossman and their liberal pals say about what a good friend of Israel BHO is, Nappy still doesn't buy it. Lots of people claim to be Zionists who support Israel, but they couldn't be more wrong on the issues. Consider Boston luminaries like Leonard Fein or Alan Solomont or look at what outfits like Brit Tzedek, Peace Now or J Street are doing. The notion of supporting Israel is so broad that even those who advocate Jewicidal appeasement call themselves Israel friends.
I've looked into his eyes and seen his soul. Nappy was surprised at Dersh's lack of personal testimonial for BHO, whom he might have known as a student or through the Harvard Law Review.
The Supremes. Not only are Obama's views on a range of issues closer to Dersh's liberal take on things, but maybe by endorsing BHO Dersh figures he increases his chances of being nominated to the Supreme Court. Then again, maybe he doesn't want that gig. He's already got a tenured job, he seems to like it up here and, as a law prof, he can moonlight, something he couldn't do in a black robe down in DC.
Have big mouth, will travel. Joseph T Major (Hmmm. Any relation to Major Major Major Major? Now that dude's parents had a sense of humor!) is right to point out that Dersh is a liar for hire, so his 0views can change depending on his clients' needs. Joseph T. Major makes me nervous about what the sequel to The Case for Israel will be like.