November 13, 2008
The Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) reported this story a few days ago, which apparently never made it to the US mainstream media: how a right wing supporter of Israel, Alan Dershowitz, the famous Harvard lawyer, convinced Barak Obama to shun Jimmy Carter at the DNC convention, presumably due to Carter advocacy for the Palestinian people through his book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, and his statements about the siege of Gaza, which he called a “human rights abomination.” We all witnessed Jimmy Carter’s brief humble trek across the stage to applause, then disappear, never to be seen again.
Dershowitz claims he is a liberal Democrat but if a liberal Democrat can support the inhumane treatment and suffering of any people, what is he, really? About Carter, there are no doubts that he is a statesman and humanitarian, who won the Nobel Peace Prize for his worldly efforts to bring peace and democracy to foreign peoples. Dershowitz, by contrast, deserves not to be mentioned in the same sentence with Jimmy Carter.
This episode leads us to ask: is Obama, like Dershowitz, a double-standard Democrat? The Middle East waits to find out.
WASHINGTON (JTA) — Alan Dershowitz says he helped convince Barack Obama to keep Jimmy Carter from speaking at the Democratic National Convention.
“I pushed him very hard to make that decision,” Dershowitz said in an interview with Shalom TV. “Barack Obama had to make a choice between his Jewish supporters and his anti-Israel supporters like Jimmy Carter, and he did not choose Jimmy Carter. And that was an embarrassment for Jimmy Carter and a show of disrespect.”
“It was a good decision, a wise decision, a moral decision,” the Harvard Law professor added.
(snip)
In the interview, Dershowitz also said he believes that Obama’s support in the pro-Palestinian community could make it easier to advance the peace process.
The fact that there are some in the pro-Palestinian community who like him (Obama) may be a positive thing–that he can reach out to both communities and be an honest broker who, without compromising Israel’s security, can facilitate a kind of peace that will be both in the best interests of Israel and the best interests of the Palestinian people.
Did Dershowitz actually say that? Let’s get oriented here to just who Dershowitz is and just what his actions have been on behalf of peace in the Middle East:
Despite Protest, Dershowitz Funds Occupation
NYers held a boisterous 3rd protest calling for a boycott of Israeli settlement magnate Leviev, as Alan Dershowitz shopped there.
By Adalah-NY
New York, NY, Dec. 8 – Wealthy Madison Avenue holiday shoppers were greeted Saturday afternoon by boisterous music and dancing, as 60 New Yorkers protested in a growing campaign to boycott Israeli diamond magnate Lev Leviev over his settlement construction in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. Participants performed a joyous dabke, a traditional Palestinian dance, and chanted to music from the eight-piece Rude Mechanical Orchestra. During the protest, Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz entered LEVIEV New York and emerged to jeers as he displayed a LEVIEV shopping bag to the crowd.
Alan Dershowitz is fooling no one.
But that Obama would obsequiously bend to Dershowitz’s demands to exclude Jimmy Carter from the DNC convention does not augur well for a future Middle East peace agreement during the Obama administration.
that Obama would obsequiously bend to Dershowitz’s demands to exclude Jimmy Carter from the DNC convention does not augur well for a future Middle East peace agreement during the Obama administration.
Neither would his choosing Hillary Clinton as his SoS:
The Irresponsibility of Appointing Hillary Clinton Secretary of State
There is no way that Clinton could be viewed as anything close to an honest broker in a Middle East peace process.
according to npr and AP it would appear that you’d best get used to the idea of hillary as SoS. the big dog has apparently acquiesced on disclosure of donors.
Sen. Clinton weighing secretary of state post:
l really have nothing to add, other than l hope like hell obama knows what he’s doing…and in for…
I had that signature for a while after Obama’s vote for the FISA bill. 😉
Justin Raimondo has an interesting:
This is the best explanation I’ve run across for why Obama would pick Clinton. And Raimondo very much sees the Clintons working as a team (if not openly).
How much power and influence a SoS wields depends on what the president wants. William Rogers wasn’t that influential under Nixon when Kissinger was his National Security Adviser, but of course, the SoS basically ran foreign policy under Nixon once Kissinger assumed that position.
Raimondo’s theory is very interesting.
The question that immediately comes up is: who will be the National Security Adviser under Obama? I can’t see the Clinton’s walking into a Colin Powell like situation at State. I can’t see Hillary and Bill walking into a subordinate position at State, while someone else calls the shots.
I agree. And it’s a sign that the elite media is as stupid as ever that I haven’t seen anyone raise that question in connection with the potential pick of HC as SoS.
Come to think of it, it’s strange that I haven’t see anyone speculate about this at all, even not in that connection.
It also just occurred to me that given that there are two wars on, a more natural post for Obama to delegate foreign policy to would be National Security Adviser. It could precisely be that Obama wants HC to walk into a Colin Powell like situation. He might want her to commit to be SoS before the NSA has been announced, which it is of course hard to see her doing, as you note.
Googling produced this:
Naming National Security Team Will Be a Priority for Obama
Well, I guess he wouldn’t be too threatening to the Clintons.
If it’s true that Obama doesn’t know who his NSA is going to be yet, then that supports Raimondo’s suggestion that Obama really isn’t that into foreign policy.
Absolutely. Clinton would immediately raise skepticism as a proponent of peace in the Middle East. Apart from never espousing support for a two state solution, she was a sponsor of the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act in the Senate. She and Bill’s chummy relationship with Avigdor Lieberman, Israel’s chief racist is also not likely to go down well with Palestinians and their regional supporters.
Clinton is a bad choice for SOS and hopefully she will bow out of the offer.
I’ve been wondering for some years now, what makes Dershowitz a “liberal Democrat”? Is it just because he says so?
Liberal on social issues, right wing militant hawk on foreign policy: it’s the definition of a Neocon, actually.
It’s being a Democrat in the same way Joe Lieberman is a Democrat. So Dershowitz can claim to be a liberal Democrat too. Anyway, this is my take on this seeming contradiction.
So he’s a member of the Lieberman Party, OK.
(Joe isn’t as liberal on social issues as his reputation; I’ll never forget his saying a woman who’s been raped and winds up in an emergency room, with MDs or the hospital itself unwilling to provide morning-after pills, can just go to another hospital ER.)
Alan Dershowitz needs to have a foot buried in his ass. He’s worthles. He’s nothing but a hate-monger, and his supporters need to be ashamed of themselves. He’s no better than Rush Limbaugh and his ilk. Why people don’t boycott Dershowitz’s every class is beyond me.
He’s a disgusting an sorry excuse of a human being. He needs to be ashamed of himself. As a political liberal and a democrat I refuse to share my ideology with the pitiful likes of Alan Dershowitz. He’s a disgrace, and he needs to be told so-and very publicly.
Dershowitz is a double-standards Democrat, who might support civil rights legislation as it applies to this country’s problems, but would relinquish these very same values when it comes to the role of Zionist nationalism, apartheid, and racism in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The man has two faces, and lives with two sets of values that are ethnocentrically determined.
Dersh is a spokesperson for the Israel Lobby. Whenever there’s a new meme or smear to be rolled out (whether it’s against Finkelstein, Carter or the Presbyterian Church), he’s always reliably on-board with an editorial, a new book or the talk-show circuit. The Israel Lobby has strong advocates in both parties who advocate hardline support of Israel and marginalize (and demonize) other voices. It’s no surprise that the Israel Lobby wanted to keep Carter away from the podium (considering that he was the only person who mentioned Palestinians at the 2004 convention); it’s just disappointing that Obama submitted to the pressure.
The Free Gaza movement has offered its assistance to the UN and aid agencies in getting humanitarian aid to Gaza:
A diary on this news release from the Free Gaza Movement might help to give the concept some legs.
Also, interesting article by Jonathan Cook:
Just sad that the US and the rest of the free world is going along. The UN is also part of the quartet: where is it?
Not even a little bit surprising that the US, including some of Obama’s top picks (Rahm Emanuel and Hillary Clinton come immediately to mind) is not merely going along with it, but supporting it.
But it IS surprising that the rest of the world is so silent about it. Where is the outrage? Where is the deep concern for human rights? Where is the compassion that has people screaming about Darfur?