Archive for the ‘Alan Dershowitz’ Category

Alan Dershowitz: Why I Will Leave Democratic Party If Keith …

Ed. Note: This article first appeared in The Hill.

Tomorrow the Democratic National Committee (DNC) will have to choose the direction of the Democratic Party, as well as its likely composition. It will be among the most important choices the DNC has ever had to make.

There has been powerful push from the hard-left of the Democratic Party, led by senator Bernie Sanders, to elect Keith Ellison chairman. If he is elected, I will quit the party after 60 years of loyal association and voting.

I will become an independent, continuing to vote for the best candidates, most of whom, I assume, will still be Democrats.

But I will not contribute to the DNC or support it as an institution. My loyalty to my country and my principles and my heritage exceeds any loyalty to my party. I will urge other like-minded people centrist liberals to follow my lead and quit the Democratic Party if Ellison is elected chairman. We will not be leaving the Democratic Party we have long supported. The Democratic Party will be leaving us!

Let me explain the reasons for this difficult decision on my part. Ellison has a long history of sordid association with anti-Semitism. He worked closely and supported one of a handful of the most notorious and public anti-Semites in our country: The Reverend Louis Farrakhan. And he worked with Farrakhan at the very time this anti-Semite was publicly describing Judaism as a “gutter religion” and insisting that the Jews were a primary force in the African slave trade.

Ellison has publicly stated that he was unaware of Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism. That is not a credible statement. Everyone was aware of Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism. Farrakhan did not try to hide it. Indeed he proclaimed it on every occasion. Ellison is either lying or he willfully blinded himself to what was obvious to everyone else. Neither of these qualities makes him suitable to be the next Chairman of the DNC.

Moreover, Ellison himself has made anti-Semitic statements. A prominent lawyer, with significant credibility, told me that while he was a law student, Ellison approached her and said he could not respect her, because she was a Jew and because she was a woman who should not be at a law school. This woman immediately disclosed that anti-Semitic and anti-feminists statement to her husband and friends, and I believe she is telling the truth.

Ellison’s anti-Semitism is confirmed by his support for another anti-Semite, Stokely Carmichael. When there were protests about Carmichael’s speaking at the University of Minnesota, Ellison responded that “Political Zionism is off-limits no matter what dubious circumstances Israel was founded under; no matter what the Zionists do to the Palestinians; and no matter what wicked regimes Israel allies itself with like South Africa. This position is untenable.”

At a fundraiser for his re-election in 2010, hosted by Esam Omeish, who had told Palestinians that “Jihad way is the way to liberate your land,” he complained that Jews had too much influence in American politics.

With regard to Israel, Ellison was one of only a small number of Congress people who recently voted against funding the Iron Dome, a missile system used by Israel to protect its civilians against rocket attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah. His voting record with regard to the Nation State of the Jewish people is among the very worst in Congress.

Ellison is now on an apology tour, but his apologies and renunciations of his past association with anti-Semitism have been tactical and timed to his political aspirations. He first claimed to realize that Farrakhan was an anti-Semite was when he ran for office seeking Jewish support. His claim to be a supporter of Israel was timed to coincide with his run for the chairmanship of DNC. I do not trust him. I do not believe him. And neither should centrist liberal supporters of Israel and opponents of anti-Semitism.

The DNC has a momentous choice this weekend. It can move the party in the direction of Jeremy Corbyn’s labor party in England, in the hope of attracting Jill Stein Green Party voters and millennials who stayed home. In doing so they would be giving up on any attempt to recapture the working class and Rust Belt voters in the mid-western states that turned the Electoral College over to Donald Trump. Jeremy Corbyn today could not get elected dog catcher in Great Britain.

I do not want to see the Democratic Party relegated to permanent minority status as a hard-left fringe. Remember what happened when the Democrats moved left by nominating George McGovern, Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis all good men. The total combined electoral votes for these candidates would not have won a single election. There is no reason to think the country has moved so far to the left since those days that the Democrats can win by pushing even further in the direction of the hard left. The self-destructive election of Keith Ellison will be hard to undue for many years.

So tomorrow, the Democrats must choose between electing Ellison or keeping centrist liberals, who support Israel, like me and many others in their party. I hope they choose wisely. But if they do not, I have made my choice.

2017 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Read this article:

Alan Dershowitz: Why I Will Leave Democratic Party If Keith …

Fair Usage Law

February 26, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

‘Country Over Party’: Dershowitz to Leave Dems If Ellison Is …

Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, a high-profile Democrat for decades, said in an op-ed published Friday that he will leave the party if Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) is elected chairman this weekend.

“My loyalty to my country and my principles and my heritage exceeds any loyalty to my party,” Dershowitz, who supported Hillary Clinton in 2016,wrote in “The Hill” newspaper.

Dershowitz: ‘I Need Armed Guards When Giving Pro-Israel Speeches at Colleges’

Dershowitz Slams WH For ‘Enormously’ Hindering Israeli Peace Process

Dershowitz recounted Ellison’s history of controversial statements and actions many deemed anti-Semitic, including the congressman’s history with Louis Farrakhan’s “Nation of Islam” movement.

“A prominent lawyer … told me that while he was a law student, Ellison approached her and said he could not respect her because she was a Jew and because she was a woman who should not be at a law school,” Dershowitz claims in the column.

Dershowitz slammed Ellison for disavowing Farrakhan at the same time he was first running for office in Minneapolis, adding that his recent claims of support for Israel coincide with his bid to lead the Democratic National Committee.

Calling the DNC election a “momentous choice,” Dershowitz said the party could either go the direction of British parliamentarian Jeremy Corbyn, who led a far-left shift in the Labour Party, or try to recapture the “Rust Belt” Democrats who switched their allegiance to President Trump last November.

“I hope they choose wisely,” Dershowitz said of the DNC’s voting members, “If they do not, I have made my choice.”

Dershowitz: ‘Appalling’ Obama ‘Stabbed Israel in Back’ With UN Abstention

Dershowitz: ‘BLM Is Endangering the Fairness of Our Legal System’

See the rest here:

‘Country Over Party’: Dershowitz to Leave Dems If Ellison Is …

Fair Usage Law

February 26, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Alan Dershowitz op-ed: Israel does not cause anti-Semitism – Washington Examiner

In a recent letter to the New York Times, the current Earl of Balfour, Roderick Balfour, argued that it is Israel’s fault that there is “growing anti-Semitism around the world.” Balfour, who is a descendent of Arthur Balfour, the British Foreign Secretary who wrote the Balfour Declaration 100 years ago, wrote the following: “The increasing inability of Israel to address [the condition of Palestinians], coupled with the expansion into Arab territory of the Jewish settlements, are major factors in growing anti-Semitism around the world.” He argued further that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “owes it to the millions of Jews around the world” who suffer anti-Semitism, to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict.

This well-intentioned but benighted view is particularly ironic in light of the fact that the Balfour Declaration had, as one of its purposes, to end anti-Semitism around the world by creating a homeland for the Jewish people. But now the scion of Lord Balfour is arguing that it is Israel that is causing anti-Semitism.

Roderick Balfour’s views are simply wrong both as a matter of fact and as a matter of morality. Anyone who hates Jews “around the world” because they disagree with the policy of Israel would be ready to hate Jews on the basis of any pretext. Modern day anti-Semites, unlike their forbearers, need to find excuses for their hatred, and anti-Zionism has become the excuse de jure.

To prove the point, let us consider other countries: has there been growing anti-Chinese feelings around the world as the result of China’s occupation of Tibet? Is there growing hatred of Americans of Turkish background because of Turkey’s unwillingness to end the conflict in Cypress? Do Europeans of Russian background suffer bigotry because of Russia’s invasion of Crimea? The answer to all these questions is a resounding no. If Jews are the only group that suffers because of controversial policies by Israel, then the onus lies on the anti-Semites rather than on the nation state of the Jewish people.

Moreover, Benjamin Netanyahu’s responsibility is to the safety and security of Israelis. Even if it were true that anti-Semitism is increasing as the result of Israeli policies, no Israeli policy should ever be decided based on the reaction of bigots around the world. Anti-Semitism, the oldest of bigotries, will persist as long as it is seen to be justified by apologists like Roderick Balfour. Though Balfour does not explicitly justify anti-Semitism, the entire thrust of his letter is that Jew hatred is at least understandable in light of Israel’s policies.

Balfour doesn’t say a word about the unwillingness of the Palestinian leadership to accept Israel’s repeated offers of statehood to the Palestinians. From 1938 through 2008, the Palestinians have been offered and repeatedly rejected agreements that would have given them statehood. Even today, the Palestinian leadership refuses to accept Netanyahu’s offer to sit down and negotiate a final status agreement without any pre-conditions. Nor does Balfour mention Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terrorists groups that constantly threaten Israel, along with Iran’s publicly declared determination to destroy the state that Lord Balfour helped to create. It’s all Israel’s fault, according to Balfour, and the resulting increase in anti-Semitism is Israel’s fault as well.

Roderick Balfour ends his letter by essentially joining the boycott movement against Israel. He has declared his unwillingness to participate in the Centenary Celebration of the Balfour Declaration, until and unless Israel takes unilateral action to end the conflict. So be it. I am confident that the author of the Balfour Declaration would have been willing to participate in this celebration, recognizing that no country in history has ever contributed more to the world in terms of medical, technological, environmental and other innovations in so short a period of time (69 years) than has Israel. Nor has any country, faced with comparable threats, ever been more generous in its offers of peace, more committed to the Rule of Law, or more protective of civilians who are used as human shields by those who attack its civilians.

So let the Celebration of the Balfour Declaration go forward without the participation of Roderick Balfour. Let Israel continue to offer a peaceful resolution to its conflict with the Palestinians. And let the Palestinians finally come to the bargaining table, and recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people in the way that the Balfour Declaration intended.

Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School and author of “Taking the Stand: My Life in the Law” and “Electile Dysfunction: A Guide for the Unaroused Voter.” This article was previously published in Gatestone.

Also from the Washington Examiner

“More than ever we know that universal healthcare is popular” in California, says bill’s author

02/26/17 4:48 PM

If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.

Go here to read the rest:

Alan Dershowitz op-ed: Israel does not cause anti-Semitism – Washington Examiner

Fair Usage Law

February 26, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Dershowitz calls on banks to close accounts that boycott Israel – Jerusalem Post Israel News

Money. (photo credit:INGIMAGE / ASAP)

Financial institutions in the US and Spain are under fire for providing accounts to the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, which promotes a boycott of Israel and defends Irans nuclear program.

Renowned Harvard University jurist Alan Dershowitz told The Jerusalem Post on Friday: The organization [IADL] was founded as a communist front and supported financially by the Soviet Union. It is anti-democratic to its core and supportive of terrorism and repression. No decent person or institution should be associated with or supportive of its anti-democratic agenda and actions.

IADL states on a pro-Palestinian website that it supports the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement to boycott Israeli products as well as businesses which support the Occupation, and to sanction Israel for its crimes.

IADLs own website solicits donations and lists accounts with Comerica Bank in Michigan and the Spanish bank Caixa dEst Alvis (Caixa dEstalvis i Pensions de Barcelona). The latter bank has been renamed La Caixa.

Wayne Mielke, a spokesman at Comericas headquarters in Dallas, told the Post, Comerica Bank as with all other financial institutions in the United States is legally and duty bound to protect the privacy of its clients. Accordingly, we dont discuss customer relationships with third parties. He added, Please know that we have a robust compliance program at the bank to ensure that the customers who bank with us are legally entitled to have a bank account.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott called in early February for legislation penalizing companies that boycott Israel. No Texas tax dollars should support companies who boycott Israel, one of our nations greatest allies, in the name of political correctness or in pursuit of flawed political agendas, he said.

Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder signed an anti-BDS law in January.

Angel Mas, president of ACOM (Accin y Comunicacin sobre Oriente Medio), a pro-Israel Spanish organization, told the Post, The BDS movement in Spain has been dealt several serious judicial and political blows over the last months, clearly showing that their campaigns of hatred can be stopped.

Financial institutions have the legal and moral obligation to perform an adequate due diligence on their clients. All BDS groups, including those masquerading as legitimate pro-human rights associations, have ultimately an antisemitic, discriminatory agenda that justifies violence, and the banks that support them must immediately stop providing services for their unlawful activities.

IADLs website has at least three pages devoted to criticism of Israel. During the IDFs Operation Pillar of Defense to stop Hamas rocket fire in 2012. IADL wrote that it condemns illegal Israeli aggression in Gaza.

Jan Fermon, the secretary- general of IADL, appeared to endorse Irans last Tuesdays International Conference in Support of the Palestinian Intifada in Tehran, which was attended by US-designated terrorist groups Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad.

Fermon told The New York Times on Tuesday, Even under international law, Palestinians, being occupied, have the right to fight back. You cant simply say, Oh, if they do they are terrorists. Irans Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, in a speech at the conference, pledged his support to groups waging war against Israel. He called the Jewish state a cancerous tumor.

IADL has defended Tehrans nuclear program, saying Irans government wishes to develop its nuclear matter research for peaceful use. Such a use is obviously the right most basic to each country.

Prof. Gerald Steinberg, the head of the Jerusalem-based NGO Monitor, told the Post: The IADL, which describes itself as progressive, is a member of the NGO network that leads the demonization campaigns targeting Israel. Like other such groups, they use pseudo-legal claims to deny Israel the right to defend its population from terror. Its partners have included PCHR [the Palestinian Center for Human Rights] a Gaza-based NGO with alleged ties to the PFLP terror organization, as documented by NGO Monitor.

IADL and La Caixa bank did not immediately respond to Post queries.

Relevant to your professional network? Please share on Linkedin

Prev Article

Former senior PA official: ‘Hamas is willing to go back to ’67 borders’

Israeli minister: Trump opening new peace path with Israel-Sunni efforts

Next Article

See original here:

Dershowitz calls on banks to close accounts that boycott Israel – Jerusalem Post Israel News

Fair Usage Law

February 26, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Longtime Dem Alan Dershowitz vows to leave party if ‘anti-Semitic’ Keith Ellison is elected chairman – TheBlaze.com

Harvard law professor and longtime Democrat Alan Dershowitz vowed recently that he will leave the Democratic Party if Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison, who many view as a radical liberal, is elected party chairman.

Party leaders and delegates have convened in Atalanta this weekend to officially select the next chairperson of the party after Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) resigned last summer amid scandal over Democratic Party leaders favoring Hillary Clinton over Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) during the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries.

The new chairperson will be elected Saturday and it appears that Ellison, along with Tom Perez, Barack Obamas labor secretary, are the two leading candidates for the position. Perez represents the mainstream of the DNC while Ellison represents the hard-Left.

But if Ellison is elected chairman, Dershowitz says he will leave the party that he has been a part of for more than a half century.

There has been powerful push from the hard-left of the Democratic Party, led by Sen. Bernie Sanders to elect Rep. Keith Ellison chairman. If he is elected, I will quit the party after 60 years of loyal association and voting, Dershowitz wrote in an op-ed for The Hill on Friday.

I will become an independent, continuing to vote for the best candidates, most of whom, I assume, will still be Democrats. But I will not contribute to the DNC or support it as an institution, he added.

Not only will he leave the party if Ellison is elected chairman, but Dershowitz wrote that he will urge others to follow his lead.

My loyalty to my country and my principles and my heritage exceeds any loyalty to my party, he wrote. I will urge other like-minded people centrist liberals to follow my lead and quit the Democratic Party if Ellison is elected chairman.

For Dershowitz, not supporting Ellison is a clear choice.

Ellison has a long history of sordid association with anti-Semitism, he wrote, explaining Ellisons ties to anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam.

Dershowitz added:

Ellison has publicly stated that he was unaware of Farrakhans anti-Semitism. That is not a credible statement. Everyone was aware of Farrakhans anti-Semitism. Farrakhan did not try to hide it. Indeed, he proclaimed it on every occasion. Ellison is either lying or he willfully blinded himself to what was obvious to everyone else. Neither of these qualities makes him suitable to be the next chairman of the DNC.

Moreover, Ellison himself has made anti-Semitic statements. A prominent lawyer, with significant credibility, told me that while he was a law student, Ellison approached her and said he could not respect her, because she was a Jew and because she was a woman who should not be at a law school. This woman immediately disclosed that anti-Semitic and anti-feminists statement to her husband and friends, and I believe she is telling the truth.

The Harvard law professor went on to skewer Ellison for his connection to anti-Israel figures like Stokely Carmichael and Esam Omeish, in addition to voting against funding for Israels Iron Dome, which helps the country defend itself from rocket attacks by terrorist groups in neighboring areas including Hamas and Hezbollah.

His voting record with regard to the Nation State of the Jewish people is among the very worst in Congress, Dershowitz wrote.

In the end, Dershowitz believes the DNC has a momentous choice choice to make this weekend. They can either head to the extreme Left and alienate a lot of moderate Democrats with Ellison or stay mainstream and recapture rust-belt Democrats who voted for President Donald Trump over Clinton last November.

I hope they choose wisely. But if they do not, I have made my choice, he concluded.

See the original post:

Longtime Dem Alan Dershowitz vows to leave party if ‘anti-Semitic’ Keith Ellison is elected chairman – TheBlaze.com

Fair Usage Law

February 25, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Alan Dershowitz: Why I will leave the Democrats if Keith Ellison is elected DNC chairman – Washington Examiner

Tomorrow the Democratic National Committee will have to choose the direction of the Democratic Party, as well as its likely composition. It will be among the most important choices the DNC has ever had to make.

There has been powerful push from the hard-left of the Democratic Party, led by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., to elect Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., as chairman. If he is elected, I will quit the party after 60 years of loyal association and voting. I will become an independent, continuing to vote for the best candidates, most of whom, I assume, will still be Democrats. But I will not contribute to the DNC or support it as an institution.

My loyalty to my country and my principles and my heritage exceeds any loyalty to my party. I will urge other like-minded people centrist liberals to follow my lead and quit the Democratic Party if Ellison is elected chairman. We will not be leaving the Democratic Party we have long supported. The Democratic Party will be leaving us!

Let me explain the reasons for this difficult decision.

Ellison has a long history of sordid association with anti-Semitism. He worked with and repeatedly defended one of a handful of the most notorious and public anti-Semites in our country: The Reverend Louis Farrakhan. And worked with Farrakhan at the very time this anti-Semite was publicly describing Judaism as a gutter religion and insisting that the Jews were a primary force in the African slave trade.

Ellison has publicly stated that he was unaware of Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism. That is not a credible statement. Everyone was aware of Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism. Farrakhan did not try to hide it. Indeed, he proclaimed it on every occasion. Ellison is either lying or he willfully blinded himself to what was obvious to everyone else. Neither of these qualities makes him suitable to be the next chairman of the DNC.

Moreover, Ellison himself has made anti-Semitic statements. A prominent lawyer, with significant credibility, told me that while he was a law student, Ellison approached her and said he could not respect her, because she was a Jew and because she was a woman who should not be at a law school. This woman immediately disclosed that anti-Semitic and anti-feminists statement to her husband and friends, and I believe she is telling the truth.

Ellison’s anti-Semitism is confirmed by his support for another anti-Semite, Stokely Carmichael.

Also from the Washington Examiner

“I could not be happier for him, or for the Republican Party!”, the president tweeted.

02/25/17 5:14 PM

When there were protests about Carmichael’s speaking at the University of Minnesota, Ellison responded that: “The University’s position appears to be this: Political Zionism is off-limits no matter what dubious circumstances Israel was founded under; no matter what the Zionists do to the Palestinians; and no matter what wicked regimes Israel allies itself with like South Africa. This position is untenable.”

But the connections are more recent as well. In 2009, Ellison headlined a fundraiser for Esam Omeish, a former candidate for Virginia state delegate who had told Palestinians that “the jihad way is the way to liberate your land.”

With regard to Israel, Ellison was one of only a small number of Congress people who recently voted against funding the Iron Dome, a missile system used by Israel to protect its civilians against rocket attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah. His voting record with regard to the nation-state of the Jewish people is among the very worst in Congress.

Ellison is now on an apology tour as he runs for DNC chairman, but his apologies and renunciations of his past association with anti-Semitism have been tactical and timed to his political aspirations.

He first claimed to realize that Farrakhan was an anti-Semite when he ran for office in 2006 seeking Jewish support. His claim to be a supporter of Israel was timed to coincide with his run for the chairmanship of DNC. I do not trust him. I do not believe him. And neither should centrist liberal supporters of Israel and opponents of anti-Semitism.

Also from the Washington Examiner

Trump has been locked in a war with the media for most of his time as a politician.

02/25/17 4:59 PM

The DNC has a momentous choice this weekend. It can move the party in the direction of Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party in the United Kingdom, in the hopes of attracting Jill Stein’s Green Party voters and millennials who stayed home. In doing so they would be giving up on any attempt to recapture the working class and rust-belt voters in the mid-western states that turned the Electoral College over to Donald Trump.

Jeremy Corbyn today could not get elected dog catcher in Great Britain. I do not want to see the Democratic Party relegated to permanent minority status as a hard-left fringe.

Remember what happened when the Democrats moved left by nominating George McGovern, Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis all good men. The total combined electoral votes for these candidates would not have won a single election. There is no reason to think the country has moved so far to the left since those days that the Democrats can win by pushing even further in the direction of the hard left. The self-destructive election of Keith Ellison will be hard to undo for many years.

So, tomorrow, the Democrats must choose between electing Ellison or keeping centrist liberals, who support Israel, like me and many others in their party. I hope they choose wisely. But if they do not, I have made my choice.

Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School and author of “Taking the Stand: My Life in the Law” and “Electile Dysfunction: A Guide for the Unaroused Voter.” This article was previously published in The Hill.

If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.

See the original post:

Alan Dershowitz: Why I will leave the Democrats if Keith Ellison is elected DNC chairman – Washington Examiner

Fair Usage Law

February 25, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Alan Dershowitz: Israel does not cause anti-Semitism – Washington Examiner

In a recent letter to the New York Times, the current Earl of Balfour, Roderick Balfour, argued that it is Israel’s fault that there is “growing anti-Semitism around the world.” Balfour, who is a descendent of Arthur Balfour, the British Foreign Secretary who wrote the Balfour Declaration 100 years ago, wrote the following: “The increasing inability of Israel to address [the condition of Palestinians], coupled with the expansion into Arab territory of the Jewish settlements, are major factors in growing anti-Semitism around the world.” He argued further that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “owes it to the millions of Jews around the world” who suffer anti-Semitism, to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict.

This well-intentioned but benighted view is particularly ironic in light of the fact that the Balfour Declaration had, as one of its purposes, to end anti-Semitism around the world by creating a homeland for the Jewish people. But now the scion of Lord Balfour is arguing that it is Israel that is causing anti-Semitism.

Roderick Balfour’s views are simply wrong both as a matter of fact and as a matter of morality. Anyone who hates Jews “around the world” because they disagree with the policy of Israel would be ready to hate Jews on the basis of any pretext. Modern day anti-Semites, unlike their forbearers, need to find excuses for their hatred, and anti-Zionism has become the excuse de jure.

To prove the point, let us consider other countries: has there been growing anti-Chinese feelings around the world as the result of China’s occupation of Tibet? Is there growing hatred of Americans of Turkish background because of Turkey’s unwillingness to end the conflict in Cypress? Do Europeans of Russian background suffer bigotry because of Russia’s invasion of Crimea? The answer to all these questions is a resounding no. If Jews are the only group that suffers because of controversial policies by Israel, then the onus lies on the anti-Semites rather than on the nation state of the Jewish people.

Moreover, Benjamin Netanyahu’s responsibility is to the safety and security of Israelis. Even if it were true that anti-Semitism is increasing as the result of Israeli policies, no Israeli policy should ever be decided based on the reaction of bigots around the world. Anti-Semitism, the oldest of bigotries, will persist as long as it is seen to be justified by apologists like Roderick Balfour. Though Balfour does not explicitly justify anti-Semitism, the entire thrust of his letter is that Jew hatred is at least understandable in light of Israel’s policies.

Balfour doesn’t say a word about the unwillingness of the Palestinian leadership to accept Israel’s repeated offers of statehood to the Palestinians. From 1938 through 2008, the Palestinians have been offered and repeatedly rejected agreements that would have given them statehood. Even today, the Palestinian leadership refuses to accept Netanyahu’s offer to sit down and negotiate a final status agreement without any pre-conditions. Nor does Balfour mention Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terrorists groups that constantly threaten Israel, along with Iran’s publicly declared determination to destroy the state that Lord Balfour helped to create. It’s all Israel’s fault, according to Balfour, and the resulting increase in anti-Semitism is Israel’s fault as well.

Roderick Balfour ends his letter by essentially joining the boycott movement against Israel. He has declared his unwillingness to participate in the Centenary Celebration of the Balfour Declaration, until and unless Israel takes unilateral action to end the conflict. So be it. I am confident that the author of the Balfour Declaration would have been willing to participate in this celebration, recognizing that no country in history has ever contributed more to the world in terms of medical, technological, environmental and other innovations in so short a period of time (69 years) than has Israel. Nor has any country, faced with comparable threats, ever been more generous in its offers of peace, more committed to the Rule of Law, or more protective of civilians who are used as human shields by those who attack its civilians.

So let the Celebration of the Balfour Declaration go forward without the participation of Roderick Balfour. Let Israel continue to offer a peaceful resolution to its conflict with the Palestinians. And let the Palestinians finally come to the bargaining table, and recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people in the way that the Balfour Declaration intended.

Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School and author of “Taking the Stand: My Life in the Law” and “Electile Dysfunction: A Guide for the Unaroused Voter.” This article was previously published in Gatestone.

Also from the Washington Examiner

President Trump may have an opportunity to attract the Olympics to the U.S. for the first time in decades.

02/23/17 12:11 AM

If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.

Read this article:

Alan Dershowitz: Israel does not cause anti-Semitism – Washington Examiner

Fair Usage Law

February 23, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Alan Dershowitz: Trump says Palestinians must earn a two-state solution – Washington Examiner

President Trump raised eyebrows when he mentioned the possibility of a one-state solution. The context was ambiguous and no one can know for sure what message he was intending to convey. One possibility is that he was telling the Palestinian leadership that if they want a two-state solution, they have to do something. They have to come to the negotiating table with the Israelis and make the kinds of painful sacrifices that will be required from both sides for a peaceful resolution to be achieved. Put most directly, the Palestinians must earn the right to a state. They are not simply entitled to statehood, especially since their leaders missed so many opportunities over the years to secure a state. As Abba Eben once put it: “The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.”

It began back in the 1930s, when Great Britain established the Peale Commission which was tasked to recommend a solution to the conflict between Arabs and Jews in mandatory Palestine. It recommended a two-state solution with a tiny non-contiguous Jewish state alongside a large Arab state. The Jewish leadership reluctantly accepted this sliver of a state; the Palestinian leadership rejected the deal, saying they wanted there to be no Jewish state more than they wanted a state of their own.

In 1947, the United Nations partitioned mandatory Palestine into two areas: one for a Jewish state; the other for an Arab state. The Jews declared statehood on 1948; all the surrounding Arab countries joined the local Arab population in attacking the new state of Israel and killing one percent of its citizens, but Israel survived.

In 1967, Egypt and Syria were planning to attack and destroy Israel, but Israel preempted and won a decisive victory, capturing the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Sinai. Israel offered to return captured areas in exchange for peace, but the Arabs met with Palestinian leaders in Khartoum and issued their three infamous “no’s”: no peace, no recognition, and no negotiation.

In 2000-2001 and again in 2008, Israel made generous peace offers that would have established a demilitarized Palestinian state, but these offers were not accepted. And for the past several years, the current Israeli government has offered to sit down and negotiate a two-state solution with no pre-conditions not even advanced recognition of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people. The Palestinian leadership has refused to negotiate.

Trump may be telling them that if they want a state they have to show up at the negotiating table and bargain for it. No one is going to hand it to them on a silver platter in the way that former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon handed over the Gaza strip in 2005, only to see it turned into a launching pad for terror rockets and terror tunnels. Israel must get something in return: namely real peace and a permanent end to the conflict.

The Palestinian leadership’s unwillingness to come to the negotiating table reminds me of my mother’s favorite Jewish joke about Sam, a 79-year-old man who prayed every day for God to let him win the New York lottery before he turns 80. On the eve of his 80th birthday, he rails against God:

“All these years I’ve prayed to you every day asking to win the lottery. You couldn’t give me that one little thing!” God responded: “Sam, you have to help me out here buy a ticket!!”

The Palestinians haven’t bought a ticket. They haven’t negotiated in good faith. They haven’t accepted generous offers. They haven’t made realistic counter proposals. They haven’t offered sacrifices to match those offered by the Israelis.

Also from the Washington Examiner

Announcement comes just days before DNC chair vote.

02/18/17 12:10 PM

Now Trump is telling them that they have to “buy a ticket.” They are not going to get a state by going to the United Nations, the European Union or the international criminal court. They aren’t going to get a state as a result of the BDS or other anti-Israel movements. They will only get a state if they sit down and negotiate in good faith with the Israelis.

The Obama administration applied pressures only to the Israeli side, not to the Palestinians. The time has come indeed it is long past for the United States to tell the Palestinians in no uncertain terms that they must negotiate with Israel if they want a Palestinian state, and they must agree to end the conflict, permanently and unequivocally. Otherwise, the status quo will continue, and there will be only one state, and that state will be Israel.

The Palestinians are not going to win the lottery without buying a ticket.

Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School and author of “Taking the Stand: My Life in the Law” and “Electile Dysfunction: A Guide for the Unaroused Voter.” This article was previously published in Gatestone.

If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.

Also from the Washington Examiner

If Bilden does withdraw, he’d be the second service secretary to do so.

02/18/17 12:03 PM

Top Story

If Bilden does withdraw, he’d be the second service secretary to do so.

02/18/17 12:03 PM

Continue reading here:

Alan Dershowitz: Trump says Palestinians must earn a two-state solution – Washington Examiner

Fair Usage Law

February 18, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Dershowitz: Trump-Netanyahu Alliance Good for Mideast Peace – Newsmax

President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “are very compatible” and “the best solution is for both men to use their different talents” to negotiate peace in the region, famed civil-rights lawyer Alan Dershowitz told Newsmax TV on Wednesday.

“They both believe that business and economics play a great role in politics,” the Harvard Law School professor emeritus, told “Newsmax Prime” host J.D. Hayworth. “They’re both pragmatists. They both want to see a solution to this.”

Watch J.D. Hayworth on Newsmax TV: Tune in beginning at 8 PM ET to see “Newsmax Prime” on FiOS 615, YouTube Livestream, Newsmax TV App from any smartphone, NewsmaxTV.com, Roku, Amazon Fire More Systems Here

Dershowitz is the author of the book, “Electile Dysfunction: A Guide for Unaroused Voters.”

“The time is right for negotiating a resolution,” Dershowitz added. “Trump’s talents lie in business. Benjamin Netanyahu has been a superb negotiator in terms of domestic politics and being able to keep his coalition together, even though they’re enormously diverse forces within the coalition.

“Trump will put pressure on the Palestinians, as well as the Israelis, whereas [President Barack] Obama only put pressure on the Israelis.”

Dershowitz noted “they really have to do something about” the U.N. Security Council’s resolution condemning Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

The Obama administration abstained on the vote in December.

“It makes peace much more difficult, because it takes away Israel’s bargaining position in terms of the Western Wall, the access road to Hebrew University and Hadassah Hospital and the Jewish Quarter,” Dershowitz told Hayworth.

“That has to be taken into account but I think if there’s a will, the resolution, the two-state solution, is an obvious answer.”

2017 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

See the article here:

Dershowitz: Trump-Netanyahu Alliance Good for Mideast Peace – Newsmax

Fair Usage Law

February 17, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Alan Dershowitz: Why I Will Leave Democratic Party If Keith …

Ed. Note: This article first appeared in The Hill. Tomorrow the Democratic National Committee (DNC) will have to choose the direction of the Democratic Party, as well as its likely composition. It will be among the most important choices the DNC has ever had to make. There has been powerful push from the hard-left of the Democratic Party, led by senator Bernie Sanders, to elect Keith Ellison chairman. If he is elected, I will quit the party after 60 years of loyal association and voting. I will become an independent, continuing to vote for the best candidates, most of whom, I assume, will still be Democrats. But I will not contribute to the DNC or support it as an institution. My loyalty to my country and my principles and my heritage exceeds any loyalty to my party. I will urge other like-minded people centrist liberals to follow my lead and quit the Democratic Party if Ellison is elected chairman. We will not be leaving the Democratic Party we have long supported. The Democratic Party will be leaving us! Let me explain the reasons for this difficult decision on my part. Ellison has a long history of sordid association with anti-Semitism. He worked closely and supported one of a handful of the most notorious and public anti-Semites in our country: The Reverend Louis Farrakhan. And he worked with Farrakhan at the very time this anti-Semite was publicly describing Judaism as a “gutter religion” and insisting that the Jews were a primary force in the African slave trade. Ellison has publicly stated that he was unaware of Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism. That is not a credible statement. Everyone was aware of Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism. Farrakhan did not try to hide it. Indeed he proclaimed it on every occasion. Ellison is either lying or he willfully blinded himself to what was obvious to everyone else. Neither of these qualities makes him suitable to be the next Chairman of the DNC. Moreover, Ellison himself has made anti-Semitic statements. A prominent lawyer, with significant credibility, told me that while he was a law student, Ellison approached her and said he could not respect her, because she was a Jew and because she was a woman who should not be at a law school. This woman immediately disclosed that anti-Semitic and anti-feminists statement to her husband and friends, and I believe she is telling the truth. Ellison’s anti-Semitism is confirmed by his support for another anti-Semite, Stokely Carmichael. When there were protests about Carmichael’s speaking at the University of Minnesota, Ellison responded that “Political Zionism is off-limits no matter what dubious circumstances Israel was founded under; no matter what the Zionists do to the Palestinians; and no matter what wicked regimes Israel allies itself with like South Africa. This position is untenable.” At a fundraiser for his re-election in 2010, hosted by Esam Omeish, who had told Palestinians that “Jihad way is the way to liberate your land,” he complained that Jews had too much influence in American politics. With regard to Israel, Ellison was one of only a small number of Congress people who recently voted against funding the Iron Dome, a missile system used by Israel to protect its civilians against rocket attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah. His voting record with regard to the Nation State of the Jewish people is among the very worst in Congress. Ellison is now on an apology tour, but his apologies and renunciations of his past association with anti-Semitism have been tactical and timed to his political aspirations. He first claimed to realize that Farrakhan was an anti-Semite was when he ran for office seeking Jewish support. His claim to be a supporter of Israel was timed to coincide with his run for the chairmanship of DNC. I do not trust him. I do not believe him. And neither should centrist liberal supporters of Israel and opponents of anti-Semitism. The DNC has a momentous choice this weekend. It can move the party in the direction of Jeremy Corbyn’s labor party in England, in the hope of attracting Jill Stein Green Party voters and millennials who stayed home. In doing so they would be giving up on any attempt to recapture the working class and Rust Belt voters in the mid-western states that turned the Electoral College over to Donald Trump. Jeremy Corbyn today could not get elected dog catcher in Great Britain. I do not want to see the Democratic Party relegated to permanent minority status as a hard-left fringe. Remember what happened when the Democrats moved left by nominating George McGovern, Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis all good men. The total combined electoral votes for these candidates would not have won a single election. There is no reason to think the country has moved so far to the left since those days that the Democrats can win by pushing even further in the direction of the hard left. The self-destructive election of Keith Ellison will be hard to undue for many years. So tomorrow, the Democrats must choose between electing Ellison or keeping centrist liberals, who support Israel, like me and many others in their party. I hope they choose wisely. But if they do not, I have made my choice. 2017 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Fair Usage Law

February 26, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

‘Country Over Party’: Dershowitz to Leave Dems If Ellison Is …

Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, a high-profile Democrat for decades, said in an op-ed published Friday that he will leave the party if Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) is elected chairman this weekend. “My loyalty to my country and my principles and my heritage exceeds any loyalty to my party,” Dershowitz, who supported Hillary Clinton in 2016,wrote in “The Hill” newspaper. Dershowitz: ‘I Need Armed Guards When Giving Pro-Israel Speeches at Colleges’ Dershowitz Slams WH For ‘Enormously’ Hindering Israeli Peace Process Dershowitz recounted Ellison’s history of controversial statements and actions many deemed anti-Semitic, including the congressman’s history with Louis Farrakhan’s “Nation of Islam” movement. “A prominent lawyer … told me that while he was a law student, Ellison approached her and said he could not respect her because she was a Jew and because she was a woman who should not be at a law school,” Dershowitz claims in the column. Dershowitz slammed Ellison for disavowing Farrakhan at the same time he was first running for office in Minneapolis, adding that his recent claims of support for Israel coincide with his bid to lead the Democratic National Committee. Calling the DNC election a “momentous choice,” Dershowitz said the party could either go the direction of British parliamentarian Jeremy Corbyn, who led a far-left shift in the Labour Party, or try to recapture the “Rust Belt” Democrats who switched their allegiance to President Trump last November. “I hope they choose wisely,” Dershowitz said of the DNC’s voting members, “If they do not, I have made my choice.” Dershowitz: ‘Appalling’ Obama ‘Stabbed Israel in Back’ With UN Abstention Dershowitz: ‘BLM Is Endangering the Fairness of Our Legal System’

Fair Usage Law

February 26, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Alan Dershowitz op-ed: Israel does not cause anti-Semitism – Washington Examiner

In a recent letter to the New York Times, the current Earl of Balfour, Roderick Balfour, argued that it is Israel’s fault that there is “growing anti-Semitism around the world.” Balfour, who is a descendent of Arthur Balfour, the British Foreign Secretary who wrote the Balfour Declaration 100 years ago, wrote the following: “The increasing inability of Israel to address [the condition of Palestinians], coupled with the expansion into Arab territory of the Jewish settlements, are major factors in growing anti-Semitism around the world.” He argued further that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “owes it to the millions of Jews around the world” who suffer anti-Semitism, to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict. This well-intentioned but benighted view is particularly ironic in light of the fact that the Balfour Declaration had, as one of its purposes, to end anti-Semitism around the world by creating a homeland for the Jewish people. But now the scion of Lord Balfour is arguing that it is Israel that is causing anti-Semitism. Roderick Balfour’s views are simply wrong both as a matter of fact and as a matter of morality. Anyone who hates Jews “around the world” because they disagree with the policy of Israel would be ready to hate Jews on the basis of any pretext. Modern day anti-Semites, unlike their forbearers, need to find excuses for their hatred, and anti-Zionism has become the excuse de jure. To prove the point, let us consider other countries: has there been growing anti-Chinese feelings around the world as the result of China’s occupation of Tibet? Is there growing hatred of Americans of Turkish background because of Turkey’s unwillingness to end the conflict in Cypress? Do Europeans of Russian background suffer bigotry because of Russia’s invasion of Crimea? The answer to all these questions is a resounding no. If Jews are the only group that suffers because of controversial policies by Israel, then the onus lies on the anti-Semites rather than on the nation state of the Jewish people. Moreover, Benjamin Netanyahu’s responsibility is to the safety and security of Israelis. Even if it were true that anti-Semitism is increasing as the result of Israeli policies, no Israeli policy should ever be decided based on the reaction of bigots around the world. Anti-Semitism, the oldest of bigotries, will persist as long as it is seen to be justified by apologists like Roderick Balfour. Though Balfour does not explicitly justify anti-Semitism, the entire thrust of his letter is that Jew hatred is at least understandable in light of Israel’s policies. Balfour doesn’t say a word about the unwillingness of the Palestinian leadership to accept Israel’s repeated offers of statehood to the Palestinians. From 1938 through 2008, the Palestinians have been offered and repeatedly rejected agreements that would have given them statehood. Even today, the Palestinian leadership refuses to accept Netanyahu’s offer to sit down and negotiate a final status agreement without any pre-conditions. Nor does Balfour mention Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terrorists groups that constantly threaten Israel, along with Iran’s publicly declared determination to destroy the state that Lord Balfour helped to create. It’s all Israel’s fault, according to Balfour, and the resulting increase in anti-Semitism is Israel’s fault as well. Roderick Balfour ends his letter by essentially joining the boycott movement against Israel. He has declared his unwillingness to participate in the Centenary Celebration of the Balfour Declaration, until and unless Israel takes unilateral action to end the conflict. So be it. I am confident that the author of the Balfour Declaration would have been willing to participate in this celebration, recognizing that no country in history has ever contributed more to the world in terms of medical, technological, environmental and other innovations in so short a period of time (69 years) than has Israel. Nor has any country, faced with comparable threats, ever been more generous in its offers of peace, more committed to the Rule of Law, or more protective of civilians who are used as human shields by those who attack its civilians. So let the Celebration of the Balfour Declaration go forward without the participation of Roderick Balfour. Let Israel continue to offer a peaceful resolution to its conflict with the Palestinians. And let the Palestinians finally come to the bargaining table, and recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people in the way that the Balfour Declaration intended. Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School and author of “Taking the Stand: My Life in the Law” and “Electile Dysfunction: A Guide for the Unaroused Voter.” This article was previously published in Gatestone. Also from the Washington Examiner “More than ever we know that universal healthcare is popular” in California, says bill’s author 02/26/17 4:48 PM If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.

Fair Usage Law

February 26, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Dershowitz calls on banks to close accounts that boycott Israel – Jerusalem Post Israel News

Money. (photo credit:INGIMAGE / ASAP) Financial institutions in the US and Spain are under fire for providing accounts to the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, which promotes a boycott of Israel and defends Irans nuclear program. Renowned Harvard University jurist Alan Dershowitz told The Jerusalem Post on Friday: The organization [IADL] was founded as a communist front and supported financially by the Soviet Union. It is anti-democratic to its core and supportive of terrorism and repression. No decent person or institution should be associated with or supportive of its anti-democratic agenda and actions. IADL states on a pro-Palestinian website that it supports the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement to boycott Israeli products as well as businesses which support the Occupation, and to sanction Israel for its crimes. IADLs own website solicits donations and lists accounts with Comerica Bank in Michigan and the Spanish bank Caixa dEst Alvis (Caixa dEstalvis i Pensions de Barcelona). The latter bank has been renamed La Caixa. Wayne Mielke, a spokesman at Comericas headquarters in Dallas, told the Post, Comerica Bank as with all other financial institutions in the United States is legally and duty bound to protect the privacy of its clients. Accordingly, we dont discuss customer relationships with third parties. He added, Please know that we have a robust compliance program at the bank to ensure that the customers who bank with us are legally entitled to have a bank account. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott called in early February for legislation penalizing companies that boycott Israel. No Texas tax dollars should support companies who boycott Israel, one of our nations greatest allies, in the name of political correctness or in pursuit of flawed political agendas, he said. Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder signed an anti-BDS law in January. Angel Mas, president of ACOM (Accin y Comunicacin sobre Oriente Medio), a pro-Israel Spanish organization, told the Post, The BDS movement in Spain has been dealt several serious judicial and political blows over the last months, clearly showing that their campaigns of hatred can be stopped. Financial institutions have the legal and moral obligation to perform an adequate due diligence on their clients. All BDS groups, including those masquerading as legitimate pro-human rights associations, have ultimately an antisemitic, discriminatory agenda that justifies violence, and the banks that support them must immediately stop providing services for their unlawful activities. IADLs website has at least three pages devoted to criticism of Israel. During the IDFs Operation Pillar of Defense to stop Hamas rocket fire in 2012. IADL wrote that it condemns illegal Israeli aggression in Gaza. Jan Fermon, the secretary- general of IADL, appeared to endorse Irans last Tuesdays International Conference in Support of the Palestinian Intifada in Tehran, which was attended by US-designated terrorist groups Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad. Fermon told The New York Times on Tuesday, Even under international law, Palestinians, being occupied, have the right to fight back. You cant simply say, Oh, if they do they are terrorists. Irans Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, in a speech at the conference, pledged his support to groups waging war against Israel. He called the Jewish state a cancerous tumor. IADL has defended Tehrans nuclear program, saying Irans government wishes to develop its nuclear matter research for peaceful use. Such a use is obviously the right most basic to each country. Prof. Gerald Steinberg, the head of the Jerusalem-based NGO Monitor, told the Post: The IADL, which describes itself as progressive, is a member of the NGO network that leads the demonization campaigns targeting Israel. Like other such groups, they use pseudo-legal claims to deny Israel the right to defend its population from terror. Its partners have included PCHR [the Palestinian Center for Human Rights] a Gaza-based NGO with alleged ties to the PFLP terror organization, as documented by NGO Monitor. IADL and La Caixa bank did not immediately respond to Post queries. Relevant to your professional network? Please share on Linkedin Prev Article Former senior PA official: ‘Hamas is willing to go back to ’67 borders’ Israeli minister: Trump opening new peace path with Israel-Sunni efforts Next Article

Fair Usage Law

February 26, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Longtime Dem Alan Dershowitz vows to leave party if ‘anti-Semitic’ Keith Ellison is elected chairman – TheBlaze.com

Harvard law professor and longtime Democrat Alan Dershowitz vowed recently that he will leave the Democratic Party if Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison, who many view as a radical liberal, is elected party chairman. Party leaders and delegates have convened in Atalanta this weekend to officially select the next chairperson of the party after Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) resigned last summer amid scandal over Democratic Party leaders favoring Hillary Clinton over Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) during the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries. The new chairperson will be elected Saturday and it appears that Ellison, along with Tom Perez, Barack Obamas labor secretary, are the two leading candidates for the position. Perez represents the mainstream of the DNC while Ellison represents the hard-Left. But if Ellison is elected chairman, Dershowitz says he will leave the party that he has been a part of for more than a half century. There has been powerful push from the hard-left of the Democratic Party, led by Sen. Bernie Sanders to elect Rep. Keith Ellison chairman. If he is elected, I will quit the party after 60 years of loyal association and voting, Dershowitz wrote in an op-ed for The Hill on Friday. I will become an independent, continuing to vote for the best candidates, most of whom, I assume, will still be Democrats. But I will not contribute to the DNC or support it as an institution, he added. Not only will he leave the party if Ellison is elected chairman, but Dershowitz wrote that he will urge others to follow his lead. My loyalty to my country and my principles and my heritage exceeds any loyalty to my party, he wrote. I will urge other like-minded people centrist liberals to follow my lead and quit the Democratic Party if Ellison is elected chairman. For Dershowitz, not supporting Ellison is a clear choice. Ellison has a long history of sordid association with anti-Semitism, he wrote, explaining Ellisons ties to anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam. Dershowitz added: Ellison has publicly stated that he was unaware of Farrakhans anti-Semitism. That is not a credible statement. Everyone was aware of Farrakhans anti-Semitism. Farrakhan did not try to hide it. Indeed, he proclaimed it on every occasion. Ellison is either lying or he willfully blinded himself to what was obvious to everyone else. Neither of these qualities makes him suitable to be the next chairman of the DNC. Moreover, Ellison himself has made anti-Semitic statements. A prominent lawyer, with significant credibility, told me that while he was a law student, Ellison approached her and said he could not respect her, because she was a Jew and because she was a woman who should not be at a law school. This woman immediately disclosed that anti-Semitic and anti-feminists statement to her husband and friends, and I believe she is telling the truth. The Harvard law professor went on to skewer Ellison for his connection to anti-Israel figures like Stokely Carmichael and Esam Omeish, in addition to voting against funding for Israels Iron Dome, which helps the country defend itself from rocket attacks by terrorist groups in neighboring areas including Hamas and Hezbollah. His voting record with regard to the Nation State of the Jewish people is among the very worst in Congress, Dershowitz wrote. In the end, Dershowitz believes the DNC has a momentous choice choice to make this weekend. They can either head to the extreme Left and alienate a lot of moderate Democrats with Ellison or stay mainstream and recapture rust-belt Democrats who voted for President Donald Trump over Clinton last November. I hope they choose wisely. But if they do not, I have made my choice, he concluded.

Fair Usage Law

February 25, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Alan Dershowitz: Why I will leave the Democrats if Keith Ellison is elected DNC chairman – Washington Examiner

Tomorrow the Democratic National Committee will have to choose the direction of the Democratic Party, as well as its likely composition. It will be among the most important choices the DNC has ever had to make. There has been powerful push from the hard-left of the Democratic Party, led by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., to elect Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., as chairman. If he is elected, I will quit the party after 60 years of loyal association and voting. I will become an independent, continuing to vote for the best candidates, most of whom, I assume, will still be Democrats. But I will not contribute to the DNC or support it as an institution. My loyalty to my country and my principles and my heritage exceeds any loyalty to my party. I will urge other like-minded people centrist liberals to follow my lead and quit the Democratic Party if Ellison is elected chairman. We will not be leaving the Democratic Party we have long supported. The Democratic Party will be leaving us! Let me explain the reasons for this difficult decision. Ellison has a long history of sordid association with anti-Semitism. He worked with and repeatedly defended one of a handful of the most notorious and public anti-Semites in our country: The Reverend Louis Farrakhan. And worked with Farrakhan at the very time this anti-Semite was publicly describing Judaism as a gutter religion and insisting that the Jews were a primary force in the African slave trade. Ellison has publicly stated that he was unaware of Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism. That is not a credible statement. Everyone was aware of Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism. Farrakhan did not try to hide it. Indeed, he proclaimed it on every occasion. Ellison is either lying or he willfully blinded himself to what was obvious to everyone else. Neither of these qualities makes him suitable to be the next chairman of the DNC. Moreover, Ellison himself has made anti-Semitic statements. A prominent lawyer, with significant credibility, told me that while he was a law student, Ellison approached her and said he could not respect her, because she was a Jew and because she was a woman who should not be at a law school. This woman immediately disclosed that anti-Semitic and anti-feminists statement to her husband and friends, and I believe she is telling the truth. Ellison’s anti-Semitism is confirmed by his support for another anti-Semite, Stokely Carmichael. Also from the Washington Examiner “I could not be happier for him, or for the Republican Party!”, the president tweeted. 02/25/17 5:14 PM When there were protests about Carmichael’s speaking at the University of Minnesota, Ellison responded that: “The University’s position appears to be this: Political Zionism is off-limits no matter what dubious circumstances Israel was founded under; no matter what the Zionists do to the Palestinians; and no matter what wicked regimes Israel allies itself with like South Africa. This position is untenable.” But the connections are more recent as well. In 2009, Ellison headlined a fundraiser for Esam Omeish, a former candidate for Virginia state delegate who had told Palestinians that “the jihad way is the way to liberate your land.” With regard to Israel, Ellison was one of only a small number of Congress people who recently voted against funding the Iron Dome, a missile system used by Israel to protect its civilians against rocket attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah. His voting record with regard to the nation-state of the Jewish people is among the very worst in Congress. Ellison is now on an apology tour as he runs for DNC chairman, but his apologies and renunciations of his past association with anti-Semitism have been tactical and timed to his political aspirations. He first claimed to realize that Farrakhan was an anti-Semite when he ran for office in 2006 seeking Jewish support. His claim to be a supporter of Israel was timed to coincide with his run for the chairmanship of DNC. I do not trust him. I do not believe him. And neither should centrist liberal supporters of Israel and opponents of anti-Semitism. Also from the Washington Examiner Trump has been locked in a war with the media for most of his time as a politician. 02/25/17 4:59 PM The DNC has a momentous choice this weekend. It can move the party in the direction of Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party in the United Kingdom, in the hopes of attracting Jill Stein’s Green Party voters and millennials who stayed home. In doing so they would be giving up on any attempt to recapture the working class and rust-belt voters in the mid-western states that turned the Electoral College over to Donald Trump. Jeremy Corbyn today could not get elected dog catcher in Great Britain. I do not want to see the Democratic Party relegated to permanent minority status as a hard-left fringe. Remember what happened when the Democrats moved left by nominating George McGovern, Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis all good men. The total combined electoral votes for these candidates would not have won a single election. There is no reason to think the country has moved so far to the left since those days that the Democrats can win by pushing even further in the direction of the hard left. The self-destructive election of Keith Ellison will be hard to undo for many years. So, tomorrow, the Democrats must choose between electing Ellison or keeping centrist liberals, who support Israel, like me and many others in their party. I hope they choose wisely. But if they do not, I have made my choice. Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School and author of “Taking the Stand: My Life in the Law” and “Electile Dysfunction: A Guide for the Unaroused Voter.” This article was previously published in The Hill. If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.

Fair Usage Law

February 25, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Alan Dershowitz: Israel does not cause anti-Semitism – Washington Examiner

In a recent letter to the New York Times, the current Earl of Balfour, Roderick Balfour, argued that it is Israel’s fault that there is “growing anti-Semitism around the world.” Balfour, who is a descendent of Arthur Balfour, the British Foreign Secretary who wrote the Balfour Declaration 100 years ago, wrote the following: “The increasing inability of Israel to address [the condition of Palestinians], coupled with the expansion into Arab territory of the Jewish settlements, are major factors in growing anti-Semitism around the world.” He argued further that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “owes it to the millions of Jews around the world” who suffer anti-Semitism, to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict. This well-intentioned but benighted view is particularly ironic in light of the fact that the Balfour Declaration had, as one of its purposes, to end anti-Semitism around the world by creating a homeland for the Jewish people. But now the scion of Lord Balfour is arguing that it is Israel that is causing anti-Semitism. Roderick Balfour’s views are simply wrong both as a matter of fact and as a matter of morality. Anyone who hates Jews “around the world” because they disagree with the policy of Israel would be ready to hate Jews on the basis of any pretext. Modern day anti-Semites, unlike their forbearers, need to find excuses for their hatred, and anti-Zionism has become the excuse de jure. To prove the point, let us consider other countries: has there been growing anti-Chinese feelings around the world as the result of China’s occupation of Tibet? Is there growing hatred of Americans of Turkish background because of Turkey’s unwillingness to end the conflict in Cypress? Do Europeans of Russian background suffer bigotry because of Russia’s invasion of Crimea? The answer to all these questions is a resounding no. If Jews are the only group that suffers because of controversial policies by Israel, then the onus lies on the anti-Semites rather than on the nation state of the Jewish people. Moreover, Benjamin Netanyahu’s responsibility is to the safety and security of Israelis. Even if it were true that anti-Semitism is increasing as the result of Israeli policies, no Israeli policy should ever be decided based on the reaction of bigots around the world. Anti-Semitism, the oldest of bigotries, will persist as long as it is seen to be justified by apologists like Roderick Balfour. Though Balfour does not explicitly justify anti-Semitism, the entire thrust of his letter is that Jew hatred is at least understandable in light of Israel’s policies. Balfour doesn’t say a word about the unwillingness of the Palestinian leadership to accept Israel’s repeated offers of statehood to the Palestinians. From 1938 through 2008, the Palestinians have been offered and repeatedly rejected agreements that would have given them statehood. Even today, the Palestinian leadership refuses to accept Netanyahu’s offer to sit down and negotiate a final status agreement without any pre-conditions. Nor does Balfour mention Hamas, Hezbollah, and other terrorists groups that constantly threaten Israel, along with Iran’s publicly declared determination to destroy the state that Lord Balfour helped to create. It’s all Israel’s fault, according to Balfour, and the resulting increase in anti-Semitism is Israel’s fault as well. Roderick Balfour ends his letter by essentially joining the boycott movement against Israel. He has declared his unwillingness to participate in the Centenary Celebration of the Balfour Declaration, until and unless Israel takes unilateral action to end the conflict. So be it. I am confident that the author of the Balfour Declaration would have been willing to participate in this celebration, recognizing that no country in history has ever contributed more to the world in terms of medical, technological, environmental and other innovations in so short a period of time (69 years) than has Israel. Nor has any country, faced with comparable threats, ever been more generous in its offers of peace, more committed to the Rule of Law, or more protective of civilians who are used as human shields by those who attack its civilians. So let the Celebration of the Balfour Declaration go forward without the participation of Roderick Balfour. Let Israel continue to offer a peaceful resolution to its conflict with the Palestinians. And let the Palestinians finally come to the bargaining table, and recognize Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people in the way that the Balfour Declaration intended. Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School and author of “Taking the Stand: My Life in the Law” and “Electile Dysfunction: A Guide for the Unaroused Voter.” This article was previously published in Gatestone. Also from the Washington Examiner President Trump may have an opportunity to attract the Olympics to the U.S. for the first time in decades. 02/23/17 12:11 AM If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here.

Fair Usage Law

February 23, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Alan Dershowitz: Trump says Palestinians must earn a two-state solution – Washington Examiner

President Trump raised eyebrows when he mentioned the possibility of a one-state solution. The context was ambiguous and no one can know for sure what message he was intending to convey. One possibility is that he was telling the Palestinian leadership that if they want a two-state solution, they have to do something. They have to come to the negotiating table with the Israelis and make the kinds of painful sacrifices that will be required from both sides for a peaceful resolution to be achieved. Put most directly, the Palestinians must earn the right to a state. They are not simply entitled to statehood, especially since their leaders missed so many opportunities over the years to secure a state. As Abba Eben once put it: “The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.” It began back in the 1930s, when Great Britain established the Peale Commission which was tasked to recommend a solution to the conflict between Arabs and Jews in mandatory Palestine. It recommended a two-state solution with a tiny non-contiguous Jewish state alongside a large Arab state. The Jewish leadership reluctantly accepted this sliver of a state; the Palestinian leadership rejected the deal, saying they wanted there to be no Jewish state more than they wanted a state of their own. In 1947, the United Nations partitioned mandatory Palestine into two areas: one for a Jewish state; the other for an Arab state. The Jews declared statehood on 1948; all the surrounding Arab countries joined the local Arab population in attacking the new state of Israel and killing one percent of its citizens, but Israel survived. In 1967, Egypt and Syria were planning to attack and destroy Israel, but Israel preempted and won a decisive victory, capturing the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Sinai. Israel offered to return captured areas in exchange for peace, but the Arabs met with Palestinian leaders in Khartoum and issued their three infamous “no’s”: no peace, no recognition, and no negotiation. In 2000-2001 and again in 2008, Israel made generous peace offers that would have established a demilitarized Palestinian state, but these offers were not accepted. And for the past several years, the current Israeli government has offered to sit down and negotiate a two-state solution with no pre-conditions not even advanced recognition of Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people. The Palestinian leadership has refused to negotiate. Trump may be telling them that if they want a state they have to show up at the negotiating table and bargain for it. No one is going to hand it to them on a silver platter in the way that former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon handed over the Gaza strip in 2005, only to see it turned into a launching pad for terror rockets and terror tunnels. Israel must get something in return: namely real peace and a permanent end to the conflict. The Palestinian leadership’s unwillingness to come to the negotiating table reminds me of my mother’s favorite Jewish joke about Sam, a 79-year-old man who prayed every day for God to let him win the New York lottery before he turns 80. On the eve of his 80th birthday, he rails against God: “All these years I’ve prayed to you every day asking to win the lottery. You couldn’t give me that one little thing!” God responded: “Sam, you have to help me out here buy a ticket!!” The Palestinians haven’t bought a ticket. They haven’t negotiated in good faith. They haven’t accepted generous offers. They haven’t made realistic counter proposals. They haven’t offered sacrifices to match those offered by the Israelis. Also from the Washington Examiner Announcement comes just days before DNC chair vote. 02/18/17 12:10 PM Now Trump is telling them that they have to “buy a ticket.” They are not going to get a state by going to the United Nations, the European Union or the international criminal court. They aren’t going to get a state as a result of the BDS or other anti-Israel movements. They will only get a state if they sit down and negotiate in good faith with the Israelis. The Obama administration applied pressures only to the Israeli side, not to the Palestinians. The time has come indeed it is long past for the United States to tell the Palestinians in no uncertain terms that they must negotiate with Israel if they want a Palestinian state, and they must agree to end the conflict, permanently and unequivocally. Otherwise, the status quo will continue, and there will be only one state, and that state will be Israel. The Palestinians are not going to win the lottery without buying a ticket. Alan Dershowitz (@AlanDersh) is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus, at Harvard Law School and author of “Taking the Stand: My Life in the Law” and “Electile Dysfunction: A Guide for the Unaroused Voter.” This article was previously published in Gatestone. If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read our guidelines on submissions here. Also from the Washington Examiner If Bilden does withdraw, he’d be the second service secretary to do so. 02/18/17 12:03 PM Top Story If Bilden does withdraw, he’d be the second service secretary to do so. 02/18/17 12:03 PM

Fair Usage Law

February 18, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed

Dershowitz: Trump-Netanyahu Alliance Good for Mideast Peace – Newsmax

President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “are very compatible” and “the best solution is for both men to use their different talents” to negotiate peace in the region, famed civil-rights lawyer Alan Dershowitz told Newsmax TV on Wednesday. “They both believe that business and economics play a great role in politics,” the Harvard Law School professor emeritus, told “Newsmax Prime” host J.D. Hayworth. “They’re both pragmatists. They both want to see a solution to this.” Watch J.D. Hayworth on Newsmax TV: Tune in beginning at 8 PM ET to see “Newsmax Prime” on FiOS 615, YouTube Livestream, Newsmax TV App from any smartphone, NewsmaxTV.com, Roku, Amazon Fire More Systems Here Dershowitz is the author of the book, “Electile Dysfunction: A Guide for Unaroused Voters.” “The time is right for negotiating a resolution,” Dershowitz added. “Trump’s talents lie in business. Benjamin Netanyahu has been a superb negotiator in terms of domestic politics and being able to keep his coalition together, even though they’re enormously diverse forces within the coalition. “Trump will put pressure on the Palestinians, as well as the Israelis, whereas [President Barack] Obama only put pressure on the Israelis.” Dershowitz noted “they really have to do something about” the U.N. Security Council’s resolution condemning Israeli settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The Obama administration abstained on the vote in December. “It makes peace much more difficult, because it takes away Israel’s bargaining position in terms of the Western Wall, the access road to Hebrew University and Hadassah Hospital and the Jewish Quarter,” Dershowitz told Hayworth. “That has to be taken into account but I think if there’s a will, the resolution, the two-state solution, is an obvious answer.” 2017 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Fair Usage Law

February 17, 2017   Posted in: Alan Dershowitz  Comments Closed


Fair Use Disclaimer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."