It is hardly surprising that the failed Tea Party candidate Joel Pollak would write in breathless support of his mentor Alan Dershowitz (see here). In typical Tea Party fashion, he commences with a smear raising the visit some years ago of Uri Davis (no relative!) which is completely irrelevant to the Dershowitz issue save to imply a parallel of views between us .Pollak knows well that Uri Davis does not believe in the right of Israel to exist as a state whereas I have always and continue to hold to Israel's critical importance to Jewish life.
Smears aside, he then invokes a second Tea Party trick - leave the facts aside. In a letter which I signed and was proud to associate myself with some of the very finest counsel in the country, most principled human rights activists and in two cases academics of true world renown in their field, five claims were made: Dershowitz attacked Archbishop Tutu in a hateful manner; he misrepresented the judicial record of Judge Richard Goldstone; he has a poor record on academic freedom; he is a qualified supporter of torture in certain cases; he has advocated collective punishment and has trashed international law.
Somehow we stand accused of plagiarising these claims from Norman Finkelstein (as if they are a figment of Finkelstein's imagination!) and we have also lied in a letter.
Generally one should be cautious about making these claims when they are, in part formulated by very distinguished silks .And the facts show why. It is surely common cause that Dershowitz insulted Archbishop Tutu and continued to behave in an outrageous way when in South Africa toward a revered icon of our non racial struggle.
In similar fashion it is common cause that Dershowitz called into question Judge Goldstone's judicial record and was hugely incorrect about the facts . En passant, that he was completely in his rights to attack the Goldstone report was an issue that I for one continued to insist was more than justified but that to attack a brave judge in the way he did was most unfair.
Pollak says it is no ' big deal ' that I have a copy of the letter sent to Governor Schwarzenegger seeking to subvert Finkelsteins right to publish .But if I have a copy of the letter then how is that plagiarism ? Besides it is a big deal for it shows that Dershowitz refuses to accept a basic principle of academic freedom, namely that opinions, no matter how wrong are entitled to be aired.
On 24 May 2010 Dershowitz is quoted in detail in the Jerusalem Post saying 'the judges in the international tribunes are corrupt ' and that my job is to delegitimize international law, to attack it to its core.' He seems to opine that as there are double standards in international law, ' I prefer no international law to unfair international law.'
On March 1 2002 in the Jerusalem Post, Dershowitz writes an op-ed in which he proposes a new form of response to terrorism - .He writes that after making an announcement to the effect that the Palestinian leadership must cause terrorism to cease and if it did not, 'the first act of terrorism ....will result in the destruction of a small village which has been used as a base for terrorist operations .The residents would be given 24 hours to leave and then the troops will come in and bulldoze all of the buildings ...Further acts of terrorism would trigger further destruction of specifically named locations.'
In an article in the 2003 New York University Law Review, Dershowitz repeats his of made point that as undesirable as torture is as a weapon, in certain extreme cases and with a judicial warrant, he would support its use.
The only question that remains is - why is Dershowitz so keen to run away from his own positions to the extent of accusing others of lying ? After all, he is entitled to hold these views and many of his S African Jewish audiences would doubtless endorse them?
One final point: both Dershowitz and Pollak claim I refused to debate him .But since I was out of the country during the entire visit, when would I have so refused, let alone be invited? It is another illustration of not having regard to the facts .For the record -, if Deshowitz want to debate my, he is most welcome and for good measure he can bring Pollak along as well .Facts will always trump bluster.
I have been asked why as a judge did I do the unusual thing and sign on to this public letter. The answer is simple- as a one time leader of the Jewish community and as a Jew who takes his Jewish commitments very seriously, I could not stand by and allow so vicious an attack on a so great a person as the Archbishop, particularly coming from a man who holds view so incongruent with our constitutional values .
As the formal Jewish community embraced Dershowitz, and either reacted without demur to the attacks on the Archbishop or, worse applauded them and gave Dershowitz platforms and pulpits to do so, I considered that some of us who are Jewish had to show South Africans that not all of us are part of this shameful episode. Both our tradition and Israel deserve far better.
Click here to sign up to receive our free daily headline email newsletter
