Wed, 8 February 2012
Moderator: Ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. The program will begin very shortly. Thank you.
Rabbi Mike Uram: Welcome everyone. It is a pleasure to have you here at the University of Pennsylvania. My name is Rabbi Mike Uram. I am the Director of Hillel, and we are in for a very important night. What I wanted to say is that the events that are occurring right now on Penn's campus give all of us a unique opportunity. And the way that Hillel sees this is that this is a chance to expand and diversify the pro-Israel community on campus, to get students excited about Israel, to get more people involved, and ultimately to help students develop the tools and the confidence to be proud advocates for the state of Israel. Now while tonight this presentation by Professor Dershowitz is definitely a huge event, there is more taking place on campus than just this. Tonight, after the event, there is going to be an "Invest in Israel" Party at Smokes, for the students in the room. Open bar. Tomorrow night, there will be over 800 students around campus taking part in Israel across Penn meals. They will be done by Jewish students and non-Jewish students. If you haven't seen, there have been amazing student writers who published things in the Daily Pennsylvanian, and on Monday, the leaders of PIPAC (the Penn-Israel Public Affairs Committee) are going to publish an incredible leadership statement that's going to say we support the Israel-America alliance. And what this testifies to, is that this is really our mission: to inspire the next generation of Israel advocates and to build a positive atmosphere on this campus where it is safe and easy to be pro-Israel. A couple quick things before we start: I want to say, if you don't get a chance to meet the student leaders, they are inspiring. Their devotion and sophistication is [sic] absolutely incredible, and we should all feel great pride in the next few days when we read about all the amazing things that are going to happen on campus. Second: the Philadelphia Federation is an incredible leader and partner, that this night could not have happened without their leadership. And also, to have someone like Professor Alan Dershowitz here tonight on Penn's campus in our community, to be such a strong, vocal, and articulate advocate for Israel. Finally, I want to do something that is a custom. It is a custom at a gathering like this to share a few words of Torah to show wisdom from the Jewish tradition. And rather than speak to a Torah portion, I want topoint to a bizarre and wonderful blessing that Jews say each and every morning. You can imagine that a blessing would be thanking God for our clothing, or our basic needs - our food, our health. The Jews do something very peculiar - they thank God for binah - in Hebrew, 'understanding.' And the Hebrew continues Beit Yod Nun Hei. The understanding that we are thankful for is to be able to discern between day and night. And that's what we're doing here tonight. Professor Dershowitz is an incredible role model helping us to discern - to discern the difference between the real Israel that we know and love, and the Israel that is sometimes portrayed. The difference between real and lasting peace, and those who simply want to demonize the Israeli people. And between those who search for facts, and those who search only for accusations. We all know that blessings are not just about saying 'Thank you', they are also aspirational. And so this is my hope for tonight: that Professor Dershowitz's words and that great work of Penn students will go out beyond the walls of this auditorium and beyond the bounds of this campus and will inspire people all over this country to be part of telling the story of the true Israel, the true Israeli people, and the true Israeli nation. Thank you.
I want to introduce to you one of our amazing student leaders, Noah Fight, who is the President of Penn Friends of Israel. Noah Fight: Good evening community members, faculty, and students. For those of you from outside of the Penn community: welcome. My name is Noah Fight, I am the President of Penn Friends of Israel. I am also Penn's Stand With Us Emerson Fellow, and Penn's campus liaison for Penn's Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America, or CAMERA. First and foremost, I'd like to thank some of our partners for making tonight's event possible. Our major sponsors, the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia, Hillel of Greater Philadelphia, of course Hillel at the University of Pennsylvania, campus organizations such as the University of Pennsylvania Democrats, Penn College Republicans, the Penn Political Science Department, the Penn Philosophy, Politics, and Economics Department, the Penn-Israel Septer, and the Penn Jewish Law Association, and campus advocacy groups including Stand With Us and CAMERA.
Many of us have come out tonight to hear Israel's single-most visible defender talk about Israel. But tonight is not just about Israel. Tonight is about both Israel and us. And when I say us, I mean the ideals that we embrace which inextricably link us with nations with similar values. Tonight Professor Dershowitz will discuss the importance of these nations to every one of us. The idealogical, moral, and practical reasons to support countries which encompass Democratic, liberal, and progressive values that are dear to most Americans. And why am I so excited about tonight? Besides having the opportunity to say a few words before somebody whom I greatly admire takes the stage, I think this evening's conversation will shed light on the many different vantage points from which we need to look at Israel. As a proud advocate of Israel, I recognize that it's case cannot and will not rely upon anecdote alone. It is based upon history and facts. It's case is ethical, legal, and practical. A trip to Israel is a great beginning to understanding, but it is not enough to elicit the support of our peers. The case for Israel is multifaceted. Professor Dershowitz exemplifies this intricate construct in thinking about Israel. His analysis will include personal stories, legal expertise, as well as his own moral perspective. In addition to being internationally renown for his work in law, political commentary, and the amelioration of human rights worldwide, Professor Dershowitz is a voice of reason and justice on issues of profound importance. If these elements are the driving force behind the academic and intellectual discourse that goes on on our campus every day, I am confident that the Penn community will recognize and work to strengthen our relationship with Israel. Now, it is my pleasure to introduce David L. Cohen, which should come relatively easily because he is so well respected and well known on our campus and within our community. Mister Cohen is Executive Vice President of the Comcast Corporation and a true civic leader in our city and region. To those of us at Penn, Mister Cohen is the Chairman of our Board of Trustees and a proud alumnus of Penn's law school. He is also a staunch supporter of Israel. Mister Cohen has joined us this evening to share a message on behalf of Penn's President, Dr. Amy Gutmann, who is currently traveling on the West Coast on Penn business. On behalf of the entire Penn community, your presence means a great deal to us and we thank you so much for being here. Thank you. David L. Cohen: So thanks very much Noah. Good evening everyone. It's a pleasure for me to be here as a proud member of the Greater Philadelphia Jewish community and Federation board member, but more importantly as the Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania. On behalf of President Gutmann, the Trustees, and the University as an institution because it gives me an opportunity to express to this group, and to reiterate to this group the institutional perspective on what's going to be happening at the Penn campus over the next week, over the next few days, starting with tonight and the message that's being delivered here. As President Gutmann and I wrote in our op-ed piece in the DP this morning, open expression can sometimes be a painful business. But I think what we're seeing here tonight is the ultimate victory of open expression, and listening to Noah and seeing what's been happening on this campus, I want to say for all of us that the students of this institution have done an unbelievable job around this subject, and to the extent to which we look to our students for the future of the Penn legacy and of our country, we should all be very proud of what our students have done around this very difficult subject. So if I may share this letter from President Gutmann:
And now it's my pleasure to introduce a friend and colleague of more than thirty years. When she comes out here, you'll think that we've known each other since she was six years old. One of the great thinks about Sherrie Savett is that she has always been passionate and dedicated to whatever cause that she is associated with. And we in the Philadelphia Jewish community are incredibly fortunate that she has chosen to dedicate that passion and that commitment to federation to the multiple causes of importance of our Jewish community regionally. She is probably one of the hardest working and most dedicated people I have ever had the opportunity to work with, and so I'm pleased to introduce and ask you to welcome the President of the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia, Sherrie Savett.
Sherrie Savett: Thank you David. And please extend our thanks to President Gutmann for sharing her excellent thoughts with all of us. I am proud to be a part of this united community gathered here tonight in person and in cyberspace to express their love and support of Israel. Tonight we will speak truthfully about Israel and dispel the lies and distortions of those who attempt to deligitimize Israel and hold it to an unrealistic standard that no other nation is held to. Our primary charge as a Jewish people is, and always has been, to assure that Israel will forever remain strong and vibrant. It is the only true democracy in the Middle East and it is the only nation in that region that shows common values held precious by most Americans. Israel's existence has been threatened since it's inception. It's people have not only survived despite immeasurable odds, but have built a modern democratic nation that has contributed to the world's well being through advances in agriculture, medicine, science, and technology. Despite continuous efforts to eradicate her through wars, suicide bombers, rocket shelling, and now most alarmingly, the existential threat of nuclear war by neighboring nations pledged to her destruction, Israel stands as a testament to the strength of her people. Israel must be viewed in light of the neighborhood it lives in, the most dangerous neighborhood in the world, and the threats that it faces. What other nation would exercise such restraint in light of the continuous attacks on its people, from rockets raining down on its southern third with ever-increasing capacity to hit its major population centers? In what other country do parents have to worry whether their children or grandchildren will have a country to live in, or whether they will survive? Today Israel is fighting a new kind of war. It is a war of distortion and negative rhetoric that is aimed at portraying Israel as an occupier and an aggressor. And as Israeli society as being apartheid and oppressive. This war of lies is being fought in the court of public opinion. These distortions and falsehoods impact not only Israel's future as a nation, but also our future as a Jewish community. This war is being fought in our media and on our college campuses. This war is being fought right here at Penn. We cannot and we will not stand for it. We must fight alongside Israel, advocate on her behalf, and defend Israel against those who seek to defame her. Our voices and our message must be loud. Our commitment must be unwavering. Our unity of purpose must be clear. And our resolve must be absolute. Tonight's program, which sold out almost immediately after it was announced, is evidence of our collective willingness to stand up and be counted. More than nine hundred members of the community are here tonight, and thousands are watching all over the globe. This is a testament to our unwavering commitment to Israel. It is also our opportunity to carry the message to many others about Israel's true and enduring value as a stable and secure democratic presence in a volatile Middle East. On behalf of the Federation, I thank you for your support and your involvement. Before I introduce our guest speaker for tonight, I want to introduce our moderator. Every great discussion is enhanced by a skilled moderator, and tonight we are honored to welcome one of the nation's best. Robert Traynham currently works as a political analyst for MSNBC and interviews government and political leaders as moderator for the public affairs program 'Newsmakers' on the Comcast Network. Robert also co-hosts 'The Flax', a popular radio talk show about elections and campaigns. He has also been an active participant in presidential politics, and has served as a senior advisor to several national presidential campaigns. This Pennsylvania native also finds time to author a weekly column for the Philadelphia Tribune and to serve on the Council of Trustees of Cheyney University. Thank you Robert for lending your expertise to this evening. Please come and take a seat.
And now, I would like to introduce our keynote speaker, Alan Dershowitz. The Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, Alan is revered as Israel's single-most ardent defender. The Jewish state's lead attorney in the court of public opinion. His eloquence and passion for civil and human rights is expressed through his best-selling books, which include "The Case for Israel", "The Case for Peace", "How the Arab-Israeli Conflict Can Be Resolved", and another is "Why Terrorism Works: Understanding the Threat and Responding to Challenge." And that's just to name a few. He has been lauded by such prestigious organizations as the Anti-Defamation League for his work as a defender and champion of the victims of hatred and discrimination. They honored him with the William O. Douglas First Amendment Award. In presenting this award, Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel said "If there had been a few people like Alan Dershowitz during the nineteen thirties and nineteen forties, the history of European Jewry might have been different. And now, without further ado, it is my great pleasure to welcome Professor Alan Dershowitz. Gentlemen, the stage is yours. Robert Traynham: Thank you very much. Well good evening University of Pennsylvania, good evening Pennsylvania. It is so good to see each and every one of you this evening. Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedules to be a part of a very important conversation this evening. And of course, that conversation is about Israel in reference to, or rather in context with one of the most prolific minds in history. Before I ask Professor Dershowitz questions, a couple of rules for this evening. First, I know all of you love this country just as much as I do. All of you understand that in the public sphere - that is the venue for passionate ideas, passionate thought, and so for those of you who may disagree that is every right of yours to disagree. But if we can do so respectfully, we most appreciate it. I know half of you in the room tonight probably are not comfortable with the fact that I'm wearing a brown suit. I know brown suits are not en vogue, but I happen to like brown suits. So for that half of the audience out there [who like it], let's have a round of applause for the brown suit. No, but in seriousness, let's keep this in the context of great minds have passionate thoughts, and passionate thoughts have passionate ideas. And without further ado, my first question for you Professor Dershowitz is in the context of 2012, in the presidential election. You and I were talking in the green room about just how historic this election year really is, and how it appears that, regardless of whether it's President Obama that's going to win the election, or it's going to be Mitt Romney, who is presumably the Republican nominee, it appears that both candidates, both folks that are running for president right now, are absolutely, positively, pro-Israel. Do you disagree with that?
Professor Alan Dershowitz: I think the goal of pro-Israel advocacy has always been and will continue to be to keep Israel a bipartisan issue, to make sure that a vote is never a litmus test for whether a candidate is supportive of Israel or not supportive of Israel. Throughout history, every candidate for president, to varying degrees, has always supported Israel. Certainly in recent years. I just want to make sure we keep it that way. Which is why I think it's very important for supporters of Israel - Jews and non-Jews - to be Democrats, to be Republicans, to be Independents - very important that the pro-Israel group never be clearly and unequivocally be identified with one side. That is happening today in Europe. In Europe, the Left, particularly the hard left, has turned very much against Israel and Israel's support in Great Britain, France, in Italy, and many other countries in Europe, has been relegated primarily to the center and to the right. I never want to see that happen in America. At the moment, both candidates, or all candidates, with the exception of Ron Paul, seem to be strongly supportive of Israel and for American support of Israel. People can have criticisms as I do of the policies of any particular president. I had criticisms of every president since I could vote down through the current president. President Obama knows this, I speak with him about this issue, that I am critical of some of his statements and positions on occasion, and I'm sure if I had a chance to speak with whoever the Republican nominee will be I will be critical as well. I always make what I call "the eighty percent case for Israel". That is support for Israel's right to exist, right to be judged by a single standard, right to be recognized by the international community, right to live in peace, right to respond to terrorist and other attacks in proportional ways. And I think as far as "the eighty percent case" goes, both candidates and all candidates will be strongly supportive of Israel. This is not tonight a political event. Probably many of you know my politics. I am a liberal democrat, I was a big supporter of Hillary Clinton in the Primary, and then of Barack Obama in the election. I have made it clear that each candidate has to earn my vote, and I haven't frankly made up my mind finally about who I'm going to vote for in the next election.
Robert Traynham: Not for Ron Paul though?
Professor Alan Dershowitz: I am not going to vote for Ron Paul. That much is very clear. I hope that my vote for whomever I vote for will not turn on Israel, but will turn on a woman's right to choose, will turn on gay rights, will turn on the environment, will turn on the economy, will turn on a variety of serious and obviously if that were the case, you all know where my vote will go.
Robert Traynham: You talked about "the rights", if you will, and the eighty percent of your support for Israel. You get invited to a lot of these events, all around the world. What is the overall message for tonight? For the adults, for the students in the room. What is the major theme that you want every single person within the sound of our voices to walk away with?
Professor Alan Dershowitz: Ok. First of all, I know this will be controversial with some of you here. I want to start by congratulated the University of Pennsylvania. I think it has handled this issue remarkably well. Hopefully and sensitively. If the University of Pennsylvania had made a decision to ban the DBS [sic] conference, would have prohibited it from being held on campus, based on its long history of allowing all kinds of diverse speech on this campus, it would have forced me to take the position defending the DBS [sic] speakers. Certainly something I don't want to have to do. It would take the ACLU, and put them in that position. My view is that this is a model campus, the University of Pennsylvania, for Israel advocacy. Just recall the remarkable letter written by your president in support of Israel. It is absolutely remarkable. There are not too many presidents at too many universities who would go out on such a limb and write such a strong letter. So I am glad that nobody tried to ban or censor the DBS [sic] conference. If it had been banned or censored, they would have won. We are going to win this encounter. The best answer to BDS is an event like this, and the events that are going to be held tomorrow and throughout the next few days and it will show that at least in this community the strongest support is for Israel and against divestment, boycott, and sanctions. So the message that I would like to send out to everybody in the community, particularly those misguided students who support BDS [sic], is look yourself in the mirror and ask yourself the question, "Why are you singling out Israel for divestment, boycott, and sanctions? Why are you picking the one country in the Middle East which has the best record of human rights? The best record of seeking peace? The best record of environmental concern? Why aren't you having a DBS [sic] conference against Syria? Against Iran? Against China? Against Cuba? And about the long list of countries with massive human rights violations?" You would never, ever get to Israel. So the message is a single standard. If you apply a single standard. Remain critical of Israel's policies. As I said, I make the eighty percent case. I make the eighty percent case for the United States. I did not support the war on Iraq. I did not support the war and occupation of Iraq. I did not support many of America's policies throughout history. But I love America and I am a patriot. I am a great patriot of America. I would fight for my country and I would die for my country. And I support Israel even though I disagree with its policies on settlements, I disagree on some of its military actions. You don't have to be a supporter of one hundred percent of Israel's policies particularly. If you support Israel in the eighty percent case, your voice is stronger. You can stand up against, for example what some, a small group of people, have done in terms of women on the back of buses, and the way in which a woman, a young woman, was spit at. That's not Israel. What Israel is is the Prime Minister of Israel standing up and saying in Israel, women can sit wherever they want. Israel is the chief Rabbi of Israel, who said that, when he saw the way that this young girl was treated, that's not the way that Israelis or Jews treat young women. So be critical of particular policies but demand a single standard of judgment when it comes to the Jewish state and every other state.
Robert Traynham: It's pretty obvious that you feel pretty passionate about this issue.
Professor Alan Dershowitz: I do.
Robert Traynham: You clearly have written a couple of books on this issue. You just made a movie on the case for Israel which outlines how you feel and, correct me if I'm wrong, how Israel is misrepresented in the public square. Why? Why do you do this? Why do you feel so passionate about this?
Professor Alan Dershowitz: I have devoted my entire life to defending the underdog. I grew up in the post-holocaust era in Brooklyn, New York. My family was active in human rights, in civil rights. The greatest thing my grandfather in his life - he was a very very poor man and was a box maker - but the thing that he did that he was most proud of in his life: he discovered that we had 28 relatives in Czechoslovakia just before the beginning of the second World War, and he went all over getting affidavits, and doing everything possible to rescue those 28 people who are now people with grandchildren, great-grandchildren. And we had two mottos in my family, one: "he who saves a single human life it is as if they have saved the whole world"; and the other motto was from the Torah, it said that: "Justice, justice. You must run after. Not just seek, not just pursue, but actively run after." And I grew up in a community that was generally pro-Israel, but our pro-Israel was buying a bond here and there, you know, going to a Jewish event. But it didn't require the kind of advocacy that is required today. And what happened - for me the turning point was the early 1970's, when the people who had spent ten years defending. The people of the hard left, the people who had been against the Vietnam War, the people who had been against the bombing of Cambodia, the people that I went to court for, turned against Israel. These are people like Father Barrigan, Noam Chomsky, and others. When the hard left, and I had always considered myself as a member of the center left, but when the hard left turned so viciously and thoughtlessly against Israel, I decided Israel was now the underdog, and I surely would not myself apply a double standard if I were to defend Israel against unfair charges, were I not Jewish, and if Israel were not the Jewish state, surely I could not demand more or seek a double standard when it came to defending Israel. If I were not... As Hillel said, "If I am not for myself, who will be for me? But if I am for myself alone, what am I?" That is another important mantra in my life. So I feel more passionately because there is so much thoughtless hatred and criticism. I think Phyllis Chesler once described the hatred of Israel that one sees on many college campuses around Europe as an almost eroticized hatred. It is not thoughtful. It is not, gee, we don't think Israel should be continuing to occupy Ramallah. It's Israel is worst than the Nazis. That's what you hear from... Norman Finkelstein. Or Israel is the worst human rights violator in the world, or Israel is an apartheid regime. Those are just absurd, thoughtless, ahistorical. Not only insulting to Israel and Jews, but insulting to those people who suffered from real apartheid. I was one of Nelson Mandela's legal team, and I know what apartheid is. I was invited to Africa and asked to speak there, and refused a passport and a visa to go there because I wouldn't show them in advance my anti-apartheid speech. And the idea of comparing Israel, where Arabs serve in the Knesset, where Arabs serve on the Supreme Court, where Arabs are the subject of affirmative action programs at universities, where Israelis' treatment of Arab Israelis is not perfect - it's not perfect! Certainly our treatment in America of racial minorities is not perfect. It needs improvement, and I'm on the side of seeking improvement. But the idea of making these absurd comparisons and doing it with so much emotion - I remember once getting an award at Findler Hall, for something - I think it was unrelated to Israel. I was on the steps with my award, and a group of students, young kids, were so hateful of me that they started to really threaten me, and they started yelling Zionist this, and Zionist that, and the police had to come and rescue me. And I looked in their eyes, and it was true - it was genuine passion that they felt. And this kind of passionate hatred for Israel just simply can't be ignored.
And what I worry about is we're seeing some lines being crossed. When you get a guy like Gilad Atzmon who is - I don't know if any of you know who he is, he wrote a book called "The Wandering Who?", and says that Jews killed Christians and used their blood for Matzoh, and that the holocaust didn't happen, and that Jews control the world and that we're responsible for the credit crunch, and its OK to burn down synagogues - its a reasonable act to burn down a synagogue. When a man like this has his book legitimated and endorsed by Professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Professor Richard Falk of Princeton University and the University of California, was seen... That the Palestinians would sit down at the bargaining table. Look, the Palestinians have refused Netanyahu's offer to sit down unconditionally and to negotiate and get back the vast majority of the territories. Israel gave back the Gaza Strip, look what that got them. Israel gave back southern Lebanon, look what it got them. Israel has to negotiate a peace, but I am not unwilling to point the figure to the Israeli government and say, it would be better if you could suspend building in the settlements for a period of two or three months to challenge the Palestinians, and to say, now you have no excuse, sit down with us and negotiate. Let's have a two state solution. It's going to be much harder to implement than it was years ago because today, we don't know the history of what the future of Jordan is going to be. We don't what Jordan will look like in ten years, whether the Hashemite Kingdom will survive. Israel will need some kind of a military buffer in the Jordan Valley. Peace won't be easy to achieve, but you're never going to get it without sitting down face to face, two parties negotiating. So I'm hoping - my hope - is that President Obama will go to Israel, will go both to Ramallah and to Jerusalem, and will speak to both sides, and will say, come to the negotiating table. There will be generous offers. We can really achieve peace. But without sitting down and negotiating, there can't be peace. We're seeing lines crossed. As I wrote in a recent article, antisemitism didn't come to Germany because of Hitler, Gerring, and Gerbels. They had been antisemitic in the twenties. Everybody knew their views. Antisemitism came to Germany in the thirties when Martin Heidegger, the great philosopher, and von Karajan, and Furkvonger, great musicians - when they refused to condemn antisemitism, and when they legitimated it. And when I see some of those lines being crossed, first its anti-Israel, then its anti-Zionist, then its moving toward a bigotry against Jews, we simply cannot remain silent. All my life I've fought against this kind of bigotry and I will continue to fight against it when that bigotry is directed against the Jewish state. Robert Traynham: Professor, if you could give the audience your best argument - I think you just said it - but I just want to repeat this. For the folks out there that misrepresent Israel, or spread hatred on purpose, what's the best argument? What would you say to them if you could say it in a paragraph or less? What is your message?
Professor Alan Dershowitz: I really throw questions at them. If I were to have spoken at this weekend's event, my first question that I would throw out would be: name a country in the world faced with threats comparable to those threats faced by Israel that has ever had a better record of human rights, and that has ever had more sensitivity to the lives of civilians, and its always greeted with silence. Nobody can name a country that has a better record. Or name a country in the history of the world that in sixty-three and a half years has contributed more to the welfare of the world, as was mentioned by a previous speaker, Israel exports more life-saving medical technology per capita than any other country in the world. It has probably saved more Arab and Muslim lives than all of the Arab and Muslim countries together. It has done more for environmental technology, creating agrarian-drip agriculture technology, and it has taught the world how to fight terrorism without compromising human rights and civil liberties. When Justice Brennan, probably the greatest and most liberal Justice in modern history, went to Israel before 9-11, he came back and said, "If, God forbid, terrorism were ever to come to America" as it surely did, "there is only one country from which we can learn how to balance fighting terrorism with civil liberties, and that country is Israel. So Israel has done so much, contributed so much, you'd think the world would be standing up and applauding its contributions in sixty-three and a half years. So much. Think of your own technology, how much of the technology that you use was developed by R & D [Research and Development] in Israel, and think of how much more it could be if Israel got the peace dividend. If Israel could really beat its swords into plowshares, and in to high technology and medical technology, the case for Israel is the case for what it has contributed to the world, how much it has tried peace. And I only wish we would get peace.
Robert Traynham: I want to bring the conversation back to the audience. I look at the world in terms of worker bees and queen bees. The queen bees are the leaders and the folks that have the type-A personalities that like to lead people. And the worker bees are the folks that like to sit, perhaps, behind, and do all the work, if you will. My question to the professor is, What do you say to the folks out there that are listening to this conversation that want to do something, but they're not exactly sure what to do? They're comfortable sitting on the sidelines, but perhaps they feel guilty because they're not speaking loud enough. What can they do?
Professor Alan Dershowitz: First of all, you can't sit idly by. You cannot sit idly by. You must do something. First of all, you have to learn the case for Israel. I don't mean my case for Israel, I mean your case for Israel. A young person's case for Israel. Israel needs to send better people to teach its case, it needs to send more women and more people of color and more people of different and diverse backgrounds. But the basic responsibility is yours. Learn how to respond to the claims of the BDS folks. They're not unintelligent. They make arguments that are persuasive to some. Your obligation is to beat back their arguments with better arguments. I'm not suggesting pickets or certainly any kind of confrontational violence of any kind. I reject that categorically across the board. I'm simply suggesting: get into the marketplace of ideas. Enter into it. Enter into it with intelligence, with thought, create websites, create social networks, use all kinds of modern technology to try to make the case for Israel, and more effectively. If you're critical of the way that Israel makes its case, do a better job. I don't check my arguments with anybody in Israel. I try to come up with the best arguments that I believe in strongly that are consistent with my own strong liberal values. You know, people say to me all the time, "Oh, you're a liberal, but you support Israel?" No, no, no. I'm a liberal and I support Israel. I support Israel because I'm a liberal. I support Israel because I'm a feminist. I support Israel because I support gay rights and environmental rights and union rights. That's why I support Israel. That's why I'm critical of some of its policies. And that's certainly a fair thing to do. But you must become involved. This is one of the great human rights issues of the twenty-first century. When Israel's need to defend itself against the threats of nuclear destruction from Iran, terrorist attacks from the north, terrorist attacks from the west, potential terrorist attacks from the east. When Israel's right to defend itself becomes the latest justification for the oldest hatred in the world, we have to stop that from happening. We have to stop that from happening not by persuading the people who support BDS or the extremists who will not be reasoned with. But by talking with people with open minds. That's why tomorrow's event, which I know will have a lot of people who have not been deeply in Israel advocacy going and having dinners and sitting around and learning and shmoozing and having conversation is a great model. As I said in the beginning, Penn is the model community for pro-Israel advocacy. Don't ask me to teach you. Teach me. Teach us. Teach Harvard, teach Yale, teach Princeton. You have a lot to teach us. You're doing a great job here.
Robert Traynham: I want to refocus on the BDS issue. As you know, its a very controversial issue. There are a lot of people who feel very passionate about this, as I said before, in the public square. And this is very important. All you have to do is a google search, and you know, professor, there are some pretty vicious attacks out there. How does this sit with you? How do you read these things and how do you rationalize what people say?
Professor Alan Dershowitz: Well its hard. You know, I'm a university professor, so I have thick skin and I'm not subject to being fired for anything I say or do. If you're a young professor without tenure, a young assistant professor, a graduate student: you're in a very, very different situation. And there are concerted attacks. I mean, I'm not so sure that young professors could survive the kinds of attacks directed at me. When I wrote my case for Israel, the first thing I was accused of was plagiarizing the book from a 1982 book - I forget the name of it - by a woman by the name of Peters. And the charge of plagiarism was out of a book from Mark Twain. A famous quote that's always been used about Israel - Mark Twain when he went to Palestine in the 1870's and saw an empty, barren land. And I quoted it. And the person who accused me, Norman Finkelstein, of plagiarism said I must have found the quote in Peters' book in 1982. The fact that I used it on television in 1970 in a debate against Noam Chomsky didn't seem relevant to him, but he accused me of plagiarism. And when you google 'Dershowitz plagiarism' you'll find a thousand hits. So that kind of attack sticks. Or today in the Daily Pennsylvanian there was an attack against me by someone who said I support torture. I mean, you know, it's exactly the opposite. I have devoted my life to opposing torture which is why I favor a torture warrant in the same way Bill Clinton said he favored a torture warrant. No government should ever be allowed to do what the Bush administration did in terms of torturing without justification whatsoever. I don't believe anybody should torture under any circumstances, but at the very least, you have to be able to show a judge justification. Look, I'm against the death penalty but I'm in favor of death penalty warrants. I don't want people to be executed without judicial process. But he turned that into 'I strongly support torture'. Or I'm against academic freedom because I went to the University of Tel Aviv, got an honorary doctorate, spent most of my speech defending the rights of those who support BDS, I said 'Don't fire them. Don't suspend them. Don't cut off their pay. They have a right to support BDS'. And then I said I have a right to criticize them for supporting BDS. That suddenly, in today's article, becomes McCarthyism - its against academic freedom. So, you know, all of these ways of attacking those of us who support Israel are designed to quiet us down, they're designed to discourage us, they're designed to disincentivize us from talking. We cannot accept that because they'll just keep it up and make it worse. The best way to respond to falsehoods is by truth. As I say to my opponents, I promise if you stop lying about me I'll stop telling the truth about you.
Robert Traynham: Professor, you have said over and over and over again tonight that you praise the greater Philadelphia area as well as Penn for not being a hotbed. As you know, not just people in the room, but people around the world are watching this as we speak. What do you say to those folks around the world - Palestine, Russia, wherever they may be watching - that are in support of BDS?
Professor Alan Dershowitz: I would say that, become human rights activists. Look at the world. Look at who the worst human rights offenders are. Make in your mind a list of who you think are the worst human rights offenders are. No rational person would put Israel on that list at all. But look at who the human rights offenders are. And then if you think BDS is a good tactic - and its collective punishment, I don't generally support it, it punishes everybody in a country regardless of their views. But if you support BDS, apply it fairly. Apply it to the worst first. That's the first mantra of human rights: the worst first. There are two criteria for who a human rights activist should go after first: number one, the worst offenders. The people who are killing and murdering like in Darfur and Rwanda, and in Syria. Then, second, those groups who don't have a free press: the ability to complain against their own government. That's true in Syria, that's true in Iran. So you would think that the first government to go after would be something like Iran. There's no right to dissent, and there's horrible murders going on of dissidents and of gay people, etc. The last country you'd want to go after is a country with a good human rights record with a complete free press. A complete free and open press. And if you think there's no criticism of Israel in Israel, just read Ha'aretz. Just open up Ha'aretz every day. Ha'aretz is filled with criticism! You know, people say that criticism of Israel is antisemitic. Of course its not. If criticism of Israel were antisemitic, the greatest concentration of antisemites would be in Tel Aviv. Because Israelis are incredibly self-critical. So what I say to those of you who call yourselves human rights advocates is: the worst first. The second you go after a people who have no voice, people who cannot speak up. And neither of those criteria apply to Israel. So I say to the DBS [sic] crowd: shame on you! Shame on you! You are abusing the concept of human rights. You are hurting human rights. And to those University of Pennsylvania professors who support human rights, you are to be shamed and shunned because you are hurting human rights. You are becoming an apologist for some of the worst offenders in the world. You are complicit with evil when you fail to stand up against the worst human rights offenders and focus your attention on a country where there is dissent and there is a high level of human rights and you have to justify yourself [sic] in the marketplace of ideas.
Robert Traynham: Professor, with your permission, I'd like to go to the audience to see if they have any questions. Is there any closing remarks you want to make before I take my questions?
Professor Alan Dershowitz: I'll make my closing remarks at the end, but again, I just want to congratulate this group, this audience, this university. I am so proud and so positive. My son went here. And he met his wife here. Who went here as well. And I've had a lot of friends on the faculty and I know Senator Arlen Specter is here in the audience here tonight. There are many other great people. And I am just so proud of this community. I wish if every community in the world were like this, I could retire.
Robert Traynham: So folks, there should be four microphones. I cannot see them, but hopefully you will be able to see them. There should be four microphones in the audience.
Thank you for the lights. I'm going to put on my police hat for a moment. Once again, just a friendly reminder for those of you who are in the audience, please, this is a free speech area, everybody has the right to express themselves. We respectfully ask that you respect another person's point of view if you disagree with it. The University of Pennsylvania has a great free speech policy. There are going to be some free speech monitors that are in the room that are going to help me police this effort. So once again please keep your comments as it relates to anything personal to yourself. We just want this to be a great intellectual conversation. One last thing very quickly. We'll give you 15 seconds to do your monologue if you wish, then go right into your questions so we can get to as many people as possible. So let's start to my left and to your right. Audience member: Thank you Professor Dershowitz. My name is Matt Handel, I'm a Trustee of the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia. Thank you for being here tonight. The question I have: you talked about younger members of academia feeling silenced or feeling afraid. But part of that is because much of the criticism, much of the issue you're discussing, is coming from the senior members in academia. Not in every campus, but in many campuses its the leaders who are the most anti-Israel. How do we address that?
Professor Alan Dershowitz: Well, its not the leaders in the sense that university presidents, generally, and university administrators and deans have generally been neutral or supportive of Israel. There are a lot of senior faculty of my age who grew up during the Vietnam period, who identify themselves as hard left, and they are often the ones who often set the tone. Graduate students who work for them often look to emulate them, etc. Its not nearly as bad here as it is in Europe. In Europe its much worse. I was invited to Norway last year. Just about this time last year. And each of the three universities in Norway was given the opportunity to have me give a free lecture on human rights. And each of the three universities turned it down, saying we don't want to hear Dershowitz talk about human rights. If he wants to talk about the OJ Simpson case, fine. But we don't want to hear him talk about Israel. For those of you who thought that Penn should have banned the DBS [sic] event, remember what happens when you give universities the power to ban. They use that power to ban pro-Israel speakers, more than likely in some parts of the country than they would to ban anti-Israel speakers. So watch what you wish for. And I don't wish for censorship. I think this has been a wonderful occasion for us to be able to respond on the merits, not to make heroes of them by censoring them. So I think its always better to respond to falsehoods with truth. But the point about professors is very difficult. There are some older professors, but there are some young as well. So its very important that they just not be allowed to be able to say 'I oppose Israel', you know, like Naziism. Make them justify. Engage them. Debate them in front of the students. Don't try to persuade them. Use them. Use their extremism as a way of showing the students: you don't want to identified with them. People like Chomsky and Finkelstein hate America. They hate western values. They hate liberalism. They hate many of the best values of the world. Show that. Make that clear. Make it clear that people who love liberty and love and support progressive values generally do support Israel. So in addition to shaming, which I think is something that should be used very effectively if people take positions that are indefensible. I think its very important to use these extremists to help educate students in a positive way. Thank you.
Robert Traynham: Let's move over to my right, your left.
Audience member: Thank you for coming. So as someone very knowledgeable about foreign relations with the US and Israel, my question is the following: If Prime Minister Netanyahu were to call you tonight and say, 'Professor Dershowitz, we're thinking about preemptively attacking Iran", how would you respond to that?
Professor Alan Dershowitz: First of all, these are not hypothetical questions. Prime Minister Netanyahu does call me late at night. A couple of weeks ago I had the privilege of having, in one day, a call from Prime Minister Netanyahu and a call from President Obama. Both relating to Iran. Obviously I'm not free to disclose my conversations with national leaders. But first off all, I would say, Mister Prime Minister, we're not talking about a preemptive attack, but a reactive attack. Its not preemptive. Iran has declared war against the state of Israel. It is engaged in war - acts of war - against Israel. It has armed Hamas, it has armed Hezbollah. Those rockets have hit Israel. Israel has a perfect, lawful right to retaliate. If there's any doubt about that: Iran blew up the Israeli Embassy in Argentina, Israel [sic] blew up a Jewish community center - Iran did. Iran was recently caught in one of the Stans out there trying to blow up a synagogue. As you know, Iran was planning to kill an ambassador here in the United States. Anything that is done to Iran is not preemptive, it is reactive, and Israel has the right to do that. Justice Goldberg, when he was the Ambassador to the UN, justified Israel's attack on the Osirik reactor not as a preemptive attack, but as a reactive attack because Iraq in those days had also taken war-like actions against Israel, number one. Number two, I would say: military action always must be a last resort. And that you don't win wars only on the battlefield. That is, if you are going to take military action - I hope that military action won't be necessary, I hope that there'll be diplomatic or sanctions or economic or other means to dissuade Iran from developing nuclear weapons the way there were means to dissuade Libya from developing nuclear weapons. I hope it won't be necessary. But if it is necessary, prepare for it not only militarily, but prepare for it in the court of public opinion. Prepare for it legally. Make sure you understand that wars are not only fought and won and lost on the battlefield. Israel has tended to win some wars when it came to the military operation but lose them in the court of public opinion. So be completely prepared, be able to justify why it was an absolutely last resort, why it was lawful under the UN Charter, Article 51. Why it was lawful under conventional rules of international law. Why the United States, faced with a comparable situation, would have done the same thing. Why every country in the world would have done the same thing faced with comparable threats. Just be prepared to fight this battle not only from the air and from the ground, but also in the court of public opinion. That would be my advice.
And I wouldn't dream of advising them not to do it. That is certainly, A, above my pay scale. And B, certainly something that has not... As a citizen of Israel... As you may know, I was asked to be a citizen of Israel just about a year ago now, the Prime Minister of Israel asked me to become Israel's ambassador to the United Nations. And I would have been thrilled to do it. It would have been the culmination of my career. I can imagine nothing that would have been more gratifying than to kick some rear end at that house of hypocrisy. But I felt I couldn't accept it because as an American Jew it would give rise to all kinds of accusations of dual loyalty, it would have been bad in front of the American Jewish community, and it would have been good for me, it would have been bad for Israel and bad for the American Jewish community. And so I reluctantly had to decline. But I am not an Israeli, and therefore I don't get to vote on issues like that. I get to advise from a professional point of view, but the prime minister and the cabinet - the war cabinet - obviously have to make the final decision. That's what democracy is about. Robert Traynham: Let's go up here to the balcony.
Audience member: Professor Dershowitz, thank you so much for coming down here and talking with us. We appreciate it. About a month ago, Newt Gingrich made a comment that the Palestinians aren't really a people. And I guess my question is: when did the Arabs become Palestinians?
Professor Dershowitz: Well... question historically. There is a historical dimension to it, there is a political dimension to it, there is a moral dimension to it. My view is that people self define. If the Arabs of Palestine want to call themselves Palestinians, that's their prerogative. And they're entitled to it. And I would never deny a people their own self identification. The reality of course, as you know, is that when the Peel Commission came to Palestine in 1937 and 1938 to... suggested partitioning the land, all the Arabs of Palestine, through their representatives - the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and others - went in to the Peel Commission and said "we are not Palestinians. There is no such thing as Palestinians. We are southern Syrians. We are the Arabs of Southern Syria. Palestinianism is an invention of the Zionists. They have called us Palestinians in order to create a two state solution which we oppose". That was the official position of the Palestinian people. People are entitled to change their views. So I reject Newt Gingrich's views. i think the Palestinians are people - by the way, I think that's a good thing for Israel. I think the two state solution is better for Israel than it is for anybody else because it eliminates the need for Israel to choose between being a Jewish state or a democratic state. It will be a Jewish Democratic state only if there is some kind of a two state solution where Israel doesn't continue to maintain control over four million Arabs who don't vote on the West Bank. Now it has to be done wisely and it has to be done right. What Sharon did with Gaza was a mistake. Unilateral withdrawal without any military presence, without any security guarantees is like turning over a battleship to an enemy in the middle of a war. You don't do that. And to the extent that the West Bank can become another battleship, certainly if things disintegrate in the Jordan [Valley], the concerns have to be taken very seriously. The new two state solution will have to have a military presence, either by Israel - preferably by Israel - or by some very trusted third countries - in the Jordan Valley to give Israel a buffer in the event there is some incursion, either through Jordan or by Jordan, by Iraq - remember Iraq is becoming Iran. The new Iraqi great democratic government is now a surrogate of Iran. They are taking their orders from Iran, Malaki is an Iranian puppet, and Iraq is closer to Israel [sic] than its ever been through... Iran is closer to Israel than its ever been through Iraq. These are considerations that have to be taken into account in a peace process. The Palestinians have to understand they're not going to get a state that will be an armed state, that will be a state with an air force, that will be a state with borders that will not permit Israeli military presence in the event that there is some kind of a threat. It will not be what happened in Gaza. Gaza was a mistake. Northern Lebanon has not proved to be a model as well. There resolution in the West Bank has to be much more subtle, has to be more nuanced, much more complicated, and it requires negotiation. I hope that Palestinians and the Israelis will sit down and negotiate a reasonable two state solution.
Robert Traynham: Alright, let's go up here to the balcony.
Audience member: I thank you for coming, professor. With Mubarak being overthrown in Egypt, Egypt has become increasingly militaristic and decidedly less pro-Israel. And I wonder what Israel should do about the Sinai [Peninsula] since its such a large expanse of land that its really govern and militarize. How do we deal with terrorists coming through Egypt and possibly through the Sinai Peninsula?
Professor Alan Dershowitz: Its a very very good and very important question. I would agree certainly that Egypt is a country that now poses much greater threats to Israel than it did under Mubarak. But, you know, sustaining a peace with Egypt under the condition that it remain a tyrannical regime that uses torture and puts its dissidents in prison was never a prescription for long term stability. Whether Egypt is becoming more militaristic, I don't know. And whether that's a bad thing, I don't know. The military today in Egypt of course is less anti-Israel than the non-military, than the Muslim Brotherhood. So hopefully there won't have to be a time when Israel would be entitled under the treaty - remember it made a treaty with Egypt. It returned the Sinai in exchange for peace. Also, Egypt is getting all this money. You know, people complain sometimes... Oh! If you go to the DBS [sic] conference, you will hear over and over again, the reason will single out Israel for DBS [sic] is Israel gets more money from the United States. That is false. And you have to correct that. Israel does not get a lot of money from the United States. What Israel gets is military loans that it uses to buy American weapons that are used to defend American interests in the Middle East. The money that's given to Israel is given to Israel largely in the interests of the United States. Now contrast that with the money that's given to Egypt, Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority. The money that's given to those three countries are [sic] given to keep up regimes that are undemocratic and prevent them from toppling. If the United States cut off its aid to Jordan, the Hashemite regime would crumble. If the United States cut off its aid to the Palestinian Authority, Hamas would take over. That's not what Israel is about. Israel doesn't get aid to prop up a regime, it gets aid because its in the interests of the United States that Israel develop R & D, Israel has a wonderful mutual exchange of intelligence and research and development with Israel. If you look at the net of charity, of gifts for internal use in Israel, Israel doesn't get nearly as much as the Egyptians, the Jordanians, and the Palestinians get. What Israel gets, they give something in return to the United States, so its a really balanced trade. And so its very important that, I think, we look at this realistically the claim that, you know, if Israel tomorrow were to stop getting a penny of aid from the United States, not a single one of those DBS [sic] hypocrites would stop their ranting. They use the aid to Israel from the United States as an excuse, just the way they use the occupation as an excuse. Some of the people over there will say: "by the way we're only complaining about the occupation". But what occupation? They're complaining about the occupation of Tel Aviv, of Jaffa, of Haifa, of the rest of Israel. That's what they're complaining about. If Israel were to give up its control of Israel tomorrow, the DBS [sic] conference would continue. The people who run DBS [sic] are interested in deligitimizing Israel. They're interested in making sure Israel doesn't have one inch of land anywhere; that there will not be a Jewish state. They're in favor of the one state solution and that one state will be a Muslim extremist state. And so don't fall for their nonsense about "we're just complaining about American aid to Israel. We're just complaining about the occupation." Those are the excuses. The real complaint is about Israel's existence.
Robert Traynham: Let's go to this gentleman right here.
Audience member: Mister Dershowitz, you mentioned that you were in favor of women's right to choose. And gays' rights. Well, I believe in that also. However, I think standing with Israel certainly trumps all those other issues. And therefore, since Obama has not been the best president for Israel, I think that we should go for a president that will stick with Israel and stay with Israel rather than someone who just does a lot of talking.
Professor Alan Dershowitz: Look. As I said, people have the right to and should be republicans, democrats, moderates for Israel, centrists for Israel. Your priorities are what they are, and you have the right to vote what your priorities are. For me, I want to make a balanced judgement on the totality of circumstances and I, as I said, have not made up my mind. But this is not a political campaign for either candidate so we're go on to another subject.
Audience member: Hi. Thank you for coming. I have one comment which is actually a correction for you. There is no Palestine in existence right now.
Professor Dershowitz: I don't understand the point.
Audience member: You referred to Palestine as if it were a country. Its not. My...
Professor Dershowitz: Well, according to Iceland it is. As you know, two countries have recognized - two great countries in the world have recognized Palestine as a country. One, Iceland, which has fewer people than are in this auditorium tonight. And the other, the capital of the under-age sex trade in the world, Bangkok and Thailand. But beyond that, no other country has really.
Audience member: Recent surveys in the Judea and Samaria and Jerusalem indicate that there is a lot of concern that Arab Palestinians do not want to live under the PA, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. Given your own championship of human rights, how do you justify even considering turning over land to people who would turn their women into chattle [sic] or leave them for honor killings.
Professor Dershowitz: Well, first of all, there are many countries in the world today that are recognized by the UN that, of course, do have honor killings and do treat women in this horrible way. I would oppose strongly any country that had those policies and I would hope that if there were a Palestinian state under the two state solution that it would be a more secular state. I spent hours not so long ago with Prime Minister Fayyad, who is the Prime Minister of the Palestinian Authority, who is a strong supporter of women's rights and women's equality. A strong supporter of secularism, a strong opponent of honor killings. And I would hope that if Israel were to participate in negotiations that created a two state solution that that second state would not be a Hamas state. In the end though, that's not Israel's concern. In the end, Israel's concern is its own citizens and making sure that Israel thrives as the democratic secular state of the Jewish people. It would be better if its leaders were also progressive and... I'm recently considering making an investment in a hedge fund in Israel that supports only enterprises that are jointly run by Israelis and Palestinians. And there are some very very good start-ups that are now beginning in which Israelis and Palestinians work together on high technology. There are positive things that one can say - very positive developments. If you go to Ramallah, as I have on numerous occasions, Ramallah is a wonderful city. It is a great city. It is a progressive city. It is a city that primarily is secular and fairly liberal. It is a high tech city. It is a city with a wealth and beautiful buildings and one can hope and expect that it will become the model. My hope is that - and I know Netanyahu's hope - is that the people of the West Bank will see what the people used to see in East Berlin and West Berlin. There is a big debate, you know, who brought down the wall that separated East Berlin and West Berlin? Was it Reagan? Was it the Pope? Nonsense. It was the people of East Berlin. They saw West Berlin, which the East Berliners didn't want them to see. They saw a good life. They saw progress, they saw liberty, they saw economic opportunity and they knocked down the wall. And my hope is that the people of Gaza will see a progressive, reasonable, wealthy Palestinian state on the West Bank and say, "that's where we want our children to be grown up." Let's make that happen. But again, that's not Israel's decision to make. In the end, Israel's decision is to protect its own security, to have borders that permit it to live in peace and security to make sure it has the ability to repel rocket attacks. And the Palestinians will have to determine their own destiny.
Robert Traynham: Thank you very much for the correction. Unfortunately, we only have five minutes left. He has a train to catch. So,with that. Why don't we go up there?
Professor Dershowitz: I have to a train to catch because tomorrow I have to speak in the capital rotunda in defense of Iranian dissidents who are endangered in Iraq and its a very important human rights issue that I'm speaking about tomorrow.
Audience member: Hi. I'll try to make it quick. So, as you said, Israel supports gay rights. They have also contributed so much to the technological community. But at the same time, if an Arab student comes up to me and says, "You took my land", and I respond back, "Yeah, but we support gay rights." How does that add up?
Professor Dershowitz: It doesn't. It doesn't. That's not the answer. The answer is: the land on which Israel was established had a Jewish majority. And its had a Jewish majority for many many years. Take Jerusalem. Jerusalem had its first census in 1832 or 1833. The largest percentage of people who lived in Jerusalem were Jews. The second largest were Christians. And Muslims were third. The land which is now Israel, particularly the coastal plain - if you go to Israel, you know, most of Israel is along the coastal plain. It starts at, you know, Rosh HaNikra, Haifa, Ceasarea, Herzliya, Tel Aviv, and it goes all the way down. All of that was established by Israel. It was barren land the people came and many Sephardic Jews have lived there for years and years and years in Jaffa. And then, like many other groups in many other parts of the world, certainly like Americans and like Canadians, and like many others, people came. But in this case, in Israel's case, they bought the land. They bought it legitimately from distant landowners who lived Syria and who lived in Lebanon, absentee land owners. They bought the land. and the Israeli policy, the Yeshuv, was never to throw indigenous Arabs off the land; to employ them. Israel's birth certificate is cleaner than the birth certificate than almost any modern country in the world. Israel was established by law. It was established legally. It was established economically it was established by contract. Its the last country in the world that you can complain about its birth certificate. You can complain about America. You can complain about Canada. You can certainly complain about Australia and New Zealand. I always love when New Zealand stands up and objects to Israel. New Zealand dealt with its indigenous population in a very simple way, it murdered them all. The Mauis. Australians drove them to the center of the country. The United States put them in reservations. And Israel has been very very different. So the answer is not that, "Yes we stole your land but we're good to gays". That was the article that was in the New York Times a few weeks ago. One of the stupidest articles ever run in the New York Times by this idiot professor that says that the only reason that Israel treats gays well is so that they can treat Palestinians badly. How the Times would allow that piece of drech to slip through the editorial pages is just absolutely remarkable to me. I've never seen a lower standard of editorial judgement than that article. But the answer is not, you know, "We took your land but we treat gays well". The answer is no, Israel didn't take anybody's land. There was no Palestinian state, this was Ottoman land. The Ottoman empire lost a war. The people of Israel, the Jewish people, fought on the side of the British who won the war. Palestinian Arabs fought on the other side. Palestinian Arabs have been on the wrong side of every war: the wrong side of the first World War, the wrong side of the second World War, where their leader went to Nazi Germany and spent the war years with Hitler and had plans for building an extermination camp in Nablus. Usually you don't get rewarded for being on the wrong side of a war by being given land. And yet the Palestinians were given sixty percent of the arable land in the 1948 division and they turned it down. They turned down the Peel Commission. They turned down the '48 division. They turned down an offer in '67. They turned down an offer in 2000-2001. As Avigdor Lieberman once said, the Palestinians have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity. And, as he also said, in 1967 when Israel offered to return the land in exchange for peace, he said this is the first war when the winners are sued for peace and the losers have demanded unconditional surrender. You've got to have a reasonable approach to this and the reasonable approach is to divide pursuant to negotiations. Nobody took anybody's land. Many right wing Israelis say that the Arabs to Israelis' land because God promised the land to Israel and it was, you know, Yehuda and Shomron. Those arguments get us nowhere. We have a current situation, the current situation needs to be resolved, and it needs to be resolved pragmatically with the primary interest being Israel's security.
I know we're coming to an end now, so I just want to again repeat. You have the right to take any view you choose on the Middle East conflict. You can take the view that was taken by many of you in the audience today, that is, more on the left, more on the right, more in the center. That's not the issue. The issue is to have thoughtful, constructive conversation about the Israeli Palestinian conflict and the Israeli Arab conflict. As long as there is thoughtful conversation, as long as there is nuanced conversation, as long as they're in truth instead of falsity, as long as there is rationality instead of extreme emotion. As long the kinds of hyperbole that permeate the DBS [sic] debates don't dominate rational thinking, I am not worried about the outcome. But one of the reasons you don't ban things on college campuses is we should not be afraid of the truth. We should love the truth. The truth will set us free. The truth will support our side. All we have to do is learn how to present the truth in a more effective way and you are the messengers. You are the young people. You have to learn how to use the social media. You have to learn how to use the internet more effectively. You have to learn how to use youtube. You have to learn how to use your personal contacts. You are the future. And if not for your advocacy, this enterprise will fail. And so, A, I congratulate you. B, I urge you to go from strength to strength, and C: I'm watching. And you better do it because Israel's future depends on you. Thank you very much. Robert Traynham: Alan Dershowitz ladies and gentlemen.
Category:general
-- posted at: 7:31 AM
Comments[0]
|
Post your comment:
