If you’ve been keeping up with Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, you know he’s recently been battering President Obama for his association with the anti-Israel group Media Matters. While Dershowitz is a Democrat who supported Obama in 2008, he’s demanded the president cut ties with the left-wing media watchdog group, whose writers have made anti-Semitic remarks.
Today, Dershowitz took it a step further, promising to turn the issue into an election matter during an interview with WABC’s Aaron Klein (via BuzzFeed):
Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, a leading Democratic lawyer who takes a hawkish line on Israel, has declared a personal war on the liberal group Media Matters, which has branched out into sharp criticism of Israel.
“Not only will [the Media Matters controversy] be an election matter, I will personally make it an election matter,” Dershowitz, a professor at Harvard Law School, told WABC’s Aaron Klein today. …
“I don’t know whether President Obama has any idea that Media Matters has turned the corner against Israel in this way,” he said. “I can tell you this, he will know very shortly because I am beginning a serious campaign on this issue and I will not let it drop until and unless [writer and activist MJ] Rosenberg is fired from Media Matters, or Media Matters changes its policy or the White House disassociates itself from Media Matters.”
Dershowitz launched his campaign today with a column denouncing Media Matters’ use of the term “Israel Firster” in the New York Daily News. The law professor has successfully battled left-wing anti-Israel groups in the past, including J Street. Here’s what Dershowitz had to say about J Street during a debate with its president, Jeremy Ben-Ami, last year:
“The reason you have to attack me is very simple: I am J Street’s nightmare. Let me tell you why. Because I am a liberal Democratic Jew who strongly opposes the settlements, who strongly favors a two-state solution, who supports Obama, who supports Hillary Clinton, who supports Petraeus, but who does not support J Street. You have to create the illusion that everybody against J Street is a member of the right, and is part of the Sarah Palin-Rush Limbaugh group. And you can’t explain me.”
A vocal campaign against Media Matters, especially if it includes other prominent Democrats in the Jewish community, could cause major problems for Media Matters and increase pressure on Obama to distance himself from the group.
But it will also be a test of whether Democrats are willing to call out anti-Semitism and Israel-bashing within their own ranks. After former AIPAC spokesman Josh Block criticized Media Matters staffers for making anti-Semitic comments late last year, the Truman Institute cut its association with him, claiming Block was trying to shut down “honest debate.” Will Democratic Party institutions side with Dershowitz on this issue? Or will they continue to stay silent on the uncomfortable but very real Israel problem at Media Matters?
What Dershowitz still doesn't get is that with the left and the far left it's a total package. In order to call yourself a leftist and an Obamatron you have to declare your undying hatred for Israel w.o. exception. It's a total and complete hatred no limited to hatred of Israel proper but complete and utter hatred of all Americans, Jewish or not, who support Israel.
Empress_Trudy, I would go farther than that; the left and the far-left hate Western Civilization and especially America, Americans (I should say white Americans who are not liberal or far-left) Israel and the Jews. Hell, deep down white leftists probably hate THEMSELVES for the sin of being WHITE.
Notice how Dershowitz uses the lower-case "l" for "liberal" in describing himself while capitolizing both "Democratic" (the correct name of the Democrat Party) and "Jew." n nI.e. "…I am a liberal Democratic Jew…" n nThis is an intelligent man who knows the difference — he is a "liberal" but no longer a "Liberal" because the "Liberals" themselves are no longer "liberal" — they are now outright leftists. n nWhat he is quietly saying is that he is a Jew (proper noun and capitalized), he is a Democrat (member of the Democratic Party, again proper noun and capitalized), but that he no longer considers himself a Liberal and my presumption is that because he considers them illiberal. n nWhat he doesn't quite say, but implies, is that there is a Jewish wing of the Democratic Party with which he identifies, and that wing (again proper nouns) doesn't support this stuff. I think he is right on this — the NYC Congressional election a few months back would lend one to believe that. n nAnd I have yet to fathom why anyone who is Jewish would ever want to be a Democrat — from FDR's outright antisemitism to Carter's creating the Iranian problem to Clinton playing with interns while America slept to Obama today — we won't even get into Truman at Potsdam or FDR at Yalta and what either could have done for Soviet Jews — as well as American POWs held in areas captured by the Red Army and whom we never saw again… n nFDR created a coalition in 1932 — Northeastern Jews, Southern White Racists, Urban Blacks, Trade Unionists (Plumbers, etc), and "Ethnic" (non-WASP European) Catholics. This coalition broke up at the Chicago convention in 1968 and ever since then, I really have failed to understand why these constituencies still largely vote Dem.
Uhhh… perhaps because very few Jews would want to be Republicans. n nIt's laughable to accuse FDR of "anti-Semitism", Ed, when it is well-known to all (except you) that Judge Samuel Rosenman played a significant role in both his Governorship and his Presidency; that David Niles was a principal aide for domestic affairs; that Benjamin Cohen wrote a good deal of his major domestic legislation; and that Felix Frankfurter was often consulted, as was Justice Brandeis. n nTo claim that FDR was an "outright anti-Semite" is ludicrous and unfounded. Read Brandeis' own memoirs, if you doubt it. n nPerhaps you are thinking of Republican President Richard Nixon. You know, the one who infamously said, "The Jews are irreligious, atheistic, immoral bunch of bastards." SOURCE: nNixon to Bob Haldeman (1 February 1972) as quoted in Counterpunch (March 12, 2002) n nOr this: "But, Bob, generally speaking, you can't trust the bastards. They turn on you. Am I wrong or right? SOURCE: Speaking about Jews "New Tapes Reveal Depth of Nixon's Anti-Semitism" in The Washington Post (9 October 1999) n nNixon's private tapes are a horror of anti-Semitism. Perhaps no one told you this, Ed. You certainly didn't see fit to mention it. n nAnd yet, Nixon hired and relied on Henry Kissinger et al. Anti-Semitism was never long on logic. Nor yourself, Ed.
One other thing — there is no rule that we can only have two parties, it just started with Adams and Jefferson after Washington left office and the old (pre internet) system really could only support two real parties. But we well could be on the way to having a European style system of multiple parties and coalitions between them. n nWe could well have parties identifying on the basis of race and religion — that may be what Dershowitz is advocating because I doubt he believes that he will be able to get the entire party supporting his issues. And I am not sure it would be a bad thing to have multiple smaller parties rather than ethnic (and gender) factions of larger ones that candidates address. It would end the mess of the current primary system, it would prevent someone like Romney from trying to buy a nomination. n nBut what would be the implications of a political party of working-class WASP males? nWe saw that in the 1920's with the "Know Nothings" and like the 1917 flu epidemic, it was something that the people of my grandparents' generation never talked about — ever. n nAll the talk about women and the female vote — there is also the beer-drinking good-old-boy vote which is ignored because there are no legitimate organizations to unify it. Read Abby Thernstrom's _Voting Rights and Wrongs_ but notwithstanding how outrageous the Voting Rights Act has become (and it SCOTUS may toss it on civil rights grounds), there is no legitimacy to any opposition to it. Other than reprehensible schmucks that no one wants anyone to do with, there is no National Association of White People (aka NAACP) or the like. n nPeople like Phyllis Schlafly routinely identify how feminist laws abuse men — from abuse of protective orders to my personal favorite — guys coming back from Iraq being arrested because their total military pay was less than the court ordered child support (their civilian job paying much more than their military one) and the court refusing to reduce it even though they were required by law to report for duty. n nChristina Hoff Sommers wrote _War on Boys_ nearly two decades ago and the reading and writing NEAP scores of boys are still way below those of girls. How many people know that? n nThe question I would ask Alan Dershowitz is what are the implications of having racial, gender, ethnic and religious parties in this country — how do you have a party advocating for white males that does not immediately become the Klan? Or is it a mistake for Dershowitz to even suggest that Jews should be a distinct constituciency within the Democratic Party let alone independent of it because of the precedents it sets? n nAt what point will the middle cease to hold?
"how do you have a party advocating for white males that does not immediately become the Klan?" nJust wait about 20-30 years when white male "good ol' boys" are so far in the minority and out of power that they will need special status.
Good for Dershowitz. Unquestionably, many rank and file Democratic voters who support Israel, Jews and gentiles alike, would agree with him about Media Matters. But he will wait a long time for other members of the various liberal elites to join him publicly.
Dersh is losing battles with Gilad Atzmon, now. He's bit off more than he can chew. He's now regarded as a Jewish Herman Cain, without Cain's good humor. Dersh supports the siege of Gaza, and called President Carter and Desmond Tutu "anti-Semites". His credibility is shot. Bet the house that the Administration will flick Dersh off like the pest he is.
Too Funny! Dershowitz is decrying the comments of fellow Jew MJ Rosenberg at Media Matters! Once again, proving that you can never question the AIPAC line. n nTime for Israel to take care of their own problems and let the United States deal with our own. I am a Catholic, but do I hold Vatican City up as part of my "dual citizenship?" No.
This MM Israeli view is a foreign policy issue and involves few people as it is an opinion. Media matters did a lot worse to FNC and conservatives as it coordinanted actions with Wh and set out to destroy conservatives with any smear it could find. Yet, all I hear about is a possible loss of non profit status with iRS? Huh? this criminal outfit seems to soar still, Why is not MM vilified and denounced every time it makes a statement. DO not let up, conservatives. MM is out to do real harm.
Democrat Jews have a problem because they are back into the shtetl mentality.
What happens when you start backing away for the wall of lies on the Left? The further back you step the more of what you are backing away from comes into view. Maybe our liberal lion is on his way to that golden moment; the Breitbart ah ha moment.