Alan Dershowitz


February 6, 2010 by J. Madson

Can he get any more slimy?

From his recent article where he tries to combat the Goldstone report:

Hamas deliberately conducted its terrorist activities against Israel in a manner calculated by Hamas to produce Palestinian civilian deaths from Israeli weapons

and this beauty he keeps bringing out

As Golda Meir once put it: “We can perhaps forgive you for killing our children, but we can never forgive you for making us kill your children.”

Yes. The devil made them do it. No wait, he means Palestinians.

You can read more about the Goldstone report here and here

36 thoughts on “Alan Dershowitz

  1. SUNNofaB.C.Rich says:

    After seeing first hand the exact same thing happen in Iraq, I don’t doubt Hamas does that.

  2. James says:

    Dershowitz should pay his bets, $10,000 to Hamas if errors were found in “The Case for Israel”. Lots of them were, and on “Democracy Now” he simply blustered his way out of paying.

  3. “After seeing first hand the exact same thing happen in Iraq, I don’t doubt Hamas does that.”

    And of course, America’s “armed tourists” in Iraq didn’t do anything to cause that. Poor innocent us, all we did was march halfway around the world to blow somebody else’s country up. Surely everything we did after that was “self-defense”, never mind that we were on the other side of the planet in someone else’s country uninvited.

    Don’t give me sob stories about evil Arabs, the minute the US showed up in Iraq, all moral responsibility transferred immediately to our shoulders. I said it before the invasion, I said it at the height of the insurgency, I say it today now that we’ve explicitly turned Iraq into a sectarian nightmare: invading Iraq was the most bone-dead stupid, idiotic, predictably moronic idea anybody could have ever come up with. Maybe you’re a decent guy, I imagine you are, but you don’t know s*** about Iraq or the Arab world, I don’t care how many times you’ve been there.

  4. Tariq says:

    This is a classic example of the psychology of the abuser. Just like when a man hits his wife or children and then blames them for “making him do it”, or a frat boy sexually assaults a woman and then says that it was “her fault”; “after all, if she didn’t want me to rape her, then why did she dress like that?” It’s called victim blaming and its what abusers have done throughout human history. They’ll continue to do it as long as we let them get away with it.

  5. SUNNofaB.C.Rich says:

    So, non arab-arab it sounds like you’re not disagreeing with Alan Dershowitz. Just saying I don’t understand why Iraqis, Arabs would do such a thing. Sorry dude I guess I don’t have a vested interest in making excuses for suicide bombers and cowards who think bring your kid to work day gives them a 50 percent better chance of not getting shot while planting a road side bomb. Maybe you do. Tariq, tell everybody about how indiscrimate bombs are. Tell us what an abuser/rapist you are for all the bombs you made. Make sure you don’t take any responsibility for any of your actions and portray yourself as a victim.

  6. J. Madson says:


    No one is defending suicide bombers etc. What people are rightly decrying is dershowitz’s absurd notion that somehow the palestinians are to blame for Israel’s “choice” to use weapons. your line

    “Make sure you don’t take any responsibility for any of your actions and portray yourself as a victim.” sums up perfectly what dershowitz is doing here.

  7. SUNNofaB.C.Rich says:

    What, palestinians don’t have a “choice” to use or not use weapons? They’re victims of their circumstances? Forced into using unthinkable tactics to win, including sacrificing their children? sure everybodys doing the victim thing J. Madson, you’re doing the same thing with the palestinians. You obviously apply victimhood to palestinians and use that to excuse anything they do. Child suicide bombers is the most noticeable way Palestinians use children maybe you haven’t considered or deny the Palestinian use of human shields. What, they don’t have a choice in the matter?

  8. J. Madson says:


    Who in the world are you talking to? Did I ever suggest Palestinians dont have a choice, that suicide bombings are ok, etc? This is why I am more convinced you are just a troll or someone who has no interest in an actual discussion.

    I have no idea who you think you are arguing with. I believe in non-violence for all sides. And frankly there is nothing inconsistent with rejecting violence on all sides while acknowledging that Israel is the oppressor regardless of their alleged justifications. Palestinians live in an apartheid like state.

  9. SUNNofaB.C.Rich says:

    I’m talking to you, sport. you talk about the “choice” to use weapons in regard to Israelis without anything to say about Palestinians having a “choice” in how they conduct their fights. Hence my emphasis on the matter of “choice” in the tactics Palestinians use to fight the Israelis. But really what is there to discuss with a guy who believes in an extremely unlikely scenario where somehow both sides will just “reject violence” As for the troll remark… what, you honestly expect a site like this to attract nothing but admirers/sympathizers?

  10. J. Madson says:


    I dont need admirers but it would be nice if your comments were more substantive. a troll, for your info,

    and since my country isnt propping up, arming, and funding Palestinian acts of aggression as they are doing with Israel, thus my emphasis on Dershowitz’ insane rhetoric.

    As for what Israel should do, Ill refer you to a previous post on this site.

  11. James says:

    SUNNofaB.C.Rich thinks we’ll fall for his hasbara. He accuses “the Palestinians” of sacrificing their children to oppose the occupation. When he knows that David Ben-Gurion set out to (and succeeded in) sacrificing far more Jewish children, which he did entirely for his own political gain:

    “If I knew that it was possible to save all the children of Germany by transporting them to England, and only half by transferring them to the Land of Israel, I would choose the latter, for before us lies not only the numbers of these children but the historical reckoning of the people of Israel.” — David Ben-Gurion (Quoted on pp 855-56 in Shabtai Teveth’s Ben-Gurion).

  12. SUNNofaB.C.Rich says:

    J. Madson this is obviously a one-sided site. My purpose in commenting most times is to counter the one-sided approach to everything here.

    I hardly think that’s comparable to hiding behind school girls, James.

    An irregular force fighting in civilian clothes amongst the civilian populace gets a huge P.R. victory anytime “civilians” get killed. Everybody knows that. Maybe you think they’re too “pure” to ever do anything like that James. I’m just saying it how it is. Just because Israel is more powerful doesn’t make the Palestinians saints.

  13. Tariq says:

    You have countered nothing. Your many posts on this site have succeeded at nothing more than revealing how little you know. It’s a good thing you don’t use your real name when you post. If I made as many uneducated comments as you, I wouldn’t want people to know who I am in real life either.

    Nobody said that “the Palestinians are saints”. But let’s get some perspective here. Who is forcing who off of their land? Who has all the power and funding? When you see Images of Palestinians armed with nothing but rocks fighting against tanks, you know there is a very unequal power relationship going on. Suicide bombings and IEDs are the weapons of desperate people who have been pushed to the limit. I’m not defending such tactics. I am simply saying that in order to end such tactics, we first have to understand what leads a person to resort to such tactics. John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. both rightly observed that when governments cut off peaceful avenues to redress grievances, violence becomes inevitable. Palestinians are backed into a corner and the Israeli government has given them no choice but to either accept that they will be second class citizens with no rights (at best) or they can die. That’s not a choice, it’s a threat. The kind of conditions the Israeli state has forced upon the Palestinians makes violence inevitable. If the Israeli state is serious about stopping terrorism, then they need to stop terrorizing Palestinians, stop forcing Palestinians off of their homelands, stop bulldozing down Palestinian homes, get rid of that shameful apartheid wall, stop turning Palestine into a freedomless militarized zone, and recognize that Palestinians are human beings who must be treated like human beings. If the Israeli state continues to force desperate circumstances on Palestinians, then they can only expect Palestinians to act desperately. When a bully picks on someone smaller than him, and then that smaller kid fights back dirty, I don’t blame the kid for fighting dirty, I blame the bully for giving the kid no other realistic option. The responsibility is on the bully to stop being a bully. It’s not on the kid who’s getting beat up to “behave himself more rationally”. Of course, I don’t expect you to understand even the basic truth that Palestinians are human beings, considering that in other posts you have repeatedly defended the use of the racist term “hajji” to describe Arabs. I’m sure you have some hysterical, uninformed, stupid reply, so please, proceed.

  14. SUNNofaB.C.Rich says:

    paragraph breaks would be nice… nice example, The smaller kid on the playground doesn’t need to use his little sister as a human shield though. I guess that’s something you can probably relate to. Thanks for clarifying that you DO support using kids as suicide bombers and schoolgirls as human shields. I think you need to look up the definition of the word Hajji… it has a specific meaning. Someone who has made the pilgrimage to Mecca… slang usage of it isn’t really pejorative …. (maybe you’ve watched some movies about Iraq or something and came to that conclusion)

  15. J. Madson says:

    Ehud Barak said this just last week

    “If, and as long as between the Jordan and the sea, there is only one political entity, named Israel, it will end up being either non-Jewish or non-democratic…If the Palestinians vote in elections, it is a binational state, and if they don’t, it is an apartheid state.”

    so what is it now?

  16. Tariq says:

    I never said I support using children as human shields. It’s seems that you’re putting no effort at all into your comments. Also, if it’s so common for Palestinians to use children as human shields, then you must have plenty of proven examples of this to share. (Proven examples, not just the word of some IDF terrorists and their supporters). Right wing nuts always talk about Palestinians using children as human shields, as if it’s going on all the time, but those same right-wing nuts never have any evidence to back up their claims. You just made that up, just like you made it up that I support such tactics. Just like the Bush administration made it up that Iraq had WMD. You right wing nuts like to make things up. Anytime you want to justify the unjustifiable, just make up something to paint the people you want to victimize as monsters.

    Well, I’m not buying your made up stories. I know plenty of Palestinians who are good people and have nothing to do with terrorism, but that fact didn’t stop the Israeli state from forcing them out of their homes, killing their family members, and generally terrorizing them. It’s much more common for Israeli soldiers to kill Palestinian children and then try to justify it by saying they were human shields, even though they weren’t human shields, they were human beings. If you look at pure statistics, you’ll see that the death ratio is not even close to being balanced. There are far more Palestinians who are killed on average by Israeli soldiers than there are Israelis killed by Palestinians. But you right wing nuts don’t care about facts. You have a made up story and you’ll stick to it no matter how wrong you obviously are.

    Are you honestly still trying to use that silly line about “someone who has made a pilgrimage to Mecca”? So all of those U.S. soldiers who say “I’m gonna go kill some hajjis” are saying that they are going to go kill someone who has made a pilgrimmage to Mecca? Hajji is a racist term that U.S. soldiers and right wing nuts use to denigrate Arabs, Persians, and South Asians. You know this to be the case, but you still try to use that same weak defense that you always use. The fact that you defend such racism is evidence that you don’t consider Arabs to be full human beings. How can you expect to understand the situation of Palestinians if you don’t see Palestinians as anything more than “hajjis”?

    There is a neo nazi group called Stormfront that argues that the using the word “nigger” to refer to black people isn’t racist. You are following in their footsteps by arguing that calling Arabs “hajjis” isn’t racist. Good job. Nice company you’re in.

  17. SUNNofaB.C.Rich says:

    First off, good job on having the self control to put some kind of paragraph breaks in your rant.

    1. Yeah there are examples of that happening. Hence my comment in #1. Bush, WMDs, Right wing all that’s you being hysterical.

    2. That’s a pretty simplistic way to look at it.

    3. That IS the actual definition of the word. Seems like the slang usage of the word by US soldiers came under scrutiny late 2004 early 2005. If anything most usage of it was dismissive in nature, Hajji-mart, Hajji-vision etc. not really an institutionalized method of denigrating people or anything like that. On a scale of 1 to 10 the word “nigger” being a 10 i’d say the word “Hajji” is around 1.5 maybe 2. It ranks around the same as using “Joe” to describe U.S. soldiers or “Jerry” to describe germans. You make a bigger deal out of it than it is because that was your one pathetic attempt to make it seem like the u.s. military institutionalizes racism.

    4. “Nigger” really bad “Hajji” not that bad. see #3.

  18. James says:

    SUNNofaB.C.Rich Says: 4. “Nigger” really bad “Hajji” not that bad.

    Hajii is grossly offensive and it’s widespread use of symptomatic of campaigns which kill far more civilians than they do militants in all cases.

  19. SUNNofaB.C.Rich says:

    Really James, and how did you come to that conclusion? What’s your source of information.

  20. James says:

    US forces act very much like the Israelis, using super-high precision weapons and still managing to kill a far higher proportion of civilians than the very low tech weapons of groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

    Meanwhile, here’s what Dershowitz says about International Law (quoted from “Beyond Chutzpah”):

    “Your moral obligation to comply with the letter of the rule of international law is voluntary; it is a matter of choice and a matter of tactic, not a matter of moral obligation or democratic theory.”

    So it is that Dershowitz defends political liquidations (“The virtue of targeted assassination … is precisely that it is targeted and tends to avoid collateral damage and collective punishment”; “It strengthens civil liberties, not those of the Israelis, but those of the Palestinians”); collective punishment such as the “automatic destruction” of a Palestinian village after each terrorist attack (“home destruction is entirely moral … among the most moral and calibrated responses”); torture such as a “needle being shoved under the fingernails” (“I want maximal pain … the most excruciating, intense, immediate pain”); and ethnic cleansing (“Political solutions often require the movement of people, and such movement is not always voluntary…. it is a fifth-rate issue analogous in many respects to some massive urban renewal”).

    Of course, when Palestinians violate international law, Dershowitz takes the opposite tack. Targeting of Israeli civilians is “never acceptable…. It violates the Geneva Accords, it violates the international law of war and it violates all principles of morality”.

  21. SUNNofaB.C.Rich says:

    My point with the Hajji thing was that most usage I’ve seen was flippant or dismissive not like some campaign of denigrating and dehumanizing entire races to make it easier to slaughter them. We always had more accurate, specific names for whoever happened to be the enemy at the time.

    Your statement though I think shows a lack of understanding of maybe how precise our weapons are and doesn’t take into consideration an enemy that hides in the civilian populace.

  22. James says:

    SUNNofaB.C.Rich – used in Afghanistan, the word hajii is grossly offensive and demonstrates the utter callousness we show, even boasting that we don’t count their dead!

    Meanwhile, the precision weapons of the US are deliberately targeted at ministries, schools, UN warehouses, police stations and prisons. Destroy, destroy, destroy the capacity of another society even to defend itself from its own local criminals! Let them out of prison and give them guns so you can claim it’s not your fault!

  23. SUNNofaB.C.Rich says:

    It can’t be that offensive, there’s tons of people with that word as their name. Check it out. That’s why I said it probably ranks about with “Joe” or “Jerry”

    That’s mostly crazy talk, man.

  24. tariq says:

    You obviously don’t know very many Arabs, Persians, or South Asians. If you call them “hajjis” in the derogatory way that U.S. soldiers use the word, then they will not think it is “no big deal”. They will think you are bigoted, and they will be right to think so. Your willful ignorance regarding this matter is astounding.

  25. SUNNofaB.C.Rich says:

    There’s slang words for everything in the military, some that people no doubt find offensive and aren’t that appropriate or professional but your claim that that particular word is used to “dehumanize people and make them easier to kill” is a stretch in my opinion.

  26. SUNNofaB.C.Rich says:

    Also from what you’ve said about your military experience I doubt you ever heard anyone say “I’m gonna go kill some Hajjis” where there was a realistic possibility they personally would. I was in Iraq as a door gunner/crewchief for a couple years and I never did either. I suspect you picked that up from some B movie somewhere…

  27. tariq says:

    I’ve personally heard soldiers use racist terms like “hajji” and “towelhead”, and I know several combat veterans who also claim to have heard and/or used such language. If you read or listen to the Winter Soldier testimonies on, especially to the panel on racism, you will hear other soldiers talk about how soldiers use words like “hajji”, “towelhead”, and “camel jockey” as ways to dehumanize “the enemy”. Psychologically, it’s easier to kill “hajjis” than it is to kill human beings. Not only have I heard soldiers talk about “killing hajjis”; I personally know soldiers who have, under the influence of racist attitutudes and wicked orders from up the chain of command, killed Iraqis. It’s the same reason why U.S. soldiers invading Vietnam called Vietnamese, “gooks”, and “goomers”, and it’s the same reason why white supremacists call black people “niggers”. In order to feel ok about mistreating other human beings, you first have to stop seeing them as human beings.

  28. James says:

    The fact we’re even discussing whether it’s OK to use the word “hajii” for Iraqis demonstrates that we sent racist killers into their society and we simply don’t care what chaos they cause.

    And the soldiers we sent in were the relatively good guys, we also sent in (even more) mercenaries, psychotics, with no discipline whatsoever, blasting away at everything that moved.

    Anyone see the Apache gun-ship video, 3 farmers shot dead in a field while changing shift on a tractor? Clearly heard is the order at the end “He’s wounded, kill him”.

  29. SUNNofaB.C.Rich says:

    Well James, lot’s of minor things happen that aren’t OK. Whether these are part of a campaign to denigrate and dehumanize a race of people for the purpose of killing all of them is definitely debatable. I don’t buy it because that wasn’t my experience when I was there. As for that Apache Gun camera footage, does it matter to you why they were shooting them? Or do you think they were just undisciplined psychopaths shooting whatever moves?

  30. tariq says:

    It may not have been your experience, but there are plenty of soldiers who say that it was their experience. I haven’t seen the Apache Gun camera video, so I can’t comment on that, but there are definitely proven instances of soldiers and mercenaries acting like undisciplined psychopaths shooting whatever moves. Not only are there proven instances of that happening, there are plenty of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans who have testified to doing just that, and I personally know and have worked on anti-war projects with soldiers who claim to have done just that. Not to mention there are a million Iraqi corpses, a million widowed women, a million children turned into orphans, and a million homes destroyed as proof. But hey, who cares, they’re just a bunch of hajjis, right? They must have done something to deserve it because after all, hajjis aren’t like us; they’re just a bunch of terrorists. And U.S soldiers and mercenaries would never do anything wrong, right? Because we’re number one and we’re the greatest country on earth and our soldiers are the best people in the world and so you unpatriotic commie fags better shut up and blah blah blah…

    Anyhow, this thread has gone a bit off topic. I only brought up the “hajji” point to show that SUNNofaB.C. can’t really understand the situation of the Palestinians if he can’t even understand that there’s something wrong with using denigrating language to describe Arabs.

  31. SUNNofaB.C.Rich says:

    oh I got the self loathing thing a long time ago dude you don’t need to keep beating on that one. Get off your high horse too man, you use racially offensive terms like “redneck”. Difference between you and me is, you probably mean it when you say it. As for the palestinian thing I just pointed that Dershowitz probably wasn’t wrong on that one. It doesn’t require an extensive understanding of arab culture to make observations on the way they conduct their fights. Unless you’re trying saying it’s a culture thing with all YOUR emphasis on the race stuff.

  32. James says:

    SUNNofaB.C.Rich – the US sent undisciplined racists, both in uniform and out, into Iraq to kill as they pleased.

    When they got tired of that and the Iraqis were killing enough of each other, they went back into Afghanistan to do the same there.

    And this, after seeing the result of these policies in Vietnam and Cambodia.

    To cap it all, they make it a central tenet of their new religion to know how many people the Germans killed 70 years ago, but have no idea how many people they themselves are killing!

  33. SUNNofaB.C.Rich says:

    That’s an interesting theory, James… if you really want a body count, i’m sure you can find some inflated figure that takes into account every single death from any cause in Iraq from 1990 to now and just blame it on the U.S.

    Me, I would have just let Saddam do what he wanted with Kuwait back in 1990. He was the right kind of guy to run Iraq in my opinion.

  34. Joseph says:

    Is this conversation really going anywhere? It seems both sides have stated their opinions, the same things are just being said over and over again, and this discussion has become a great deal less than civil.

    Personally, I’m not going to call someone something they don’t want to be called (you know, that old “do unto others…” thing). If I’m unsure of whether someone is going to be bothered by something, I’d rather err on the side of respect rather than become disrespectful.

    On another note, I am in agreement with this post. No one ever “made” the Israelis kill Palestinian children. That was a choice that was made. As Tariq points out, such a claim of being forced to do something terrible is typical of abuser rationalization (and, as I have learned by difficult experience, women are as prone to it as men, you can generally tell who the abuser is by who is assigning the most blame to the other).

    However, James, I do find your comment about the Holocaust to be bordering on very insensitive. I am not accusing you of being a holocaust denier, but your statement is very close to being something that could be interpreted that way. We should be more aware of atrocities going on now so we can stop them rather than just obsessing about the past, but that doesn’t mean we should ignore the past. The Holocaust was an extraordinarily atrocious event that we are still grappling with, and dismissing it won’t help us deal with present atrocities any more than obsessing with it will.

    Okay, well, there are other topics to move on to!

  35. James says:

    Joseph – as Norman Finkelstein (son of two survivors of death camps, every one of his relatives exterminated), put it “Imagine the wailing accusations of hypocrisy here were Germany to build a national museum in Berlin to commemorate not the Nazi genocide but American slavery or the extermination of the Native Americans. [Note: Neither events have a national museum in Washington, while the Holocaust museum there gets $30 million of federal subsidy!]

    Is this discussion ever going anywhere? Well, no, as long as there are boastful racists prepared to heap hatred on the desperate people of the new “Warsaw Ghetto” in Gaza.

    The incomparable Mondoweiss has just reminded us what Israel did in Gaza in 1956, and for no reason whatsoever – just the start of a campaign of one thousand pogroms of killing, hatred and destruction :

    “Senate majority leader Lyndon Johnson, with support from his Republican counterpart … Eisenhower … sent another message to Ben Gurion … demanding “prompt and unconditional withdrawal” from Gaza. Ben Gurion again refused, replying that “there is no basis for the restoration of the status quo ante in Gaza.”

    At that point, instead of an Obama-style cave-in, Ike decided to take the gloves off. On Feb. 20 he sent another cable to Ben Gurion threatening to support a UN call for sanctions against Israel and warning that such sanctions could apply not only to U.S. government aid to Israel (then modest) but also to Israel’s lifeline at the time, tax-deductible private donations and the purchase of Israel’s bonds. …

    Ben Gurion’s initial response was continued defiance, but with no indication that Eisenhower would back down, and the General Assembly about to vote for sanctions, he had no choice but to capitulate. … by March 16 the pull-out was complete. On the way out, the Israelis systematically destroyed all surface roads, railway tracks, and telephone lines in the area, as well as several villages. But at least the occupation of the Gaza Strip came to an end – until the Israelis came storming back 10 years later.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 261 other followers



Recent Comments

fwsimmons on Evicting God!
jkotab on Sparrows Matter
Korance on Trading a Cross for a Fla…
Korance on Trading a Cross for a Fla…
Ron Madson on Where is Jeremiah Today?
Stephanie Steffen on Where is Jeremiah Today?
Forest on Evicting God!
Ron Madson on Evicting God!
%d bloggers like this: