When I got to my parents’ house the other night, my father asked if I’d seen the latest Alan Dershowitz piece. The Harvard law professor once again accuses Jimmy Carter of being an anti-Semite who opposes Israel’s Palestinian occupation because he’s getting paid by the Saudis. My initial response, after spending the day reading Carter’s book Palestine: Peace not Palestine during my flights southward, was to say ”Dershowitz is an idiot.”
Living in Boston I already see more coverage of Dershowitz than I really need, so I know better than to spend much time on whatever screeds of his come in via email. But here in South Florida I’ve been hanging out with Jewish 80-somethings eager to believe Dershowitz’s explanation of why someone like Carter, who until now they admired, might criticize Israel. What Carter has to say troubles many people. Dershowitz makes them feel better, since it’s more comforting to think Carter hates Jews than to think Israel might be wrong. (Even the stuff I write troubles some of the people who know me, though unfortunately, as a former professor rather than a former president, I haven’t been offered any bribes.)
Of course, I used the term “idiot” loosely and conversationally. I wouldn’t call him that in a published article, for example, because I know he must do well on IQ tests. What I really mean is that he uses his formidable intelligence and sharp debating skills in a patently dishonest way so that people with a conventional pro-Israel mindset can comfortably reject conflicting information. So “idiot” is the wrong word. Maybe I should have called him an “intellectually corrupt propagandist.”
But since he’s a prolific intellectually corrupt propagandist whose high-profile rantings are getting a lot of play right now, I’m glad Mitchell Plitnick, Director of Education and Policy of Jewish Voice for Peace, has had the patience to write a three-part response. Worth looking at if you care what Dershowitz thinks.
What I would add is this: If everything Dershowitz says about Carter were true (which it’s not), that would damage Carter personally but not his book’s substance. In other words, Dershowitz attacks Carter’s motivation because he can’t refute Carter’s basic facts beyond a few minor points that no doubt will be easily corrected in the next edition. Those facts come from many legitimate academics, journalists, political observers, and others, including Israeli sources. Carter is just the messenger.
So the real issue isn’t whether Jimmy Carter is a lackey of the Saudis or whether Israel’s oppression of Palestinians is really as bad as Carter says. The core question is whether Israel’s justifications for that oppression are sufficient or whether the oppression should stop. Carter thinks it should stop. Dershowitz thinks it should continue. I think Dershowitz is an idiot.