Whenever I speak in support of Israel or in criticism of its enemies, the dogs of defamation are unleashed against me. The attacks, all from the hard left, seemed coordinated, concentrating on common ad hominem themes. They accuse me of being a plagiarist, a supporter of torture, a rightwing “Zio-fascist”, a hypocrite, an opponent of both-state solution and a supporter of Israel’s settlement policies. Some of these allegations are demonstrably false, but this doesn’t appear to matter to these whose job it’s to aim to discredit me.
Let me begin with the charge of plagiarism – a charge originally made by the educational Norman Finkelstein. In my case, the charge centered around a one-paragraph quotation from Mark Twain in my book The Case for Israel. I cited the paragraph to Mark Twain, but Finkelstein said that I have to have cited it to a writer named Joan Peters, because he believes i discovered the quote in her book.
The truth is that i discovered the quote ten years sooner than the publication of Peters’ book and used it repeatedly in debates and speeches. When Finkelstein leveled his absurd charge, I immediately reported it to the Harvard University president and to the dean of the law school and ask that or not it’s thoroughly investigated. Harvard appointed its former president, Derek Bok, to analyze the charge. After an intensive investigation, he found it to be utterly frivolous. But to the dogs of defamation, this only goes to prove that Harvard should be a part of the professional-Israel conspiracy.
The second charge is that i’m pro-torture, despite my repeated categorical statements in my writings that i am against all torture under all circumstances. I do believe that torture could be used, not must be used, within the event we ever experience a ticking bomb situation. Accordingly, I actually have suggested that no torture should ever be permitted with out a court approved warrant, of the kind the ACLU has demanded in targeted killing cases.
But to the dogs of defamation, this distinction is irrelevant. Because i’m pro-Israel, i need to be pro-torture. Here’s particularly ironic, since both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas routinely torture dissidents, without their leaders being called pro-torture by a similar hard-left defamers who falsely accuse me.
The latest unleashing of the dogs of defamation was stimulated by the location I took on a BDS conference at Brooklyn College. Although I support the conference going forward, and oppose any try to censor it, I raise troubling questions on whether the Brooklyn College political science department needs to be sponsoring and endorsing that advocacy event, in the event that they doesn’t be willing to sponsor and endorse an anti-BDS event by an equally radical anti-Palestinian rightwing group.
My position, needless to say, have been distorted, and i’ve been lumped with folks that would censor the development. i’ve been called a hypocrite because, apparently, the political science department at UPENN once co-sponsored an anti-BDS speech I gave there, notwithstanding i used to be totally blind to this sponsorship and would has been opposed if I’d known about it. i used to be informed, and believed previously, that the development were sponsored by Hillel and the Jewish Federation.
Along a similar lines, two members of the political science department at Brooklyn College have claimed that my speeches there have been sponsored by the dept and were as controversial because the BDS advocacy event. That may be totally false. As far as i will remember, I actually have made three speeches at Brooklyn College: one, the Konefsky lecture within the late 1960s or early 1970s, which was a purely academic lecture specializing in the work of Professor Samuel Konefsky; there has been nothing controversial about it. Second, a speech i used to be invited to provide once I donated my papers to Brooklyn College: again, not very controversial. And third, a chat I gave in 2008 about my teachers at Brooklyn College and a few letter by Thomas Jefferson I had present in a book store (this may be heard online): again, not particularly controversial.
Why, then, is there this sort of concerted effort to attack me personally and to query my integrity at any time when I discuss Israel
It has little to do with me, because my attackers know that i’m able to fight back and that my academic standing cannot in any respect be influenced by their attacks. The attacks are directed at young academics, without tenure who would dare to talk up on behalf of Israel.
The message is evident: in the event you support Israel, we can attack you love we attack Dershowitz, but you may be hurt far more that Dershowitz would. We’re going to damage your reputation, hurt your student evaluations and reduce your chances for tenure.
It should come as no surprise, therefore, that such a lot of pro-Israel young academics refuse to talk up. i do know because they call and discreetly tell me concerning the fear they’ve that they are going to be subjected to a similar type of McCarthyite tactics that i’m subjected to.
That is why i’m able to continue to fight back and respond whenever the dogs of defamation are unleashed against me.
• Comments in this article can be open for twenty-four hours and might be closed overnight
