Open Letter to Glenn Greenwald Regarding Brooklyn College
It is crystal clear that the political science department's co-sponsorship and endorsement of these extremist speakers does constitute an endorsement of BDS. The best proof is that they have refused to endorse anti-BDS events or even pro-Israel speakers who advocate the two state solution and an end to the settlements. If you can't see through the charade of the political science department 's claim of neutrality, then you don't deserve to be a journalist.
Dear Mr. Greenwald:
Before I respond to your questions I have two questions for you:
1. Are your editors aware that you are an active participant in the controversy at Brooklyn College about which you are writing—that you have threatened to cancel your speech if the event is cancelled?
2. Are your readers going to be made aware of your bias in this matter?
Now to answer your questions. First, I hope you will emphasize that I would be completely opposed to any cancellation of the event. As I have written in all of my articles, I want the event to go forward. My sole objection is to the fact that the political science department has officially "endorsed" and "co-sponsored" the event.
Your absurd comparison between this highly politicized advocacy event and the Konefsky lectures reveals your bias. I was selected to give the Konefsky lecture by the Konefsky family about 40 years ago. It was an entirely academic lecture. Much of it was devoted to memorializing my great professor, Samuel Konefsky (who would be appalled by the invocation of his name for the support of BDS.) I have no problem with an academic department sponsoring an academic lecture. I would be just as opposed to the political science department endorsing and co-sponsoring an event advocated increased Israeli settlement on the West Bank. (Of course the political science department would never sponsor such an event.)
If and when I come to Brooklyn College to speak against BDS, I do not expect the event to be co-sponsored by the political science department. It will be sponsored by student and outside groups, as this event should be.
I am opposed to any officials trying to stop the BDS event from taking place. But I think it is perfectly appropriate for all concerned citizens to speak to the issue of principle. Namely: whether departments, which include students who are taking classes, should be officially endorsing highly contentious and divisive issues. What if the political science department had decided to officially endorse Mitt Romney's campaign for president? You would be jumping up and down in furry. If you don't like that analogy, you would be jumping just as high if the political science department , or any other department, were to sponsor an event by pro-settlement advocates demanding more building in the West Bank. I believe there should be a rule prohibiting any department from co-sponsoring or endorsing one sided political events that are not academic in nature. Any other approach denies academic freedom to students who disagree with the official political line of the department and risks putting them in fear of being downgraded or otherwise discriminated against for deviating from the "party line." Every school I've ever been associated with has such a rule. At Harvard, professors can't even use their official Harvard stationary to advocate political positions. They are, of course, free to do so with their own stationary and without the university's imprimatur.
In this case, it is crystal clear that the political science department's co-sponsorship and endorsement of these extremist speakers does constitute an endorsement of BDS. The best proof is that they have refused to endorse anti-BDS events or even pro-Israel speakers who advocate the two state solution and an end to the settlements. If you can't see through the charade of the political science department 's claim of neutrality, then you don't deserve to be a journalist.
Of course advocates of a movement should be able to gather at an event to debate tactics and strategies without having someone there who objects to the movement itself. The absurd way in which you pose the question again reveals your bias. Do you know anyone who objects to the BDS movement gathering to debate among themselves? Do you think that the political science department should officially sponsor and endorse such an unacademic meeting that deals with tactics and strategies? Would you favor the political science department endorsing or sponsoring a gathering of Republicans debating tactics and strategies as to how to roll back healthcare reform or how to pack the Supreme Court? I don't think I've ever heard a more ridiculous analogy or question. I would expect you to hide your bias with a little more subtlety.
I am sending a copy of this letter to the editor of the Guardian, because I don't trust you—as an advocate—to report my views fairly and in context. I am also publishing your letter and mine online as a further protection against your anticipated mischaracterization of my views based on your history and your advocacy position. I hope you will surprise me and actually present my views fairly, fully and in context.
Alan M. Dershowitz
Harvard Law School
Letter from Glenn Greenwald to Alan Dershowitz
From: Glenn Greenwald
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 3:36 AM
To: Alan Dershowitz
Subject: From Glenn Greenwald/THE GUARDIAN
Professor Dershowitz - I'm writing a piece on the controversy over the BDS event at Brooklyn College. I have a few of questions:
(1) You yourself have previously spoken at this college, including when you delivered the Political Science Department's annual Konefsky Lecture (coincidentally, I'm giving that same lecture next month at Brooklyn College).
On that occasion, you spoke alone. You've spoken alone on other occasions at the school. Why is that different? Should they have had someone next to you who disagrees with your views? Did you request that?
(2) As a long-time advocate of free speech and academic freedom, do you view it as concerning that local political officials are now trying to interfere in BC's events and dictate to the PoliSci deparmtent how they should hold such events?
(3) Why shouldn't advocates of a movement be able to gather at an event to debate tactics and strategies without having someone there who objects to the movement itself?
(4) PoliSci departments host a wide range of speakers. Indeed, the one at BC hosted you. Is it fair to view their sponsorship of an event as an endorsement of the ideas expressed by the participants?
Reader comments on this item
|Leftist/Socialist Hypocrisy [37 words]||Edward||Feb 3, 2013 06:40|
|Well Said [13 words]||James||Feb 3, 2013 03:19|
|"Kauft nicht bei Juden" [94 words]||Rita||Feb 3, 2013 01:53|
Comment on this item
by Alan M. Dershowitz
by Pierre Rehov
For terrorists, the death of innocent children is irrelevant. In a society that promotes martyrdom as the ultimate sign of success, the death of innocent children can sometimes even be seen as a public relations blessing.
In every action, intent is paramount. There should never be a moral equivalence painted between the deliberate killing of civilians, and a retaliation that tragically leads to casualties among civilians.
There is, however, one small difference: in the Middle East, reporters are threatened, except in Israel. Their choice becomes a simple one: promote the Palestinian point of view or stop working in the West Bank. Keep the eye of the camera dirty or lose your job. This show should not go on.
by Khaled Abu Toameh
Since 1948, the Arab countries and government have been paying mostly lip service to the Palestinians.
"They have money and oil, but don't care about the Palestinians, even though we are Arabs and Muslims like them. What a Saudi or Qatari sheikh spends in one night in London, Paris or Las Vegas could solve the problem of tens of thousands of Palestinians." — Palestinian human rights activist.
"Some Arabs were hoping that Israel would rid them of Hamas." — Ashraf Salameh, Gaza City.
"Some of the Arab regimes are interested in getting rid of the resistance in order to remove the burden of the Palestinian cause, which threatens the stability of their regimes." — Mustafa al-Sawwaf, Palestinian political analyst.
"Most Arabs are busy these days with bloody battles waged by their leaders, who are struggling to survive. These battles are raging in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Libya and the Palestinian Authority." — Mohammed al-Musafer, columnist.
"The Arab leaders don't know what they want from the Gaza Strip. They don't even know what they want from Israel." — Yusef Rizka, Hamas official.
by Soeren Kern
European elites, who take pride in viewing the EU as a "postmodern" superpower, have long argued that military hard-power is illegitimate in the 21st century. Unfortunately for Europe, Russia (along with China and Iran) has not embraced the EU's fantastical soft-power worldview, in which "climate change" is now said to pose the greatest threat to European security.
For its part, the European Commission, the EU's administrative branch, which never misses an opportunity to boycott institutions in Israel, has issued only a standard statement on the shooting down of MH17 in Ukraine, which reads: "The European Union will continue to follow this issue very closely."
The EU has made only half-hearted attempts to develop alternatives to its dependency on Russian oil and gas.
by Shoshana Bryen
Proportionality in international law is not about equality of death or civilian suffering, or even about [equality of] firepower. Proportionality weighs the necessity of a military action against suffering that the action might cause to enemy civilians in the vicinity.
"Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable does not constitute a war crime.... even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality)." — Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Chief Prosecutor, International Criminal Court.
"The greater the military advantage anticipated, the larger the amount of collateral damage -- often civilian casualties -- which will be "justified" and "necessary." — Dr. Françoise Hampton, University of Essex, UK.