EnduringSense

“The price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.” Plato

  • Daily Quote:

    "Both free speech rights and property rights belong legally to individuals, but their real function is social, to benefit vast numbers of people who do not themselves exercise these rights."

    Thomas Sowell

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

    Join 92 other followers

  • Subscribe

Posts Tagged ‘Alan Dershowitz’

Liberal Law Professor Alan Dershowitz Slams Obama

Posted by Steve Markowitz on December 29, 2016

Since the election of Donald Trump, liberal pundits have come up with all sorts of excuses for the outcome. At best they look to voter apathy on the Left. More troubling excuses include racism, sexism, homophobia, etc., the “deplorables” according to Hillary Clinton. These head-in-the-sand excuses ignore the weakness of candidate Hillary Clinton and the difficult economic state many Americans find themselves in, which as not improved under Obama’s Presidency.

The excuse-making machine on the Left has ignored the fact that many liberals are displeased with the Obama Presidency. Many expressed this dissatisfaction by supporting Socialist Bernie Sanders during the Democratic primary. Others have come out more recently with President Obama throwing Israel under the bus.

Last week the United Nations held a vote that basically blames Israel for the stalled Middle East peace process. While hidden behind the narrative that the vote was about Israeli settlements in the West Bank, the vote was a much more general combination of Israel. Such anti-Israeli votes in the Security Council have become commonplace in recent decades. However, votes the United States has historically used its veto power to block them. Incredibly, this lame-duck president in his last three weeks of office went against American policy back by both Republicans and Democrats and abstained, allowing the condemning of Israel to pass.

The outcry against Obama’s decision has been crosses political parties with many prominent Democrats coming out quite vocally in opposition. One example is Alan Dershowitz, a retired Harvard Law school professor who has been a lifetime Democrat and supporter of Barack Obama. His comments, included in the videos below, include:

He defined the president’s handling of the resolution as a “bait and switch”:

He pulled a bait and switch. He said to the American public ‘Oh this is all about the settlements deep in the West Bank’ and yet he allowed his representative to the U.N. to abstain, which is really for, a resolution that says Jews can’t pray at the Western Wall. Jews can’t live in the Jewish quarter where they’ve lived for thousands of years. And he’s gonna say ‘Whoops. I didn’t mean that.’ Well, read the resolution. You’re a lawyer. You went to Harvard Law School.”

Dershowitz went on to call Obama one of the worst presidents ever on foreign policy. Strong words from a liberal Democrat!

While this Blogger agrees with Dershowitz’s comments, the good Professor and others from intellectual Left bear responsibility for Obama’s policies and duplicity. It was known before Obama’s first election that he held questionable/radical political views and had contacts with some shady characters including Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayres of Weather Underground fame and others. Many on the Left made excuses for these associations, giving Obama a pass. Now, as Rev. Wright once so infamously said: “the chickens have come home to roost”.

 

Posted in Israel, President Obama | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Enduringsense.com & Alan Dershowitz Agree; Yikes

Posted by Steve Markowitz on May 21, 2011

President Obama has a special ability to create unusual coalitions.  This week he took that skill to a new level, bringing both sides of the political spectrum within the America Jewish community together, no small feat.

Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law Professor: Obama Destroying Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process May 20, 2011 — “President Barack Obama put himself ahead of the Palestinians in his Mideast speech and setback negotiations considerably”.

Joseph Lieberman, Senator: Called parts of Obama’s speech on the Middle “profoundly ill-advised,” and “an unhelpful and surprising set of remarks about Israel and the Palestinians that will not advance the peace process and in fact is likely to set it back. …”  and “Unilateral statements of this sort do nothing to bring the two parties back to the negotiating table and in fact make it harder for them to do so.  They also damage the relationship of trust that is critical to peacemaking...”

*****

When Obama called for a two state solution based on Israel’s borders as they existed prior to the 1967 war, he removed himself as an effective arbitrator and sided with the Palestinians on a major issue for negotiations between the parties.  Had Obama, for example, at the same time defined the “right of return” just as forcefully and in a way that guaranteed Israel’s existence as Jewish state, his nominal neutrality could have been maintained. But he chose not to.

Anyone who has dealt with an arbitrator/mediator in a legal or business dispute understands that once the arbitrator shows bias, his effectiveness in that role is compromised.  Obama’s bias is no longer subject to interpretation of words.  If he was a judge in an American court of law and the Israeli’s were a party to a dispute under him, any observer would understand that the Israelis would be in a heap of trouble.  It is that reality that has created an unusual coalition within the Jewish community.

Barack Obama, June 4, 2008

Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided.”

Barack Obama, May 19, 2011

The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”

Posted in Israel, President Obama | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Alan Dershowitz & the Fallacy of Progressivism

Posted by Steve Markowitz on March 24, 2010

Alan Dershowitz is a renowned law professor from Harvard University and also a Progressive in the truest sense.  However, yesterday Mr. Dershowitz wrote an editorial in the Wall Street Journal that included some very anti-progressive views.  It is a worthy read.

Dershowitz outlines the dangers of allowing Iran to go nuclear.

  • The gravest threat faced by the world today is a nuclear-armed Iran.
  • There are several ways in which Iran could use nuclear weapons.  The first is by dropping an atomic bomb on Israel, as its leaders have repeatedly threatened to do.  Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former president of Iran, boasted in 2004 that an Iranian attack would kill as many as five million Jews.
  • But there are other ways in which a nuclear-armed Iran would endanger the world.  First, it would cause an arms race in which every nation in the Middle East would seek to obtain nuclear weapons.
  • Fourth, it would embolden the most radical elements in the Middle East to continue their war of words and deeds against the United States and its allies.
  • And finally, it would inevitably unleash the law of unintended consequences:
  • In these respects, allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons is somewhat analogous to the decision by the victors of World War I to allow Nazi Germany to rearm during the 1930s.

It is not often that I agree with Alan Dershowitz, but on this subject we are in lock step.  There are few good options when it comes to Iran.  However, allowing them to go nuclear is the worst for reasons stated by Dershowitz.

Dershowitz does not stop at outlining the dangers of a nuclear Iran.  He then take offs after the Progressive-in-Chief, Barack Obama, comparing Obama to English Prime Minster Neville Chamberlain who appeased Hitler.

“Most people today are not aware that British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain helped restore Great Britain’s financial stability during the Great Depression and also passed legislation to extend unemployment benefits, pay pensions to retired workers and otherwise help those hit hard by the slumping economy.  But history does remember his failure to confront Hitler.  That is Chamberlain’s enduring legacy.

So too will Iran’s construction of nuclear weapons, if it manages to do so in the next few years, become President Barack Obama’s enduring legacy.  Regardless of his passage of health-care reform and regardless of whether he restores jobs and helps the economy recover, Mr. Obama will be remembered for allowing Iran to obtain nuclear weapons.”

While Dershowitz is correct on his assessment of how history will judge President Obama should Iran go nuke on his watch, Dershowitz fails to take the discussion to the next step: the complicity that he and other Progressives have in this unacceptable result.

Progressivism is more than a few programs or policies.  It is an overall philosophy that includes making individuals subservient to institutions.  It believes in a world order over the independence of countries.  Let us not forget that one of the fathers of Progressivism, Woodrow Wilson, helped give the world the League of Nations and the Treaty of Versailles.  These, coupled with fellow Progressive Neville Chamberlain, helped set the stage for World War-II.

Yes Mr. Dershowitz, one of “The gravest threat faced by the world today is a nuclear-armed Iran”.  But instead your fellow Progressives are focusing on Global Warming and socializing American healthcare in a drive for evermore governmental authority of individuals.

There are only limited ways to guarantee Iran does not obtain nuclear weapons.  They include some sort of outside interference in Iran’s affairs ranging from assisting its citizens in regime change to direct military intervention.  None can be done under the spineless United Nations.  All require some sort of preemptive action, the type Progressives have ranted against long before George W. Bush even became president.

Mr. Dershowitz, you stated: “And finally, it [nuclear Iran] would inevitably unleash the law of unintended consequences. How true!  However, unintended consequences come in many forms and for many reasons.  Over the years you have often used your intellect to often justify and promote Progressive causes, alongside many others in the academic world.  The success of these actions affected the perceptions of some Americans, tilting the Country in a more Progressive direction, one reason behind the election of Barrack Obama as President.  Intended or not, it is a consequence.  While your words in the Journal are eloquently put, it’s tough to put the genie back in the bottle.

Posted in Iran, President Obama, Progressives, Protectionism | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »