Eve Mykytin* writes:

Alan Dershowitz has challenged Channel 4 TV in Britain and Jeremy Corbyn, casting himself as a defender against anti-Semitism and an advocate for fairness. Dershowitz, who consistently posits himself as a liberal who has discovered that too much tolerance is wrong (for example, The Case For Israel), denounced Corbyn’s displays of tolerance for different viewpoints by attributing to Corbyn the alleged crimes of others. Evidently Dershowitz does not impose these rigours upon himself or his own clients, including Jeffrey Epstein who pled guilty to soliciting a minor for prostitution (and with whom Dershowitz was accused and then exonerated while not denying “statements that the underlying alleged misconduct may have occurred with someone else”).

Last week Dershowitz wrote a piece for the Evening Standard complaining that Channel 4 felt the need to present a balanced view of Jeremy Corbyn. Dershowitz’s problems with Channel 4 began when he responded to a question about the moral backbone of America, “Well, where is the moral backbone of Great Britain to have as the head of the Labour Party a virulent anti-Semite, a virulent hater of Jews and the nation-state of the Jewish people?”

Host Matt Frei noted that Corbyn had denied such allegations, and the segment was later cut. In response, Dershowitz indignantly claimed that Channel 4 has a double standard since it chose not to broadcast his views without a counterbalance even though he claimed Channel 4 criticizes Trump without rebuttal. Of course, Trump is not in line to become Britain’s next prime minister and the British channel does not have the same responsibility to Trump as it does to its own leaders.

But Dershowitz does not dwell on the alleged double standard; instead he uses the incident to pile on to the Zionist critique of Corbyn. Dershowitz, a former Harvard law professor, might be expected to present a strong case, but his efforts seem feeble. 

He begins by telling us “the law”. Apparently, Dershowitz thinks that examples purporting to illustrate the controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of anti Semitism set the applicable law. He writes:

In a widely accepted definition, adopted by the US State Department and its British counterpart, anti-Semitism includes accusing the Jews as a people, or Israel as a state, of inventing or exaggerating the Holocaust… applying double standards by requiring of it a behaviour not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation… drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis. Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel… than to the interests of their own nations.

According to Dershowitz, Corbyn’s statement and actions meet these standards. But Dershowitz doesn’t provide examples of Corbyn’s actions instead he tells us that Corbyn has appeared with or failed to suppress the free speech rights of others with whom he may or may not agree. Although it is clear that Dershowitz despises Corbyn’s tolerance of others’ views, he fails to relate Corbyn’s actions to the controversial law that Dershowitz himself told us was applicable. Surely, the following examples would fail to show a connection to the statute sufficient to pass one of Dershowitz’s law school classes. Query as to why Dershowitz quotes segments from the IHRA when he is unable to apply its text.

Dershowitz tells us that: “Corbyn has taken part in events with Dyab Abou Jahjah, a Lebanese militant who rails against “Jew-worship” and calls homosexuals “Aids-spreading faggots”, according to the National Review.

“He [Corbyn] also argued against the expulsion from Britain of Raed Saleh, a leader of the Islamic Movement in Israel, who claims Jews were behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks.”

Dershowitz continues: “Corbyn has also been accused of donating money to Deir Yassin Remembered (DYR), founded by self-proclaimed Holocaust denier Paul Eisen.” DYR commemorates a horrific massacre Israel committed in a Palestinian village named Deir Yassin. How does donating to this body meet any part of the IHRA definition? 

Dershowitz next cites a comment Corbyn made in 2013 that his opponents have dug up to “prove” his anti-Semitism. Corbyn claimed that “Zionists… don’t understand English irony”, despite “having lived in this country for a very long time, probably all their lives”. 

Dershowitz writes: “Corbyn seemed to be using the term ‘Zionists’ to apply broadly to British Jews .” I’m not sure how Dershowitz has determined that Corbyn refers to Jews as a whole and not Zionists as Corbyn said, but it is clear that Dershowitz does so because the IHRA prohibits attributing to all Jews the statements of some Jews. So, in an attempt to make his case, Dershowitz attributes to Corbyn a meaning that defies the actual words Corbyn used. 

Dershowitz continues: “Corbyn called former Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, an advocate of the two-state solution, ‘a war criminal’ while calling terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah ‘friends’.” Corbyn is a left-leaning politician who identifies with the oppressed. It is only natural that he sees the Palestinians as freedom fighters and Tzipi Livni as a war criminal. Dershowitz clearly disagrees with Corbyn, but supporting the rights of Palestinians and denouncing the actions of particular Israelis against Palestinians is not yet proof of anti-Semitism even under the IHRA.

Dershowitz  says: “While condemning Israel for human rights violations, Corbyn has praised human rights violators such as Venezuela, Cuba and Iran.” Venezuela, Cuba and Iran are praised by Corbyn and others who hold socialist views for their progress on economic justice. This does not apply to Israel where the gap between rich and poor is among the widest in the Western world. Does Dershowitz really intend to argue that the IHRA can be interpreted to mean that it is anti-Semitic to praise another country for achievements what Israel has failed to make? 

According to Dershowitz, “Corbyn seems to have little interest in the human right of Kurds, Chechens, Tibetans and other groups.” Here Dershowitz is truly “winging it” and he is simply wrong. Corbyn is on record supporting Tibetans, the Kurds and Chechnya, and I suspect that the staunchly anti-racist leader supports other oppressed groups as well. In any event, since the British Empire was, at least in part, directly responsible for the Palestinian plight it is understandable that Corbyn has supported Palestinians.

Having failed to present a justification for his attack on Corbyn, calling Corbyn a virulent hater of the Jews and the Jewish State, Dershowitz concludes his “legal” argument with the “everyone else is doing it” defence. “To be sure, Israel does not have a perfect human rights record. No country does.” It is hard to imagine a country with a perfect record on human rights, but Israel is different. How many states punish the “crime” of living in territory occupied or controlled by that state by locking millions of people into open-air prisons and deploying snipers to shoot those who approach the prison fence? Are there many states that drop bombs on the most densely populated areas in the world? I suspect that if Mr Dershowitz manages to find such states, Corbyn will condemn them as well. 

Dershowitz proceeds to treat his incorrect assumptions as fact. “Singling out Israel for condemnation while praising some of the worst human rights violators and ignoring violations against people at least as oppressed as the Palestinians is applying precisely the sort of double standard against the nation state of the Jewish people the UK and the US have recognised as anti-Semitic,” he says. While Dershowitz has failed to show that this is so, in any case noting Israel’s terrible record on human rights does not apply a double standard since no comparison was made. 

Finally, Dershowitz expresses his wish that the “good people” of Britain “show the moral backbone of that great country by rejecting Corbyn and the bigotry he has supported”. It is fortunate that it seems the war against Corbyn waged by Britain’s Zionists has not affected Corbyn’s popularity.

*Eve Mykytin is a writer, editor and former financial lawyer.