 n my 38 years of teaching at Harvard Law School, I don't recall ever
writing in praise of any action by a Harvard president, but this time I
must congratulate President Lawrence H. Summers for his willingness to say
out loud what many of us in the Harvard community have long believed:
namely, that singling out Israel, among all the countries in the world, for
divestment, is an action which is anti-Semitic in effect, if not in
intent.
A recent open letter by one of the signatories made it clear that he
regards Israel as the pariah state, a word historically used by
anti-Semites to characterize the Jewish people.
As an advocate and practitioner of human rights throughout
the world, I can confidently assert that Israel's record on human rights
is among the best, especially among nations that have confronted
comparable threats. Though far from perfect, Israel has shown
extraordinary concern for avoiding civilian casualties in its half-century
effort to protect its civilians from terrorism. Jordan killed more
Palestinians in a single month than Israel has between 1948 and the
present.
Israel has the only independent judiciary in the entire Middle East. Its
Supreme Court, one of the most highly regarded in the world, is the only
court in the Middle East from which an Arab or a Muslim can expect
justice, as many have found in winning dozens of victories against the
Israeli government, the Israeli military and individual Israeli citizens.
There is no more important component in the protection of human rights and
civil liberties than an independent judiciary willing to stand up to its own
government. I challenge the proponents of divestment to name a court in
any Arab or Muslim country that is comparable to the Israeli Supreme
Court.
Israel is the only country in the region that has virtually unlimited
freedom of speech. Any person in Israel whether Jewish, Muslim or
Christian can criticize the Israeli government and its leaders. No
citizen of any other Middle Eastern or Muslim state can do that without
fear of imprisonment or death.
Israel is the only country that has openly confronted the difficult issue
of protecting the civil liberties of the ticking bomb terrorist. The
Israeli Supreme Court recently ruled that despite the potential benefits of
employing non-lethal torture to extract information, the tactic is illegal.
Brutal torture, including lethal torture, is commonplace in nearly every
other Middle Eastern and Muslim country. Indeed, American authorities
sometimes send suspects to Egypt, Jordan and the Philippines precisely
because they know that they will be tortured in those countries.
Nor is Israel the only country that is occupying lands claimed by
others.
China, Russia, Turkey, Iraq, Spain, France and numerous other countries
control not only land, but people who seek independence. Indeed, among
these countries Israel is the only one that has offered statehood, first
in 1948 when the Palestinians rejected the UN partition which would have
given them a large, independent state and chose instead to invade
Israel.
Again in the year 2000, Palestinians were offered a state, rejected it and
employed terrorism.
There are, of course, difficult issues to be resolved in the Middle East.
These include the future of the settlements, the establishment of
Palestinian self-governance and the prevention of terrorism. These
issues will require compromise on all sides. Members of the Harvard
community must be free to criticize Israel when they disagree with its
policies or
actions, as they criticize any other country in the world whose record
is not perfect.
But to single out the Jewish state of Israel, as if it were the worst human
rights offender, is bigotry pure and simple. It would be comparable to
singling out a black nation for de-legitimation without mentioning worse
abuses by white nations. Those who sign the divestment petition should be
ashamed of themselves. If they are not, it is up to others to shame them.
Among those who signed this immoral petition was Winthrop House Master
Paul Hanson.
I wrote to Prof. Hanson challenging him to debate me in the
Common Room of Winthrop House about his decision to sign the petition.
He refused, citing other priorities. I can imagine few priorities more
pressing than to justify to his students why he is willing to single out
Israel for special criticism. Accordingly, I hereby request an invitation
from the students of Winthrop House to conduct such a debate, either with
Hanson present or with an empty chair on which the petition which he
signed would be featured. Universities should encourage widespread debate
and discussion about divisive and controversial issues. A House master who
peremptorily signs a petition and then hides behind other priorities does
not serve the interests of dialogue and education. I hope that Hanson will
accept my challenge, and that if he does not, that I will be invited by
his students to help fill the educational gap left by the cowardice of
those who have signed this petition and refuse to defend their actions in
public debate.
Let me propose an alternative to singling out Israel for divestment:
Let Harvard choose nations for investment in the order of the human rights
records. If that were done, investment in Israel would increase
dramatically, while investments in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan,
Philippines,
Indonesia, the Palestinian Authority and most other countries of the
world would decrease markedly.
Alan M. Dershowitz is Frankfurter professor of law at Harvard Law School.
|
