Alan Dershowitz is huffing and puffing because two Jews did a noble act, which to him, means committing a horrible thing.
Dershowitz
is after all, old enough to have been one of the Jewish lawyers who took
America by storm at the onset of the Jewish conquest of America. He and others
like him, did so by introducing fresh ideas into the legal ecosystem. The ideas
were so fresh in fact, they awed everybody: from laymen to lawyers to judges
and even legislators.
But
this situation lasted only a short period of time because the ecosystem
eventually discovered that whereas Dershowitz and company had come up with
something fresh, it wasn’t a cup of fresh honey excreted by bees, it was a
basket of fresh something excreted by bulls.
This,
however, did not stop Alan Dershowitz from staying on course and producing more
of the stinky stuff on a regular basis. His latest directive to the Jewish
rank-and-file, is meant to counter the noble act that Ben Cohen and Jerry
Greenfield did when they decided to follow their conscience and call the spade
they see a spade, which they did by recognizing that doing business as usual in
a country that’s occupied, was an abhorrent act that had to be terminated. And terminate
the production of ice cream in the Palestinian territory known as the West Bank,
is what they did.
Enter
a freaked-out Alan Dershowitz whose brain alerted him to the possibility that
other Jews doing business in the West Bank, may be encouraged by the Ben and
Jerry noble act, and follow their conscience, something that many Jews must be
itching to do but could not muster the courage to do it till Ben and Jerry showed
them the way.
To
address all the Jews who might be affected by this development; to dissuade
them from falling one after the other like domino chips, Dershowitz wrote an
article under the title: “Ben & Jerry’s defense is hard to swallow,” and
had it published on August 1, 2021 in the New York Daily News.
Dershowitz
began his discussion by pulling the most demonic of his tricks. Let me explain.
If in a general discussion, you address an audience in the abstract, it is
always a good idea to put what you’re talking about in some context so that the
people will know how close or how far from the norm is the subject matter you are
describing.
But
if you are addressing a specific act that someone has carried out or intends to
carry out, putting things in context takes on a different disposition. That is,
you would be telling that someone, they failed to do something they should have
done, or they did something they shouldn’t have done. Look now, how Dershowitz
began his discussion:
“Ben and Jerry’s defense of boycotting disputed territories
in Israel fails to put their ice cream company’s actions in a proper context.
They continue to sell their products in many of the most repressive countries
in the world — countries that murder dissidents, imprison journalists,
enslave women, exploit children and occupy other people’s land”.
First
of all, the morality that Alan Dershowitz is spreading, is of the most criminal-minded
that you can think of. That is, he is telling his audience that if someone does
any of the following, “murder dissidents, imprison
journalists, enslave women, exploit children and occupy other people’s land,”
Israel has the right to do all of them and expect to be absolved.
Second
of all, what Dershowitz says is a damned lie. The truth is that outside of the
United States and Israel, Ben & Jerry’s have an ice cream factory in only
one country: The Netherland. Is Dershowitz saying that the murder of dissidents, imprisonment of journalists,
enslavement of women, exploitation of children or occupation of other people’s
land, is practiced by the Netherland?
As
to where the Ben & Jerry’s ice cream is sold, you’ll find it in about three
dozen countries, most of them being what Dershowitz would call Western Style
democracies. The possible exceptions are these: The Bahamas, Brazil, Malaysia,
Philippines, Singapore and the UAE. Which of these is Dershowitz accusing of practicing
the murder of dissidents, imprisonment of
journalists, enslavement of women, exploitation of children or the occupation
of other people’s land? Let him point the finger at one or more of them, and
give details of what they do.
Dershowitz ends his article in a way that appeals to the Jewish
sense of duty to support Israel because, as he often put it, Israel will always
be there for them, to be the home they can go to; the home that will protect
them when things get rough. Here is a condensed version of his last paragraph:
“Ben and Jerry, Vermont Jews who say they are supporters of
the state of Israel, should be ashamed of their hypocrisy. I for one will never
eat Ben & Jerry’s ice cream again because their decision to single out
parts of Israel for an economic boycott is anti-Semitic”.
What
Dershowitz misses is what an increasing number of Jews are saying nowadays.
They are trying to tell the self-appointed leaders such as Alan Dershowitz: Not
in our name. They want these fake leaders to know that what they are doing, and
what Israel is doing does not serve the Jews.
In fact, they see that most of their troubles are generated by the fake leaders who will lead them to yet another pogrom if not a full-blown holocaust. Ordinary Jews are confident that they can make it on their own without the disruptive hand or the pretentious mouth of Alan Dershowitz or anyone like him.