Alan Dershowitz doesn’t know the first thing about the nature of Islam or the magnitude of the jihad threat. A few years ago, I was on a radio show following Dershowitz, and the producer called me a bit early, while Dershowitz and the host were still conversing. I could hear them while I was on hold waiting to go on, and heard the host announce that I would be coming on right after a break. Hearing my name, Dershowitz began nervously to repeat Leftist dogmas about Islam being a religion of peace and how important it was to avoid “Islamophobia.” Unfortunately, by the time I got on the show, he was gone; I would have loved an opportunity to debate him.
In any case, here he poses the hypothetical case of a Muslim judge nominated for the Supreme Court by President Hillary Clinton. “Then several witnesses place him at a mosque at which terrorism was advocated. He claims he went there to hear all sides of the issue. One witness places him in a terrorism training camp but that account is not corroborated. One final witness identifies him as the man who planted the bomb that blew off his leg at a demonstration. He categorically denies any association with terrorism.” This is supposed to be analogous to Brett Kavanaugh’s situation, but the analogy is not exact, because no witnesses ever placed Kavanaugh at any place where crimes were being committed or advocated.
Dershowitz claims that in his hypothetical scenario, “the identity politics accusations would not be directed against old white men, but rather against those who would stereotype Muslims as terrorists. The Jewish Forward would not be featuring an article entitled ‘Is Amir Hassan every Muslim man?’ as it is now featuring an article entitled ‘Is Brett Kavanaugh every American man?'” That’s patently absurd, as the Jewish Forward is a far-Left, pro-jihad publication that would never publish anything remotely critical of jihad terror or Sharia oppression.
And Dershowitz digs even deeper: “Many right-wing Republicans would now be making arguments similar to those being made by their left-wing Democratic colleagues in the Kavanaugh case. This is just a job interview, not a trial. Believe terrorism survivors. There is no burden of proof; mere suspicion is enough to deny a possible terrorist a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. Look how angry he is, demonstrating a lack of judicial temperament.”
That’s ridiculous on its face. Whatever the context, accusations without evidence are worthless. If Dershowitz’s “Amir Hassan” had been acquitted of the charges against him, then that would be that. If no charges had been brought and these allegations were new, they would have to be investigated, and are quite different from 30-plus-year-old allegations with no witnesses: the fellow who claimed that Amir Hassan blew his leg off could be refuted by surveillance video, which is virtually everywhere nowadays. Dershowitz also doesn’t even consider important questions that would revolve around Amir Hassan’s adherence to Sharia, which denies the freedom of speech, the equality of rights before the law, and other core American principles.
Dershowitz is absolutely right that if President Hillary Clinton had appointed a Muslim judge, the Democrat Party would be fiercely defending him no matter what was ultimately revealed about his ties to jihad terrorism. But his claim that Republicans are quick to condemn innocent Muslims as terrorists reflects that Dershowitz is still very much a man of the Left, a faithful adherent of the Left’s dogma that all Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people who have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism, and that “Islamophobia” is much more of a problem in American society than jihad terror. This assumption is supported by absolutely no evidence, although there are attempts to buttress it with the veneer of misleading and inaccurate “evidence.” Dershowitz, so clear-sighted on Israel, remains on the issue of the global jihad a doctrinaire, unthinking Leftist.
“What if Kavanaugh were a liberal Muslim?,” by Alan Dershowitz, Jerusalem Post, October 4, 2018:
As a law professor for half a century, I tested the consistency and strength of my students’ arguments by constructing thought experiments in the form of challenging hypothetical cases – we called them hypos. So let’s construct one to test the arguments being offered in the Kavanaugh case.
A thought experiment: President Hillary Clinton nominates the first Muslim American to the Supreme Court. Let’s call him Amir Hassan. Republicans oppose him and accuse him of being a judicial activist. Then several witnesses place him at a mosque at which terrorism was advocated. He claims he went there to hear all sides of the issue. One witness places him in a terrorism training camp but that account is not corroborated. One final witness identifies him as the man who planted the bomb that blew off his leg at a demonstration. He categorically denies any association with terrorism.
How would the Senate, the media, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the public deal with these accusations?
The answer seems clear: the sides and arguments would be largely reversed. The shoe would be on the other foot and the hypocrisy of double standards would be exposed for all to see.
Surely the ACLU would not be arguing, as they have in the Kavanaugh case, that doubts should be resolved in favor of guilt. Radicals would not be insisting that terrorism survivors must always be believed as to identification. My left-wing colleagues would not point to the anger displayed by the possibly falsely accused nominee as proof of his disqualifying injudicious temperament.
To the contrary, the ACLU would be demanding due process, a presumption of innocence and a high burden of proof before so serious a charge could destroy a life, family and career. My colleagues would be defending the righteous anger of a falsely accused victim of ethnic prejudice.
The identity politics accusations would not be directed against old white men, but rather against those who would stereotype Muslims as terrorists. The Jewish Forward would not be featuring an article entitled “Is Amir Hassan every Muslim man?” as it is now featuring an article entitled “Is Brett Kavanaugh every American man?”
Many right-wing Republicans would now be making arguments similar to those being made by their left-wing Democratic colleagues in the Kavanaugh case. This is just a job interview, not a trial. Believe terrorism survivors. There is no burden of proof; mere suspicion is enough to deny a possible terrorist a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. Look how angry he is, demonstrating a lack of judicial temperament….