I came across this in the Jerusalem Post Written by Alan Dershowitz about the Kurds and the worlds double standard. Take that you bleeding-heart liberals!

here’s an excerpt

I have a testing question for those who single out Israel for condemnation because of its occupation and who champion the establishment of a Palestinian state: Where do you stand on the occupation of Kurdistan and on the Kurdish demand for an independent state in their ancestral land of Kurdistan?

I can tell you where the Palestinians themselves stand. Their leadership is adamantly opposed to the Kurdish efforts to end their occupation and establish their state. The Palestinians support the occupiers, namely Syria, Turkey and Iraq

…But where is the United Nations, the Presbyterian church, the anti-Zionist hard Left, the European community, Nelson Mandela, Ralph Nader and the others who shed crocodile tears only for the oppressed Palestinians?

They pretend to care about the Palestinians only because it is Israel that is accused of oppressing them. They don’t give a collective darn about the Kurds, because they are being oppressed by Arab and Muslim nations, just as they don’t seem to care about the Tibetans, who are being occupied and oppressed by China, or the Chechens, who are being abused by the Russians.

Nor did they care about the Palestinians during all the years the West Bank was occupied by Jordan and the Gaza Strip by Egypt.

…There already is one state with a Palestinian majority – Jordan – whereas the Kurds are not a majority in any nation, despite the fact that there are many more Kurds than Palestinians.
The Kurds have suffered far more than the Palestinians, as many as 100,000 of them being gassed by Saddam Hussein while the world stood idly by.

Read the full article

About the author

Laya Millman


  • Much as I agree that the media, UN, European leaders etc. are rather selective about their choice of causes to champion, the line of argument here seems at least childish and at worst downright dangerous. As far as i can tell, it comes to nothing more than ‘other people have it worse than these guys so go care about them.’ But that is just silly as a general line of argument. What’s the conclusion supposed to be? As far as Dershowitz is concerned, it’s something like ‘stop caring about the palestinians coz all y’all are a bunch of fakers and are really anti-semetic’. But the more really should be, I take it, ‘start caring about the Kurds as well (and the tibetans, and the chechens and…) For what it’s worth, lotsof leftists have demonstrated against the tibetan invasion (including all those free tibet concerts). Anyhow, the ‘pay attention to them not to us’ may be a way to diagnose anti-semitism but pointing out nefarious motives does not refute a charge (no matter how spurious you may think the charge is).

  • Much as I find Dershowitz uhm… enigmatic, I think the point can be distilled as follows:

    Certain individuals feel the need to agitate on the Palestinian’s behalf. In doing so they paint the situation of the Palestinians as the most eggregious and pressing human rights issue of our time. They paint the Israelis as the most brutal occupiers ever, liberally using terms like “apartheid” and “nazi” when describing said Israelis.

    Certain facts clearly demonstrate that such is not the case. While the situation of the Palestinians is less than ideal, the extent and parameters of that situation are not nearly as dire as they are often painted to be.

    The question then is, why is there such an imbalanced focus on Israel by those who claim an interest in universal human rights? The answer is that said parties are not really concerned about universal human rights at all. There is clearly another agenda at work here – hatred of America, hatred of Israel and the Jews etc. Thus it is easy to discount their concerns as shrill and not worthy of consideration.

    This does not mean that the Palestinian issue ought not be addressed, it just means that those truly concerned with the plight of the Palestinians ought to perhaps adopt a more balanced and realistic approach.

    OK logic boy?

  • Sure. I just keep hearing an argument similar to D’s (who I too find, well put, enigmatic) where people basically say ‘why pay attention to this cause when there are way worse ones out there’ and it gets used as a way of exculpating themselves/their favoured cause. Imagine someone told you ‘sure, it’s awful that there is a lot of anti-semitism, but as much as the jews suffer occasional terrorism, vandalism of synagogues and tombstones and harsh words in the media, there are real life active attempts at genocide going on. So, what’s really behind your actions isn’t simply a caring for justice, fairness etc. but an unabashed preference for Jewish causes over all others.’ Naturally, I think you’d answer said moron, ‘I have a right to pick my causes and while worse things might be going on to others, this is the group happen to care about’. But, then, I don’t see why the motley crew Dershowitz accuses (Ralph Nader, anti-zionist hard left, the European community etc. etc.) of fetishizing the concerns of the palestinians above the concerns of, say, the Kurds, should be met with a similar response: accuse us of what motives you like but we have a right to champion the causes that we care about.

    This isn’t meant to be merely argumentative. I have a clean conscience with respect to my zionist beliefs and causes. But I really don’t see why anyone should pay arguments like Dershowitz’s, which deep down just seem like whiny rants, any attention.

  • Dershowitz does tend to whine on a bit. But I am allowed to question the motives of anyone I like. As for my motives? Well, I am Jewish. Self-interest, enlightened or otherwise is, you know, reasonable and not enigmatic at all. That being said, I will readily admit that the situation of the Africans in Darfur is far more pressing than any concern I may have about “the Jews.”

    But what of those not directly involved in the Palestinian / Israeli conflict? Their claim is that their motivation is based on some sort of objective moral criteria. That’s clearly a load of crap. When I see bullshit, I call bullshit and that doesn’t make me, or *sigh* even Dershowitz, a whiny little b_. I understand that its a slippery argument to make, but still. Bullshit.

    Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. No take backs!


  • I don’t see why someone can’t be motivated by one thing and still be inline with an objective moral criteria. They could, for instance be doubly motivated. The point is that it’s as cheap for us to refuse to answer what they say coz we call them ‘anti-semites’ as it is for them to ignore what we say coz they jews suck. And like I said, I don’t get it…how much does Dershowitz care about the kurds and their attempt to establish a state and their abandonment at the hands of the US after the first gulf war? I’m guessing he couldn’t care less. But should peple therefore say that he doesn’t care about objective moral values? (well, maybe in dershowitz’s case it would be true, but you get the point)