No Peace, No Process?
Israeli Press Reacts to the Road Map: Bumpy Road Ahead
Israeli Press Reacts to the Prisoner Exchange with Hizbollah
Security FenceBack To The Wall
Woman President in the White House?
Freedom of Speech
9/11Tilting at Windmills
Press on Iraq: Front Line Berlin
Takes On EuropeAgain
European in New York
Lawyers Defending Anti-Semites?
and Competition American Jewry and Israel's Development
Memoriam Yehuda Amichai
Memoriam Hildegard Knef
And the Emperor Still Has No Clothes
World Press on:
Making Headlines in...
L. Cohen agreed to defend indicted Hamas leader Mussa Abu Marzukwho masterminded
the World Trade Center bombing in New York City in 1993precisely because
Cohen is Jewish, almost defiantly. "My decision," says he, "reflects
the Jewish tradition of swimming against the current." Thus the fact that
he took the case, he claims, had to do with his Jewish identity.
lawyers and Jewish organizations do not agree on the question, whether a Jewish
lawyer should defend a suspect thought to have killed Jews or an Anti-Semite.
Jewish lawyers, in particular, are ambivalent about the issue. But the American
jurisprudential tradition of Innocent until proven guilty contributes to
a more liberal treatment of the subject than, for example, in Israel. There the
defense lawyer for Ivan Demjanjuk, Yoram Sheftel, was splashed with acid by a
Holocaust survivor, and Avigdor Feldmann, a controversial lawyer who represents
members of the militant Jewish underground as well as Palestinian defendants,
is publicly condemned.
"I can't understand how an American Jewish
lawyer could defend monsters like terrorists," says Aaron Broder, a lawyer
in Manhattan. "A lawyer must stand behind his case with his whole heart;
he must be convinced that his client is innocent. I despise anyone who behaves
otherwise in fact, it's an insult to the Jewish community and lacks any
ethics or morality. Besides, there are enough good Arab defense lawyers who could
take the case."
Is Very Tolerant"
Dershowitz, who was the consultant to the defense team at the O.J. Simpson trial
and a professor at Harvard Law School, represents anyone even terrorists
"who I am convinced did the deed in the distant past; that is, if
it is not a crime that is ongoing. Whether I represent someone has absolutely
nothing to do with my Jewishness I would not give any Anti-Semites, terrorists
or former Nazis, the satisfaction of putting pressure on me in that respect. They
can't keep me from representing anyone I want to represent."
February 1995, Avi Moskovitz, an orthodox lawyer from New York, took on the defense
of Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, defendant in the World Trade Center bombing trial in New
York. "I had no professional doubt about taking the case," he says.
"But I was asked by the judge not to take it. He was concerned that the prosecution
could use the fact that I am a Jew to their benefit. Morally it was not that easy
for me to take on the defense, but I have only one serious reservation that could
keep me from taking a case: if I am not convinced that I could give the client
the best possible defense. That's all that matters to me. I have to completely
put aside my own political and moral convictions and my emotions. America is very
tolerant in this respect."
That each lawyer must decide whom he
or she is willing and able to defend is a given. But what about public defenders
made available by the State? The US Federal Attorney's Office in New York
assigns its lawyers to specific cases. But, said a spokesperson, "if a Jewish
lawyer had a problem with that, another lawyer would simply be assigned to the
case." However, there do not seem to be many such cases. Pat Bath, PR advisor
to the Legal Aid Society in New York adds, "we have many Jewish lawyers
working with us. I've never heard of one of them ever having a moral conflict
of this sort and refusing to take on a defense for that reason. And if there were
problems with it, we would simply assign another lawyer. No problem."
Most Jewish organizations remain silent on the issue. Phillis Ilie of the
United Jewish Agency refuses to comment on possible moral conflicts for Jewish
lawyers. "I have nothing to say. We are a non-political organization."
So why don't Jewish organizations have anything to say, let alone bestow criticism,
and even seem inhibited on this subject? "The Jewish community believes public
criticism is untenable. They think there is no point criticizing each other,"
says Marc Stern, a lawyer at the Commission for Law and Social Action of the American
Jewish Congress. "Very few attacked Stanley Cohen and his decision publicly.
It's very difficult to bring pressure to bear within the Jewish community."
Don't Like to Criticize Colleagues
head most of the Jewish organizations. And lawyers don't like to criticize colleagues,"
claims David Pollock, Associate Executive Director of the Jewish Community
Relations Council in New York. "Every lawyer has to set his own limits,
but the Jewish community would never take a position. I'm not happy either that
a Jewish lawyer would represent a terrorist, and I admit that Jewish organizations
have a difficult moral dilemma in this respect." Especially because they
have to justify themselves to the Israelis.
Avi Moskovitz, who was initially
to defend Ramzi Ahmed Yousef in the World Trade Center bombing, recalls that he
was attacked not by Jews for his decision, but by "the lunatic right wing"
in the US. "My brother lives in Israel and is more right-wing. But when I
told him I had agreed to defend a fundamentalist terrorist, he said I shouldn't
think twice about it. If you think you can do it go for it,' my brother
encouraged me. Of the Jewish community here, no one had the guts to attack me
"American lawyers are more liberal towards suspected
terrorists," believes Aaron Broder. "We are too far away from the acts
of terrorism. The Israelis look at it very differently. On the other hand, if
a Jewish lawyer here would represent an accused Nazi, there would probably be
a public outcry." But he quickly adds, "there also has to be sharp public
criticism of lawyers who defend terrorists. It's wrong to simply ignore it. It's
disgraceful to keep silent."
Marc Stern addresses another aspect
of the issue. "If Jews want to be treated just like Goyim, they can't on
the other hand think they have a claim to special rights." Aaron Broder disagrees
emphatically: "If Jewish lawyers want to be treated just like non-Jews, they
have to prove that they stand by their convictions. Anyone who wants the respect
of Christian colleagues must first have self-respect."
Represent Nice People"
American judicial system is proud of its tradition, in which everyone has the
right to a good defense. Here it is not "innocent" versus "guilty",
but "guilty" versus "not-guilty". This means the defendant
doesn't have to prove his innocence; the prosecution must prove beyond any doubt
that the defendant is clearly guilty. An international terrorist accused of rape
need only defend against this charge, not other acts Marzuk was first accused
of immigration fraud not terrorism. Whether he's also a terrorist is another
"It's not at all immoral to defend a terrorist. In our legal
system, a good lawyer even has a duty to take on the defense," believes Harold
Ostroff, chairman of the Jewish newspaper Forward in New York. "Even
accused Nazis are innocent until they're found guilty and have the right to a
defense. Even an accused terrorist can be innocent. But I sympathize with the
However, Alan Dershowitz has little sympathy
for Israelis who would attack him for defending a terrorist. "I would tell
them that every murderer is a killer, terrorists are no exception. Defending them
is the job of a criminal defense lawyer. We rarely represent nice people."
Articles in English > Defending