SAN DIEGO – Famed trial attorney Alan Dershowitz said Monday in a telephone interview with San Diego Jewish World that he hoped Secretary of State-designate Anthony Blinken would ignore any advice about Iran from former Secretary of State John Kerry “who signed the original agreement and the original agreement was a disaster for Israel.”
Kerry, meanwhile, was designated by President-elect Joe Biden to lead U.S. efforts to combat climate change.
In the interview, Dershowitz also expressed hope that Israelis would welcome convicted spy Jonathan Pollard to their country for “humanitarian reasons,” but not to celebrate his completion of parole and his ability to travel from the United States to Israel as a simcha. Dershowitz, who was on Pollard’s defense team, said Israelis shouldn’t throw [the welcoming of the convicted spy] “in the face of America.”
The interview conducted early Monday afternoon came before the announcement that General Service Administrator Emily Murphy wrote a letter to Biden saying she formally had approved the initiation by the U.S. government of transition procedures from the Trump administration to the Biden administration. Although some lawsuits were still pending, Trump’s legal team had lost a major legal decision in Pennsylvania, and Michigan authorities certified him as the winner of the presidential election in their states.
Following is a transcript of the interview.
Q. I have three topics I’d like to talk about: the U.S. election; Israel-U.S relations; and Jonathan Pollard.
A. Why don’t we start with Jonathan Pollard because he is in the news. I’ve been involved in the Jonathan Pollard case since the very beginning. I was on his legal team. I tried very hard to get the government to enforce its plea bargain; the government promised him that they would not seek life imprisonment if he cooperated and pleaded guilty and then on pressure from then Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger they broke their deal and made in effect, asked for life imprisonment and the judge gave them life imprisonment in violation of the plea bargain. And I objected to that. And then, I was going to be at the argument in front of the three judges [of the District of Columbia circuit], who included Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was then on the circuit court , but the argument was scheduled for the second day of Rosh Hashanah, and the judges including Ginsberg would not postpone the argument for one day. And so, I could not be at the argument and the decision went 2-1 against Pollard. The two Jewish judges [Ginsburg and Laurence Silberman] voted against him and the only non-Jewish judge, Judge [Stephen F.] Williams, voted in his favor saying that it was unlawful and so I’ve been fighting for his freedom ever since. I worked very hard to get President Clinton to commute the sentence. He came very close and then George Tenet, the head of the CIA, threatened to quit if he commuted the sentence and so Pollard served his complete 30-year sentence which is what life imprisonment is under the parole guidelines, and then his full parole which was five years, and now finally he is free. It wasn’t a political decision for him; it was a humanitarian decision, and you know, justice delayed, justice denied, but it is better than what it was previously, so I hope he will be able to finish out his life in Israel with his wife. That’s their goal and I hope they will be able to achieve it.
Q. Olmert said to Netanyahu don’t make a fuss over Pollard; that it would upset us Americans if people celebrated his arrival in Israel.
A. I think people can celebrate his humanitarian arrival in Israel. They can celebrate the fact that here is a man who is finally allowed out of prison after too long, but they shouldn’t make it into a political issue and they shouldn’t throw it in the face of America. It is still a source of conflict so I think Olmert may have a point, but I don’t know what the Hebrew translation is for ‘celebrate’ but I would say welcome him to Israel without making him any kind of a hero.
Q. A simcha?
A. I don’t think you want to make a simcha out of it; you just want to make it a welcome home. You know, he’s back, he’s in Israel, he can live out his life there. People can treat him as they choose. Olmert can treat him one way; Netanyahu can treat him another way. I can tell you that Netanyahu has worked very hard to secure his release over the past many, many years.
Q. U.S-Israel relations in the coming administration.
A. I think the good news is that it looks like Biden is going to appoint Tony Blinken. His stepfather was a [Holocaust} Survivor with whom I worked very closely; I know his mother; she is a wonderful woman. He has views different from mine on Israel. His views are probably closer to Obama’s than they are to Trump’s. I think he has a place for Israel in his heart and he will want to maintain bipartisan support for Israel in this administration. I don’t know the new representative to the United Nations [Linda Thomas-Greenfield]. I don’t know much about her so I can’t comment. I’ve known Joe Biden for many years and he has been a supporter of Israel over the years. We disagreed about issues like the Iran deal and others but in general he has been supportive of Israel, so I am looking forward to continued bipartisan support for Israel. But Number Two, Biden is not Bernie Sanders; he is not Liz Warren; he’s not AOC {Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez), so I think we will see support for Israel. We will probably see a little more pressure on Israel to end settlements. I hope we will see Biden continue Trump’s legacy of trying to get some of the Sunni states, particularly the Gulf States, to normalize relations with Israel – that would be a very positive development for America, for Israel, and world peace.
Q. You noticed the report that Netanyahu may have flown to Saudi Arabia and back for a meeting with the Crown Prince?
A. I’ve seen the report and I’ve seen the denial. Until I talk to Bibi, if he chooses to tell me, I won’t know until it’s confirmed. It would be a good thing if it actually happened.
Q. In terms of Iran, do you anticipate that the Biden administration will want to return to the Joint Comprehensive [Plan of Action] agreement [JCPOA]?
A. I think they will want to return to a joint comprehensive agreement, but I hope it won’t be the same one. When Hillary Clinton was running I asked her that question, and she said she would hope to revise the agreement and I hope that Biden and Blinken revise the agreement. I hope that they don’t confer with John Kerry on that because John Kerry was the one who signed the original agreement and the original agreement was a disaster for Israel because it provided for an early sunset provision which was a green light to Iran to begin to develop nuclear weapons fairly soon. So I hope that there are … changes in the agreement, maybe more. Number one, that there be no sunset provision, that it goes on and on, and number two, that there are real inspections, not the kind of inspections we have now. Number three, that it also includes not developing a capacity to deliver nuclear weapons through rockets, drones and other forms of delivery systems that are designed for nuclear weapons.
Q. One of the big criticisms from critics of the Iran deal was that all that money given to Iran was used to create problems throughout the Middle East.
A. That is 100 percent right. You can’t take the money back. That was part of the written deal, the written agreement. That was yesterday’s news. I hope there won’t be any additional funds given because giving money to terrorists is against the law. It’s against policy. It’s against humanitarian interests. It is just wrong. I think the Obama administration made a serious mistake giving Iran access to unrestricted funds sent over by an airplane in cash – money that could be easily doled out to terrorists. It was a terrible mistake. It was one of the worst parts of the decision in modern history.
Q. If they don’t give any more cash to Iran, what does it actually mean if the U.S. rejoins the JCPOA. What does the U.S. do or doesn’t do, if it stays in or gets out?
A. Well, it makes Iran comply, and today they don’t feel they have to comply. Number two, if they are caught violating the agreement and military action has to be taken to stop them from developing a nuclear arsenal, the hope is that the United States will join Israel, maybe as well some of the Gulf States in taking whatever action is necessary to prevent Iran from becoming a country with a nuclear arsenal. Look, Israel is not going to allow Iran to develop a nuclear arsenal, whatever it takes to stop it, because they understand if Iran has a nuclear arsenal, it is an existential threat to its (Israel’s) very existence. So the question is, “Can it be prevented by non-military means and if it can’t, then it will be prevented by military.”
Q. So, in terms then of our own domestic election, what do you think?
A: I think that the Trump team has some good legal arguments on its side, particularly in Pennsylvania, but I don’t think they have the numbers to support their legal argument. In other words, in order to win they not only have to have the law on their side, they need to be able to show that the number of disputed ballots that exceeds the margin of victory [by which Biden won.] Right now the number of challenged ballots – I haven’t seen the number – but they don’t seem to match that margin of victory. So what the Trump team might experience is a pyrrhic victory, just a theoretical victory, but without any real impact on the outcome of the election. So, in order to win, you need a perfect storm: you need the judiciary to support you on the law; you need the numbers, the recount to support you, and then you need the secretaries of state, or governors, or state legislatures to refuse to certify a questionable result, and I think that perfect storm is very unlikely to occur.
Q. As a celebrated trial attorney, do you have any opinion on how the Trump team has thus far conducted itself?
A. First of all, I don’t criticize lawyers for being aggressive and for trying to preserve every legal remedy and pursue every last recourse. I think every lawyer should not be condemned for doing their job as lawyers. You know every lawyer has their opinion about how they would have done it and how they should have done it. I do think that the evidence should be produced. I also think, in fact I feel very strongly, that the Trump administration ought to be cooperating right now with the Biden transition team, particularly on the coronavirus and on national security issues. That is important to all the American people and he doesn’t have to concede, he doesn’t have to end his challenges; all he has to do is say to his administration “let’s cooperate. In the event that Biden becomes President, let’s make sure that he is up to speed on all these issues that are important to the American people. “ That is what I think he should do.
Q. Do you think he will?
A. I don’t think it will be tomorrow, but I think he will.
Q. It seems like he is absolutely dead set against that idea.
A. He believes, he absolutely believes, that the election has been stolen from him. Whether he is right or wrong, that’s what he believes so I understand him not conceding, but that shouldn’t interfere with cooperation between his administration and the Biden transition team on issues of national security or COVID. That would be a good thing for everybody if that were to happen.
Q. Are you going to have any role at all in this; have you been approached by the President?
a. No, I just go on television and speak to people like you and express my opinion, and if he wants to listen, he can listen and if the other side wants to listen, they can listen, but I’m not playing any formal legal role. I “gave at the office.” I made my contribution to the Trump administration by defending the Presidency and the Constitution on the floor of the Senate during the unconstitutional effort by Democrats in the House to impeach him, which I still believe was unconstitutional and that was the argument I made.
Q. What is next for Alan Dershowitz?
A. Well, I am fighting against false [defamation of character] charges made by a woman [Virginia Giuffre] I never met and never heard of, and wrote a book about it called Guilt by Accusation where I prove conclusively in her own words, from her own email, that in the words of lawyers and best friends, that she never met me. So I am fighting that fight. I have a Podcast now called the Der Show – the only thing that is missing from that is the witz—and that [wits, eg} is provided by my audience. We have about 10,000 viewers and subscribers who listen to me every day to express my views as I am expressing them to you. I continue to write and do half of my cases pro bono; I am representing Jews in trouble all over the world in prisons in different places. I’ve helped get a number of Jews released in Ethiopia and other places. I am working on a case now in Poland and a few other places. I keep busy. I’m 82 years old. I’m entitled to retire, but I am not going to.
*
Donald H. Harrison is editor of San Diego Jewish World. He may be contacted via donald.harrison@sdjewishworld.com