- One thing mediator Amy Goodman did wrong during the debate
on Democracy Now! between Norman Finkelstein and Alan Dershowitz, where
the former accused the latter of plagiarizing his latest book, The Case
for Israel, is when she told her guests how much time was remaining in
the show, noting the 10, 6, 5, 4 and 1 minute marks as the show ended.
The reason: because doing so only sparked Dershowitz to ramble on at an
even slower pace, talk about issues not relevant to the discussion, and
interrupt both Goodman and Finkelstein in order to end the interview and
bail him out of what will surely be the Harvard professor,s most embarrassing
and utterly pathetic performance yet.
-
- But even more shocking than the professor's attempts
to conclude the program and save him from the much deserved misery that
Norman Finkelstein was putting him through was that when Finkelstein pointed
out the fact that Dershowitz used the numbers 2,000-3,000 when quoting
a source that stated 200,000-300,000, Dershowitz argued that the book must
have had a 'typo.' Interesting considering that the book somehow lies in
the top 20 on the NY Times Bestseller list, Dershowitz himself 'proudly
wrote the book', and no one ever brought to his attention that the book
used a median number of 2,500 when it should have been 250,000.
-
- This is just one question and one example of a long list
of subjects that Dershowitz must be forced to answer to a superior. Might
I second Alexander Cockburn's nomination of Harvard President Lawrence
Sumners?
-
- Dershowitz claims that the 2,000-3,000 number must have
been a typo because the issue the number referred to was the amount of
Palestinian refugees that left there homes at the request of certain Arab
leaders so the Arab armies could attack the remaining Jewish population;
an important claim for people like Dershowitz who defend Israel because
it is supposed to prove that the Jews did not create the refugee problem.
-
- So, Dershowitz makes the point that the number must be
a typo or refers to a different phase of refuges leaving because reducing
the number only weakens his argument. Amazing that someone who writes a
book has no idea why a particular passage has the wrong piece of information.
"Why would I underestimate the number when it is actually overestimating
the number that helps my case?", he asks.
-
- Why, indeed. Either Dershowitz is so foolish that he
used the smaller number thinking for some reason it would help his argument
or he needs to hire new editors and fact checkers. Whatever it was, we
never receive an answer from him during the show and I highly doubt one
is coming anytime soon. I also doubt the PLO is getting their $10,000 Dershowitz
promised if anyone proved a fact in his book to be false since he thinks
the error was a typo and not an intentional error. Finkelstein prefers
to call a spade a spade.
-
- But it shouldn't have to be that hard for Finkelstein
or anyone else who is trying to defame Dershowitz from doing so because
Dershowitz in his own words during the debate fully admits to plagiarism
when he claims "one scholar is entitled to read a book as I did, Peters'
book and to find quotes in the book and check them against the original
quotes. And find them to be accurate and then do what I did."
-
- If this is in fact what he did, he has committed plagiarism.
He is openly admitting that he read Peter's book, found the quote, checked
it against the original and then sourced the original work as if he found
it there himself. His source for the Twain quote wasn't Twain, it was Peter's
and he says it himself!
-
- However, his only defense to this is asking Finkelstein
if the quote is real because if the quote is not real, and only if it is
not real, then there exists a 'serious' charge. But if he simply found
a quote in someone's book and acted as if he found the quote in the original
source himself, then there is no charge. Imagine if one of Dershowitz's
students, or any self-respecting teacher's student, made this claim. How
long before the student is suspended, expelled or given a failing grade
in the class? How long before Dershowitz loses his job?
-
- As the debate concludes, Goodman tries hard to add content
to a debate that was beginning to consist of two men yelling over one another.
After cutting both microphones, Goodman asks Finkelstein for another piece
of evidence of how the book is a forgery.
-
- Finkelstein is up to the task when he brings out the
issue of torture, which Dershowitz claims that Israel no longer practices.
Finkelstein then reads a quote from B'Tselem, a leading Israeli human rights
group that states that while the Israeli government prohibits torture,
the practice is still used.
-
- Dershowitz of course discredits B'Tselem accusing them
of lying even though he later says he would be a member of the group if
he lived in Israel. (Why someone would be a member of a group they think
deliberately lies is beyond me).
-
- But what is even more shocking is that Dershowitz slips
again and says in his own words when referring to an Atlantic Monthly article
about torture, "It describes what the United States is doing and it
says that Israel used to do that, some possibility it continues to do it."
-
- For a second time during the debate Dershowitz openly
admits to falsifying a fact in his book. He refers to an Atlantic Monthly
article as a credible source of information and then claims that that source
admits there is a possibility that Israel still employs torture. So if
there is reason to believe the Atlantic, why not B'Tselem?
-
- And why not believe Human Rights Watch? With only a couple
of minutes left in the debate Finkelstein is able to bring up one more
piece of forgery in Dershowitz's book regarding his claim that not one
civilian in Jenin was deliberately killed by Israeli Defense Forces.
-
- Finkelstein reads the case of Kamal Zgheir, a man reported
by HRW to have been crushed to death by an IDF tank when he was clearly
in the view of the tank. When asked if HRW is lying, Dershowitz does not
say yes like he does in the case of B'Tselem. He says no civilians were
deliberately killed but then cannot say that HRW is lying even though he
also says he researched that specific case.
-
- The only reason I can think of as to why Dershowitz is
so confused with this example is because he actually said that no civilian
was 'deliberately shot.' He never said anything about being deliberately
run over by a bulldozer. A distinction that Dershowitz is probably able
to make.
-
- But this last comment was an ad hominem by me and for
anyone familiar with this case, that's the last thing we want. What we
want are answers to the many questions that Alan Dershowitz must be held
accountable to explain. Answers for the many issues that undoubtedly support
the allegation that Alan Dershowitz did in fact write a fraudulent book
and that The Case for Israel is a hoax, much like the book he plagiarized
to write it. In closing, this article would not be complete without taking
a parting shot at one Daniel Pipes and his website campus-watch.org, a
group that "reviews and critiques Middle East studies in North America
with an aim to improving them."
-
- Not surprisingly, Pipes makesno mention of this case
on his website when at the same time he never
-
- hesitates to mention the names of pro-Arab professors
who he disagrees with. Either he has never heard of the Dershowitz/Finkelstein
saga, or is trying to stay as far away from it as possible. My guess is
the latter. But can you imagine the uproar from people like Pipes, the
NY Post and Fox News, if Alan Dershowitz's name was Mohammed and the book
was called 'The Case for Palestine?'
|
