In the News

noreply@blogger.com (Alan Dershowitz) — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 01:08:00 +0000

Professors John Mearsheimer and Richard Falk Cross a Red Line: As the discourse about Israel on university campuses continues to degenerate, there is growing concern that some of Israel’s most vocal detractors are crossing a red line between acceptable criticism of Israel and legitimizing anti-Semitism. The recent endorsements by several internationally prominent academics – including John Mearsheimer and Richard Falk – of an overtly anti-Semitic book written by a notorious Jew-hater illustrate this dangerous trend.

noreply@blogger.com (Alan Dershowitz) — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 01:22:00 +0000

The Case Against the Goldstone Report: The Goldstone Report, when read in full and in context, is much worse than most of its detractors (and supporters) believe. It is far more accusatory of Israel, far less balanced in its criticism of Hamas, far less honest in its evaluation of the evidence, far less responsible in drawing its conclusion, far more biased against Israeli than Palestinian witnesses, and far more willing to draw adverse inferences of intentionality from Israeli conduct and statements than from comparable Palestinian conduct and statements.

noreply@blogger.com (Alan Dershowitz) — Thu, 20 Dec 2007 20:41:00 +0000

Voices on Anti-Semitism

Download MP3 version.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ:
I sure hope that [Jean-Paul] Sartre was not right that the antisemite makes the Jew. When I was growing up, antisemitism determined where we could work, where we could live, where we could go to school, who we could socialize with. None of that's true today. Antisemitism, its not a central phenomenon in the life of Americans. Whereas, of course, assimilation and other ways of Judaism being endangered from within are increasing problems. I think what we need is positive Judaism. We need young Jews to see the strengths, the positive aspects of Judaism, not only as a religion but as a culture, a civilization, as part of one's way of life. Even though antisemitism is not a function of their own lives.

DANIEL GREENE:
Author, professor, and civil liberties attorney Alan Dershowitz is concerned over what he views as a rising tide of antisemitic speech on American college campuses. Dershowitz calls upon his peers to condemn those who would use such rhetoric to justify hatred of Jews.

Welcome to Voices on Antisemitism, a free podcast series of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. I'm Daniel Greene. Every other week, we invite a guest to reflect about the many ways that antisemitism and hatred influence our world today. Here's Harvard Law School professor, Alan Dershowitz.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ:
I never wanted to write the book The Case for Israel. I wanted to write The Case for Peace, which I eventually did. I had to write The Case for Israel, even though nobody has to write The Case for Canada, or The Case for New Zealand, or The Case for France or [The Case for] England, because the case against Israel was being so prominently featured on American university campuses, and it was based on such ignorance that I had to get the liberal case for Israel out there based on facts. And when I did that it was seen immediately as an enormous threat to the hard left presence on campuses.

If you look at some of the cartoons that are being used against Israel, against Israeli leaders and supporters of Israel, most recently against me, the propaganda effort has changed. And instead of a conversation about Israel and the Palestinians, there is an attempt to dehumanize Israel and to demonize Israel. And Holocaust denial is increasing. Holocaust minimization is increasing. Holocaust comparativization is increasing. And education is critically important. When a Holocaust denier speaks on a college or university campus, I see that as an educational moment, as an opportunity to educate students, and instead of trying to ban the speaker, respond and educate.

It's good to be critical of Israeli policies, just like it's good to be critical of American policies. I'm no less a patriot because I'm critical of the Iraq war or other American policies. And I'm no less a Zionist because I'm critical of many Israeli policies. Even criticism of Zionism is perfectly acceptable intellectually. It's the double standard, the hyper-criticism, the unwillingness to find anything decent in Israel, that begins to blur the lines between criticism of Israel the state, and criticism of Israel, the Jew among the states.

When I speak on college campuses, and I speak on many, I get calls the next day always, almost in a whispered voice: "Thank you for speaking up."

And I ask, "Why don't you speak up?"

"Well, you know, we don't want to be unpopular with students. We don't want to get into controversial areas. We don't want to be politically incorrect."

It's appalling how irresponsible most American academics have been in the face of this well-organized campaign to turn our current generation of college students and our future leaders against Israel and against Jewish interests and values. We have the responsibility to stop it. We have the resources to stop it. We have the ability to stop it. And if we fail to respond to hate speech, it's our fault.

DANIEL GREENE:
Voices on Antisemitism is a free podcast series of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Join us every other week to hear a new perspective on the continuing threat of antisemitism in our world today. To contribute your thoughts to our series, please call 888-70USHMM, or visit our Web site at http://web.archive.org/web/20080130171745/http://www.ushmm.org/. At that site, you can also listen to Voices on Genocide Prevention, a podcast series on contemporary genocide.

noreply@blogger.com (Alan Dershowitz) — Fri, 08 Dec 2006 19:44:00 +0000

(The cartoon in question may be found here.)

Dear Correspondent,

You have written to me claiming an interest in free speech and urging me to make full disclosure of the correspondence between me and the University of California Press and the Board of Regents, including Governor Schwarzenegger. I am certainly interested in the full truth coming out, because I never tried to censor anything that Finkelstein wrote, as you have already seen and will see again. As I repeatedly wrote, "I have no desire to prevent publication of anything, but I do insist that anything published about me be factually correct."

But you may or may not be aware of the fact that Norman Finkelstein is refusing to disclose something far more significant. Finkelstein is currently up for tenure at Depaul University, and several faculty members are interested in determining whether he had anything to do with an offensive cartoon, drawn by a prominent neo-Nazi who was willing to enter his cartoons (and won second prize) in Iran's Holocaust denial cartoon contest. The cartoon -- which showed me masturbating to dead Lebanese civilians -- accompanied a recent Finkelstein article at its first publication site, and it corresponded perfectly with Finkelstein's own language in the article ("moral pervert," "climactic scene," "little peep show"). The DePaul professors are especially concerned because Finkelstein's was identified in the byline of his article as "Professor" Norman Finklestein, as if the article were part of Finkelstein's academic corpus, and he was using the imprimatur of DePaul to add credibility to an article about whether I should be subject to targetted assassination because I am a "war criminal" and a "moral pervert."

When I first pointed out the obscenity of the cartoon and Finkelstein's own words (comparing me several times to Nazis, and offering arguments for my assassination), Finkelstein lashed out at me for being too sensitive, but never denied my claim that he had commissioned the article.

But after several faculty members understandably expressed an interest in whether their university was being associated with neo-Nazism, Holocaust denial, and obscenity, Finkelstein changed his tune. He suddenly retracted his implicit adoption of the cartoon and starting saying that there was no proof that he had commissioned the cartoon. (It reminds me of when he first claimed that I didn't write The Case for Israel, until I released my handwritten manuscripts, at which point he started emphasizing instead the absurd argument that I plagiarized the book.)

It seems clear from the evidence that Finkelstein commissioned, or solicited, the Latuff cartoon. He has not denied it; rather, he has refused to confirm or deny it on the ground that whatever he says will not be believed. Well, the written record speaks for itself -- and clearly there is a written record, because there is no other way that Latuff could have illustrated the precise language of Finkelstein's article without seeing an advance copy of the article prior to its publication. Finkelstein simply could not credibly deny having commissioned the cartoon. We know that (1) Finkelstein's article and the cartoon appeared simultaneously on a website (IndyBay.com) in which authors post their on material, (2) that the article had not appeared anywhere else prior to IndyBay, so that the only way Latuff could have seen the article would have been for Finkelstein to send him an advance copy, (3) that Latuff must have seen an advance copy, because he illustrated precisely what Finkelstein described in his article, and (4) that Finkelstein has a long history of collaborating with Latuff by featuring Latuff's cartoons on Finkelstein's website.

Therefore, I have challenged Finkelstein to answer the following questions:

(1) Did you send the article to Latuff before it was published?

(2) If not, how could Latuff have guessed the precise wording of the article? And how did Latuff's cartoon end up being posted simultaneously and in the same file as your article?

(3) If you had nothing to do with the cartoon, why didn't you say so when I first pointed it out?

(4) What about the dozens of Latuff cartoons that you feature on his website? Do you disapprove of those, now, too?

I now challenge Finkelstein, in the interest of truth, to answer these questions and to produce all of his communications, both written and oral, between him and Latuff. If Finkelstein does so, I will be happy to provide all of my correspondences. If he does not, your attention should be directed primarily toward him, since his is a current matter, and the letters issue with the University Press issues is several years old at this point, and most of the correspondence has already been revealed.

I also challenge Finkelstein to put this entire correspondence on his website, and to explain to all of his followers and sycophants why he is unwilling to let the truth come out with regard to his long and disturbing association with a neo-Nazi cartoonist like Latuff. I am sure that since you claim to be interested in full disclosure and truth you will now demand that Finkelstein make such disclosure about his association with Latuff so that the truth about this matter will finally come out.

Sincerely,

Alan Dershowitz

noreply@blogger.com (Alan Dershowitz) — Mon, 09 Oct 2006 18:34:00 +0000

Reply to the Mearsheimer-Walt "Working Paper"

The Kennedy School of Government has posted my detailed response to the working paper on the Israel lobby by its Academic Dean and Professor Stephen Walt and University of Chicago Professor John Mearsheimer. I believe that my response devastates their paper by proving that it is a recycling of discredited trash that appears daily on neo-Nazi and radical Islamic hate sites.

I demonstrate that quotes are deliberately wrenched out of context to make the writers appear to be saying exactly the opposite of what they actually said; important facts are misstated, distorted and omitted, all against Israel and the American Jewish community; embarrassingly weak logic is used in an effort to demonstrate a conspiratorial view of history in which a small number of American Jews and their compliant Christian dupes act against the interests of their own country and in the interests of Israel. In one of their most bizarre allegations, Walt and Mearsheimer claim that supporters of Israel do "not want an open debate on issues involving Israel." Yet it is they who refuse to debate these issues. Mearsheimer cancelled a scheduled debate with me on the BBC and has repeatedly refused other invitations to debate his demonstrably false contentions. To date Walt has also not been willing to accept my challenge to debate him at the Kennedy School.

In light of the numerous and obvious errors in their paper, and in light of their concession that "none of the evidence represents original documentation or is derived from independent interviews," I ask the question of why these prominent professors would have chosen to publish a paper that does not meet their usual scholarly standards. This is an especially important question given the obvious risk that recycling these discredited but explosive charges under the imprimatur of prominent authors and their universities would be seized on by bigots to promote their anti-Semitic agendas. As so-called "realists" these professors must have understood that their false and discredited charges would be featured, as they have been, on neo-Nazi and extremist websites and even by terrorist organizations.

As an advocate of free speech and an opponent of censorship based on political correctness, I welcome a serious, balanced, objective study of the influences of lobbies -- including Israeli lobbies -- on American foreign policy. I also welcome reasoned, contextual and comparative criticism of Israeli policies and actions. Let the marketplace of ideas remain open to all. But, as I show, this study is so filled with distortions, so empty of originality or new evidence, so tendentious in its tone, so lacking in nuance and balance, so unscholarly in its approach, so riddled with obvious factual errors that could easily have been checked (but obviously were not), and so dependent on biased, extremist and anti-American sources, as to raise the question of motive: what would motivate two well recognized academics to depart so grossly from their usual standards of academic writing and research in order to produce a "study paper" that contributes so little to the existing scholarship while being so susceptible to misuse?

I renew my challenge to debate these issues and will make myself available for debate or discussion of the Mearsheimer-Walt paper and my response. My response is available on the Kennedy School of Government site. You can find a link to the Mearsheimer-Walt paper on the same page.

Sincerely,
Alan Dershowitz

noreply@blogger.com (Alan Dershowitz) — Mon, 21 Aug 2006 18:49:00 +0000

The Most Despicable Things Finkelstein Has Said

…on Elie Wiesel

“Elie Wiesel [is] resident clown of the Holocaust circus.”(Irish Times, “‘I Won’t Lie Down and Take the Insults.’”)

“Elie Wiesel is such a ridiculous character… The expression ‘There’s no business like Shoah-business’ is literally coined for him…He’s turned it into a business, where he casts himself as a person who’s doing all this from anguish and pain and personal sacrifice, while he has made a fortune out of it.” (Victor Frkle, ‘Shoa Business.’ Interview with Norman Finkelstein)

“Elie Wiesel…is such a wimp.” (Norman Finkelstein, “The Holocaust Industry” (March 10, 2004)

“Thanks to Elie Wiesel we have a distorted and disfigured and frankly meaningless version of the Nazi Holocaust and we only know about those genocides that serve the interest of the U.S. and Israel, and we forget the ones that don't.” (Victor Frkle, ‘Shoa Business.’ Interview with Norman Finkelstein)

…on Edgar Bronfman

“Edgar Bronfman is the Jewish Ribbentrop. He is a liquor salesman and then he decides he is going to represent the World Jewry. Where he got the idea to represent the world Jewry. That is really the megalomania of money and power.” ( Norman Finkelstein, interview “The Holocaust Industry” (March 10, 2004)

…on Rabbi Singer

“[Bronfman’s] crooked sidekicks, like Rabbi Singer … belongs in jail. He is a blackmailer, an extortionist. He belongs behind bars.” (Norman Finkelstein, interview, “The Holocaust Industry” (March 10, 2004)

…on Alan Dershowitz

“If [Dershowitz] is [one of the main archetypes of evil in America], then he is a representation of Hannah Arendt's banality of evil. You want to believe that there is something profound in evil. But evil has no depth. Look at Adolf Eichman; he could have been a vacuum salesman. Yes Dershowitz is evil, a vacuum salesman at Harvard.” (Y.M.D. Fremes, “Interview with Professor Norman G. Finkelstein,” Palestine Chronicle, November 24, 2003, http://www.palestinechronicle.com/story.php?sid=20031124204126866)

“One of the world’s greatest charlatans and frauds.” (Catalyst Radio Interview With Dr. Finkelstein.)

“Dershowitz is “constitutionally incapable of saying anything that is true. I think that if a true word actually came out of [Dershowitz], he would probably implode.” (Catalyst Radio Interview With Dr. Finkelstein.)

“[Dershowitz] has come to the point where he’s had so many people write somany of his books. You know, he just churns them out… [I]t’s sort of like a Hallmark line for Nazis… [T]hey churn them out so fast that he has now reached a point where he doesn’t even read them.)” (Norman Finkelstein, New York, Oct. 4, 2003 http://theexperiment.org/articles.php?news_id=1991)

…on the ADL

“[The] Anti-Defamation League. Its main purpose is to defame the character of anyone who criticizes Israel. Its current National Director, or I prefer to say, its grand wizard is Abraham Foxman.”

…on the Simon Wiesenthal Centre

“The Centre is renowned for its ‘Dachau-meets-Disneyland’ museum exhibitions and ‘the successful use of sensationalistic scare tactics for fund-raising.”

The 10 Stupidest Things Finkelstein Has Said

…on a Jewish Conspiracy

“All opinion-leader, from the left to the right, are Jews…The Silence around my book in the US – if this is not a conspiracy, then what is one?” (NRC Handelsblad, August 5, 2000)

“[Some people [who support the thesis of a new anti-Semitism think the musical] Cats is a codeword for K-A-T-Z, Katz.” (Catalyst Radio Interview With Dr. Finkelstein.)

“The name of the character is Ari Ben Canaan because Ari is the diminutive for Aryan. It is the whole admiration for this blond haired, blue eyed type.” (Norman Finkelstein, “The Holocaust Industry,” March 10, 2004)

“Give me a better reason!…Who profits [from the movie]? Basically, there are two beneficiaries from the dogmas [of Schindler’s List]: American Jews and the American administration…” (NRC Handelsblad)

“In 1978, NBC produced the series Holocaust. Do you believe, it was a coincidence, 1978? Just at this time, when peace negotiations between Israel and Egypt took place in Camp David?” (NRC Handelsblad)

…on ‘scholarship’

“[David] Irving …[the notorious Holocaust denier who____] made an ‘indispensable’ contribution to our knowledge of World War II.” (“The Holocaust Industry,” p. 71)

“I don’t know about Judaism, but [Israel Shahak, who wrote that Jews are worshipping Satan] did. He knew it well. He took an interest in it and I have no doubt that what he wrote is accurate.”

“I’m a person of the left, and when you get a call from Professor Chomsky, his wish is your command. (Norman Finkelstein, Vancouver, May 15, 2004)

“Question: [Mr. Finkelstein] If you are a historian, why didn't you write a serious study about the subject? Why didn't you do research yourself? Interview people, etc.? Finkelstein’s response: Why should I interview people?” (Victor Frkle, ‘Shoa Business.’ Interview with Norman Finkelstein)

…on Holocaust survivors

“I am not exaggerating when I say that one out of three Jews you stop in the street in New York will claim to be a survivor.” (Sunday Times of London, June 11, 2000)

"'If everyone who claims to be a survivor actually is one,' my mother used to exclaim, 'who did Hitler kill then?'" (“The Holocaust Industry,” p. 81)

“Finkelstein says…that most 'survivors' are bogus.” (Guardian, Wednesday July 12, 2000)

…On Israel

“[I] can’t imagine why Israel’s apologists would be offended by a comparison with the Gestapo.” (Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, “Canadian Jewish Organizations Charged With Stifling Campus Debate.”)

“Israel’s human rights record is “interchangeable with Iraq’s” when it was ruled by Saddam Hussein.” (Link, “A Reply to Henry Kissinger and Fouad Ajami.”)

…On Terrorism

“[T]he honorable thing now is to show solidarity with Hezbollah as the US and Israel target it for liquidation. Indeed, looking back my chief regret is that I wasn’t even more forceful in publicly defending Hezbollah against terrorist intimidation and attack.” (Norman Finkelstein, “A Reply to Michael Young”)

“Frankly, part of me says…'you know what, we deserve the problem on our hands because some things Bin Laden says are true'. One of the things he said on that last tape was that 'until we live in security, you're not going to live in security', and there is a certain amount of rightness in that.”

The 10 Most Devastating Things People Have Said About Finkelstein

“You don't know who Finkelstein is. He's poison, he's a disgusting self-hating Jew, he's something you find under a rock.” Leon Wieseltier, literary editor of The New Republic, accessible at http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=3&ar=41

“Mr. Finkelstein is full of shit.” Elan Steinberg, executive director of the World Jewish Congress

“Finkelstein’s book is trash.” Peter Novick, who was Finkelstein’s inspiration for writing The Holocaust Industry, Tagesspiegel, Feb 6, 2001

“[C]rackpot ideas, some of them mirrored almost verbatim in the propaganda put out by neo-Nazis around the world.” Gabriel Schoenfeld’s response to critics, “Holocaust Reparations,” Commentary, January 2001, p. 20

“Finkelstein is a Jew…who supports anti-Semitism. He is grist to [Germany’s] extreme right’s mill... [S]eldom has a Jew been more celebrated by brown propaganda than Finkelstein.” Eds. Martin Dietzsch and Alfred Schobert, Ein, jüdischer David Irving?, p. 6

“As concerns particular assertions made by Finkelstein…, the appropriate response is not (exhilarating) “debate” but (tedious) examination of his footnotes. Such an examination reveals that many of those assertions are pure invention… No facts alleged by Finkelstein should be assumed to be really facts, no quotation in his book should be assumed to be accurate, without taking the time to carefully compare his claims with the sources he cites.” Peter Novick, ‘Offene Fenster und Tueren,’ Sueddeutsche Zeitung, February 7, 2001

“[Because of Finkelstein’s The Holocaust Industry] I feel like a kid in a candy store… Finkelstein is a Jewish David Irving.” Ingrid Rimland, wife of neo-Nazi and Holocaust denier Ernst Zuendel, Eds. Martin Dietzsch and Alfred Schobert, Ein, jüdischer David Irving?, p. 11

“This book is, in a word, an ideological fanatic's view…by a writer so reckless and ruthless in his attacks... [His theory is] both irrational and insidious…an international Jewish conspiracy verges on paranoia and would serve anti-Semites.” Omer Bartov, “A Tale of Two Holocausts,” New York Times, August 6, 2000, p. 8

“I had not thought that (apart from the disreputable fringe) there were Germans who would take seriously this twenty-first century updating of the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion." I was mistaken.” Peter Novick, ‘Offene Fenster und Tueren,’Sueddeutsche Zeitung, February 7, 2001

[Finkelstein] combines an old-hat 1960's view of Israel as the outpost of American imperialism with a novel variation on the anti-Semitic forgery, ''The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,'' which warned of a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world…. [A] series of vague, undocumented and contradictory assertions…. There is something sad in this warping of intelligence, and in this perversion of moral indignation. There is also something indecent about it, something juvenile, self-righteous, arrogant and stupid. Omer Bartov, “A Tale of Two Holocausts,” New York Times, August 6, 2000, p. 8

“Finkelstein’s work is, from beginning to end, a tendentious series of inventions. …[T]he examples from his article that are deemed to be the strongest are thoroughly misleading and without merit. Finkelstein’s writing is the sort of transparent political polemic that—had others not cynically propped him up as an expert and a champion of truth—would not even merit a response. This is a man who has made a career of attacking Israel’s legitimacy…. His documented inventions about my book, it is worth noting that Finkelstein has never before written anything on the Holocaust or German history and cannot read German…which means that he cannot read many of the sources on which he is passing his ‘expert’ opinion…. [A] man who has arrived overnight to a scholarly field made up of massive scholarly literature, not to mention all the documents, who, to boot, cannot read most of the sources because they are in German.” Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, A Comment by Daniel Jonah Goldhagen on: A Nation on Trial: The Goldhagen Thesis and Historical Truth” (found at www.goldhagen.com/csiz2.html.)

The 10 Cruelest Things Finkelstein Has Said

…on Elie Wiesel