Norman Finkelstein

[Paranormal Inquirer]

“Why should these Palestinians, who have lived in Jerusalem for hundreds of years, be evicted from their homes so that Jews from Brooklyn can live in them?” - Norman Finkelstein

WTF? Really? This guy is supposedly an intellectual?

[pipelineaudio]

I don't think he's supposed to be an intellectual. I thought he was seen as a mentally challenged guy being goaded by amy goodman to slander a lawyer on the air. There were some threads on here about that. He seemed like a nice guy but the host was manipulating him into some really horrid stuff

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc...5ndIcgVc_A3awg

[Paranormal Inquirer]

I don't know. It doesn't seem like Amy Goodman had much to do with it, really.

[Beerina]

Come on! You made this name up!

[Paranormal Inquirer]

I swears I didn'ts!

[dudalb]

FInklestein's mentor is Noam Chomsky. That's all you need to know.

[Virus]

Like his mentor he called the USA the world's largest terrorist and in a fit of self-flagellation said that America deserved 9/11;

Quote:

"Regrettably, it’s payback time for the Americans and they have a problem because all the other enemies since the end of World War Two that they pretended to contend with . . . were basically fabricated enemies. . . . 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 [Muslims and Arabs] live in security, you’re not going to live in security,’ and there is a certain amount of rightness in that. Why should Americans go on with their lives as normal, worrying about calories and hair loss, while other people are worrying about where they are going to get their next piece of bread? Why should we go on merrily with our lives while so much of the world is suffering, and suffering incidentally not with us merely as bystanders, but with us as the indirect and direct perpetrators."

Because he can't tell the difference between real and imaginary terrorists, it's no surprise that he supports terrorists like Hezbollah, who he referred to as "The honor of Lebanon" and said "And I have no problem saying that I do want to express solidarity with them."

It's a good thing people like him are self-relegated to the fringes and are therefore irrelevant to political decision making.

[Grizzly Adams]

Originally Posted by Paranormal Inquirer

these Palestinians, who have lived in Jerusalem for hundreds of years

I'd be very interested in meeting a Palestinian who has lived in Jerusalem for hundreds of years.

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams

I'd be very interested in meeting a Palestinian who has lived in Jerusalem for hundreds of years.

nominated for being the most pathetic strawman ever.

[Newtons Bit]

Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams

I'd be very interested in meeting a Palestinian who has lived in Jerusalem for hundreds of years.

Damnit, that was going to be my smart-ass comment

[Piscivore]

Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams

I'd be very interested in meeting a Palestinian who has lived in Jerusalem for hundreds of years.

No, you wouldn't. He spends most of his time sitting outside his hut, shaking his fist and telling Israeli children to get off his West bank.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams

I'd be very interested in meeting a Palestinian who has lived in Jerusalem for hundreds of years.

Ironically, the only Palestinian who's lived for hundreds of years is in fact the Wandering Jew.

[Thunder]

there were hundreds of thousands of Arab Muslims and Christians in Palestine, in 1918.

[HawksFan]

Originally Posted by Thunder

there were hundreds of thousands of Arab Muslims and Christians in Palestine, in 1918.

Ooooh, yeah! Wahabstock! Man, that was a party!

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by Paranormal Inquirer

“Why should these Palestinians, who have lived in Jerusalem for hundreds of years, be evicted from their homes so that Jews from Brooklyn can live in them?” - Norman Finkelstein

WTF? Really? This guy is supposedly an intellectual?

What do you dispute about what he said?

[ddt]

Originally Posted by pipelineaudio

I don't think he's supposed to be an intellectual. I thought he was seen as a mentally challenged guy being goaded by amy goodman to slander a lawyer on the air. There were some threads on here about that. He seemed like a nice guy but the host was manipulating him into some really horrid stuff

The lawyer in question is Alan Dershowitz. He was formerly known as a liberal, but recently more known for his advocacy of the use of torture and his advocacy of Israel, in particular through his book "The case for Israel".

Norman Finkelstein's PhD thesis was about Joan Peters' book "From Time Immemorial", which basically defended the myth that Palestine was a "country without people for a people without a country". Finkelstein researched the sources she used, analyzed how she misused them and overstated to the point of lying the amount of immigration into Palestine in the 50 years preceding the founding of Israel. For another extensive review of the book, see here. BTW, Joan Peters has no academic credentials nor has she written any other books.

When Dershowitz wrote his book "The case for Israel", Finkelstein noted that he quoted Peters, or rather, that he copied verbatim quotes that Peters had misquoted from other sources. He went on to analyze Dershowitz' book and wrote an equally scathing critique of it.

Since then, Dershowitz seems to have made it a mission to try to destroy Finkelstein. In particular, Dershowitz lobbied with Finkelstein's employer to not give him tenure two years ago.

Originally Posted by Paranormal Inquirer

“Why should these Palestinians, who have lived in Jerusalem for hundreds of years, be evicted from their homes so that Jews from Brooklyn can live in them?” - Norman Finkelstein

WTF? Really? This guy is supposedly an intellectual?

IIRC, the remark was quite to the point. An Arab neighborhood in Jerusalem was to make place for a Jewish neighborhood with expensive units, and the developer of the neighborhood indeed targeted his advertising at American Jews.

But I note that with giving only the quote, without context nor its origin, you've made it quite an effort to appropriately respond, and it seems rather that the only object of the OP is to smear Finkelstein rather than have a reasoned discussion.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

What do you dispute about what he said?

Possibly his assertion that Jews from Brooklyn are moving to the Holy Land to displace Arabs. I don't think he has kept up on current events.

For example, in the 80's a lot of the settlers on the West Bank were from places like Russia, not Brooklyn.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by ddt

When Dershowitz wrote his book "The case for Israel", Finkelstein noted that he quoted Peters, or rather, that he copied verbatim quotes that Peters had misquoted from other sources. He went on to analyze Dershowitz' book and wrote an equally scathing critique of it.

Since then, Dershowitz seems to have made it a mission to try to destroy Finkelstein. In particular, Dershowitz lobbied with Finkelstein's employer to not give him tenure two years ago.

Those events highlight the corrupt nature of an authentic political correctness. Finkelstein was granted tenure by his department, which the President of the university vetoed. A smart, principled academic basically got ****-canned. Meanwhile, what happened to Dershowtiz for demonstrable academic fraud? Nothing. He kept his highly paid, tenured position at the most renowned university in the world.

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by ddt

The lawyer in question is Alan Dershowitz. He was formerly known as a liberal, but recently more known for his advocacy of the use of torture and his advocacy of Israel, in particular through his book "The case for Israel".

Norman Finkelstein's PhD thesis was about Joan Peters' book "From Time Immemorial", which basically defended the myth that Palestine was a "country without people for a people without a country". Finkelstein researched the sources she used, analyzed how she misused them and overstated to the point of lying the amount of immigration into Palestine in the 50 years preceding the founding of Israel. For another extensive review of the book, see here. BTW, Joan Peters has no academic credentials nor has she written any other books.

I think there is something wrong with an academic system that allows a book review as a doctoral thesis, but essentially his criticism of her book is that she overstates the strength of her evidence, not that she's actually wrong in her conclusions.

Originally Posted by ddt

When Dershowitz wrote his book "The case for Israel", Finkelstein noted that he quoted Peters, or rather, that he copied verbatim quotes that Peters had misquoted from other sources. He went on to analyze Dershowitz' book and wrote an equally scathing critique of it.

He copied Mark Twain's quote and Finkelstein caught him on it. Mark Twain visited the Holy Land in the late 19th century and described it as being desolate and sparsely populated.

Finkelstein made a big deal of it and called it "plagiarism", but the thing is the quote wasn't wrong, Twain really did visit the Holy Land and that's how he described it.

Finkelstein then rather dishonestly goes on to claim that because Dershowitz copied Peters that Dershowitz's book is just as weak as Peters, but the only thing he copies was absolutely correct and so that logic doesn't work.

[Thunder]

maybe we should boycott Finkelstein.

hell, maybe we should boycott any teacher who dares to challenge the right-wing Israeli thought process.

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by Thunder

maybe we should boycott Finkelstein.

hell, maybe we should boycott any teacher who dares to challenge the right-wing Israeli thought process.

My goodness, the things you could do with all that straw other than spread it around the forums.

[a_unique_person]

Originally Posted by Darth Rotor

Possibly his assertion that Jews from Brooklyn are moving to the Holy Land to displace Arabs. I don't think he has kept up on current events.

For example, in the 80's a lot of the settlers on the West Bank were from places like Russia, not Brooklyn.

From what I have read, DDT is correct. He was referring to Jerusalem.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition...sell-up-1.2664

Quote:

In addition to the 800,000 residents for whom Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat is responsible, there are also tens of thousands of city residents who are virtually invisible for much of the year. They don't shop at neighborhood kiosks, occupy parking spots or send their children to nursery school, yet they affect life in the capital as much as the rest of the inhabitants, perhaps even more so.
They are the so-called "ghost residents" - Jews from abroad, mostly from the United States and France, who have acquired thousands of apartments across the city, homes that remain empty for most of the year, apart from the holidays. Barkat recently wrote a letter to these holiday residents, asking them to spend more time at their Jerusalem properties in an effort to help stem the city's decline.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

I think there is something wrong with an academic system that allows a book review as a doctoral thesis, but essentially his criticism of her book is that she overstates the strength of her evidence, not that she's actually wrong in her conclusions.

How can you know when the book is built on false premises? Has anyone done a properly scholarly study to the same? You are also aware that the US is the only country in the world where it received praise - that it was torn to shreds in, e.g., the London Review of Books, the British Observer, and that it was ridiculed in the Israeli press even before there was a Hebrew translation?

And I would call Finkelstein's work a bit more than a review. He systematically analyzed the book and checked all its sources. A lot more work than the review of Paul Blair I linked to, and that one is very extensive.

Originally Posted by Mycroft

He copied Mark Twain's quote and Finkelstein caught him on it. Mark Twain visited the Holy Land in the late 19th century and described it as being desolate and sparsely populated.

Not one Mark Twain quotes but multiple quotes. See, e.g., this Counterpunch article with a list. Note that there's one quote in there which contain ellipsis which turn out to span 12 pages. There's another quote - don't remember if it's Twain - where the ellipsis span more than 200 pages. That's not quoting, that's more akin to piecing a ransom note out of letters clipped from magazine headings.

Originally Posted by Mycroft

Finkelstein made a big deal of it and called it "plagiarism", but the thing is the quote wasn't wrong, Twain really did visit the Holy Land and that's how he described it.

Finkelstein then rather dishonestly goes on to claim that because Dershowitz copied Peters that Dershowitz's book is just as weak as Peters, but the only thing he copies was absolutely correct and so that logic doesn't work.

Dershowitz relied heavily on quotes he borrowed from Peters. Like one per page. Then, yes, his book relies on those quotes. Peters' book dates from 1984, and was at last torn to shreds in the US press in 1986. Dershowitz' book dates from 2003. He should have been aware that Peters' book is a fraud, and nevertheless, he used them without checking beforehand. It's clear he copied them without checking, or else he wouldn't have exactly the same quotes with the same errors, small and big.

The plagiarism charge of Finkelstein is about the attribution, and he may have overstated his case there - I haven't studied the Chicago Manual of style, My gut feeling as a non-humanities scholar would be that the proper attribution would be "Twain as quoted in Peters", that, however, that would be ludicrous with a readily available source as Twain.

But by perpetrating these - essentially - warped Peters quotes, Dershowitz did commit fraud. And to add my own words: Dershowitz is a willful liar.

Sorry, Mycroft, defending Peters and Dershowitz is beneath you, you can do better.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by a_unique_person

From what I have read, DDT is correct. He was referring to Jerusalem.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition...sell-up-1.2664

Thanks, AUP. I did some googling and found a concrete case: Nof Zion is a Jewish neighborhood established amidst Arab neighborhoods and marketed to American Jews.

The New Standard:

Quote:

But Nof Zion, due to open in 2007, is not your average suburb. Built amid 10,000 Palestinian residents of the East Jerusalem village Jabel Mukhaber, the 395 new housing units of Nof Zion will comprise a Jewish settlement in the heart of the area that every internationally recognized peace plan considers the future capital of a Palestinian state.

and

Quote:

a realtor selling Nof Zion units in the US said they are going mostly to Americans who do not yet live in Israel, including many who may never make Jerusalem their primary place of residence.

The New York Observer:

Quote:

Nof Zion, a neighborhood of high-end condos geared to American Jewish buyers,

and

Quote:

What the promotional material doesn’t mention is that Nof Zion – which translates to "Zion View" in English -- is located in the bosom of Jabel Muqaber, an Arab neighborhood in a section of Jerusalem claimed by Palestinians as the capital of their state-to-be.

Monitoring Israeli Colonization Activities:

Quote:

and have been purchased in about equal numbers by Israelis and Diaspora Jews, in particular Americans.

An American-based realtor advertising the apartments.

Those links are from 2005 mainly. There will undoubtedly be more cases. And the OP hasn't yet come back to explain this quote. Has he run from his own thread? Googling the thread reveals only this thread and a MySpace page purportedly of Norman Finkelstein. I doubt that MySpace page is set up by Finkelstein himself. Why would he set up a page in a medium geared at immature teenagers, when he has his own website which is kept up to date? I can only conclude that the OP is even more sloppy in quoting than Joan Peters.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

He copied Mark Twain's quote and Finkelstein caught him on it. Mark Twain visited the Holy Land in the late 19th century and described it as being desolate and sparsely populated.

Finkelstein made a big deal of it and called it "plagiarism", but the thing is the quote wasn't wrong, Twain really did visit the Holy Land and that's how he described it.

Finkelstein then rather dishonestly goes on to claim that because Dershowitz copied Peters that Dershowitz's book is just as weak as Peters, but the only thing he copies was absolutely correct and so that logic doesn't work.

You're missing the main point. Whether or not Peters' book is a "hoax," as Finkelstein calls it, is moot. Same goes for Twains' observations. Dershowitz is guilty of academic fraud. (Chomsky advised Finkelstein to discuss the plagiarism in a separate article because it would be a distraction.)

Monk moment: here's what happened:
Dershowitz saw the Twain quotes in Peters' book, but instead of citing her as a source he had an assistant to go the Harvard library and find a copy of Twain. He then took the page numbers from that book, a different edition, and claims "it's not plagiarism" because "the page numbers don't match!" The problem, as I believe Cockburn points out in possibly the linked article, is that the ellipses are not only exactly the same, but mistaken. Which means he consciously took from another book without citation, which is a form of plagiarism. (That's not the only example either.) ETA: the linked Counterpunch article is no the one by Cockburn, but more extensive and documents twenty (!) errors in the Peters' quote repeated by Dershowitz.

The lesson is simple: Finkelstein exposes academic fraud and gets punished for it.

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by Cain

You're missing the main point. Whether or not Peters' book is a "hoax," as Finkelstein calls it, is moot. Same goes for Twains' observations. Dershowitz is guilty of academic fraud. (Chomsky advised Finkelstein to discuss the plagiarism in a separate article because it would be a distraction.)

Monk moment: here's what happened:
Dershowitz saw the Twain quotes in Peters' book, but instead of citing her as a source he had an assistant to go the Harvard library and find a copy of Twain. He then took the page numbers from that book, a different edition, and claims "it's not plagiarism" because "the page numbers don't match!" The problem, as I believe Cockburn points out in possibly the linked article, is that the ellipses are not only exactly the same, but mistaken. Which means he consciously took from another book without citation, which is a form of plagiarism. (That's not the only example either.) ETA: the linked Counterpunch article is no the one by Cockburn, but more extensive and documents twenty (!) errors in the Peters' quote repeated by Dershowitz.

The lesson is simple: Finkelstein exposes academic fraud and gets punished for it.

Whatever your opinion of Finkelstein and what happened to him, Dershowitz isn't attacked on the factual aspects of his book. This whole issue with citations may certainly be an academic error, but unless the facts he's citing are wrong, it doesn't invalidate his arguments.

[Mycroft]

Originally Posted by ddt

How can you know when the book is built on false premises? Has anyone done a properly scholarly study to the same? You are also aware that the US is the only country in the world where it received praise - that it was torn to shreds in, e.g., the London Review of Books, the British Observer, and that it was ridiculed in the Israeli press even before there was a Hebrew translation?

Which book are you talking about? Peters or Dershowitz’s?

Originally Posted by ddt

And I would call Finkelstein's work a bit more than a review. He systematically analyzed the book and checked all its sources. A lot more work than the review of Paul Blair I linked to, and that one is very extensive.

Whatever. I find it amazing that it’s worth being considered as a doctoral thesis.

Originally Posted by ddt

Not one Mark Twain quotes but multiple quotes. See, e.g., this Counterpunch article with a list. Note that there's one quote in there which contain ellipsis which turn out to span 12 pages. There's another quote - don't remember if it's Twain - where the ellipsis span more than 200 pages. That's not quoting, that's more akin to piecing a ransom note out of letters clipped from magazine headings.

I think we all agree that’s sloppy work on the part of Dersowitz, but the issue is that the facts are not wrong.

Originally Posted by ddt

The plagiarism charge of Finkelstein is about the attribution, and he may have overstated his case there - I haven't studied the Chicago Manual of style, My gut feeling as a non-humanities scholar would be that the proper attribution would be "Twain as quoted in Peters", that, however, that would be ludicrous with a readily available source as Twain.

This is a huge red-herring to distract from the basic fact that Twain did write what he wrote. Nobody disputes that.

Originally Posted by ddt

But by perpetrating these - essentially - warped Peters quotes, Dershowitz did commit fraud. And to add my own words: Dershowitz is a willful liar.

Sorry, Mycroft, defending Peters and Dershowitz is beneath you, you can do better.

See, I would say that following this red-herring and ignoring the facts of the issue in preference to smearing the messenger over an issue of style should be beneath you.

[ddt]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

Which book are you talking about? Peters or Dershowitz’s?

Peters.

Originally Posted by Mycroft

I think we all agree that’s sloppy work on the part of Dersowitz, but the issue is that the facts are not wrong.

Is that your standard of quoting? Menetrez' Counterpunch article:

Quote:

7. Line 9: In the original Twain (pp. 508, 520), the sentence containing the phrase "six funereal plumes of palms" and the sentence beginning "We reached Tabor" are separated by 12 pages and numerous intervening paragraphs.

Originally Posted by Mycroft

This is a huge red-herring to distract from the basic fact that Twain did write what he wrote. Nobody disputes that.

Twain wrote what he wrote. That's a tautology. But as Menetrez' article shows, he didn't write what Dershowitz quoted.

Originally Posted by Mycroft

See, I would say that following this red-herring and ignoring the facts of the issue in preference to smearing the messenger over an issue of style should be beneath you.

But the issue, of course, goes beyond style. From Cockburn's 2003 article, Dershowitz wrote in his book:

Quote:

Peters's conclusions and data have been challenged. See Said and Hitchens, p. 33. I do not in any way rely on them in this book.

But nevertheless wholesale loots her quotes, 20 in as many pages.

Let's not even get into the "turnspeak" gaffe or Dershowitz' sources for the body count of Black September.

[Cain]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

Whatever your opinion of Finkelstein and what happened to him, Dershowitz isn't attacked on the factual aspects of his book. This whole issue with citations may certainly be an academic error, but unless the facts he's citing are wrong, it doesn't invalidate his arguments.

Finkelstein confronts arguments in favor of Israel during the interview and in the book (in quite great detail), but that's not the point made here. The point is that Dershowitz is guilty of academic misconduct. There were no sanctions. Finkelstein's only offense is that he has taken an unpopular position, all the more offensive because his side has moral weight.

[Thunder]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

My goodness, the things you could do with all that straw other than spread it around the forums.

you should talk.

[Virus]

Normal Finkelstein on Hezbollah's "resistance".

Quote:

I don’t believe there is another way. I wish there were another way. Who wants war? Who wants destruction? Even Hitler didn’t want war.

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/art...?pg=11&ar=1489

[ddt]

Originally Posted by Mycroft

Whatever. I find it amazing that it’s worth being considered as a doctoral thesis.

I misstated this earlier: Finkelstein's debunking of Joan Peters is only part of his PhD thesis.

His PhD thesis is titled "From the Jewish question to the Jewish state : an essay on the theory of Zionism", and runs 213 pages.

The part on Joan Peters has been reworked to a 40-page essay in "Blaming the Victims: Spurious Scholarship and the Palestinian Question", by Edward Said and Christopher Hitchens (eds.)

[Matt Giwer]

Originally Posted by Paranormal Inquirer

“Why should these Palestinians, who have lived in Jerusalem for hundreds of years, be evicted from their homes so that Jews from Brooklyn can live in them?” - Norman Finkelstein

WTF? Really? This guy is supposedly an intellectual?

You did not answer his question.

[Matt Giwer]

Originally Posted by dudalb

FInklestein's mentor is Noam Chomsky. That's all you need to know.

In the last few months Israel has denied both of them entry into Israel. I guess they are afraid of something.

[Matt Giwer]

Originally Posted by ddt

The lawyer in question is Alan Dershowitz. He was formerly known as a liberal, but recently more known for his advocacy of the use of torture and his advocacy of Israel, in particular through his book "The case for Israel".

Years ago when I wrote about him I named him Alan "they should have tortured OJ" Dershowitz. Too many words. These days it is Alan "Denny Crane" Dershowitz.

[davefoc]

Originally Posted by ddt

How can you know when the book is built on false premises? Has anyone done a properly scholarly study to the same? You are also aware that the US is the only country in the world where it received praise - that it was torn to shreds in, e.g., the London Review of Books, the British Observer, and that it was ridiculed in the Israeli press even before there was a Hebrew translation?

And I would call Finkelstein's work a bit more than a review. He systematically analyzed the book and checked all its sources. A lot more work than the review of Paul Blair I linked to, and that one is very extensive.


Not one Mark Twain quotes but multiple quotes. See, e.g., this Counterpunch article with a list. Note that there's one quote in there which contain ellipsis which turn out to span 12 pages. There's another quote - don't remember if it's Twain - where the ellipsis span more than 200 pages. That's not quoting, that's more akin to piecing a ransom note out of letters clipped from magazine headings.


Dershowitz relied heavily on quotes he borrowed from Peters. Like one per page. Then, yes, his book relies on those quotes. Peters' book dates from 1984, and was at last torn to shreds in the US press in 1986. Dershowitz' book dates from 2003. He should have been aware that Peters' book is a fraud, and nevertheless, he used them without checking beforehand. It's clear he copied them without checking, or else he wouldn't have exactly the same quotes with the same errors, small and big.

The plagiarism charge of Finkelstein is about the attribution, and he may have overstated his case there - I haven't studied the Chicago Manual of style, My gut feeling as a non-humanities scholar would be that the proper attribution would be "Twain as quoted in Peters", that, however, that would be ludicrous with a readily available source as Twain.

But by perpetrating these - essentially - warped Peters quotes, Dershowitz did commit fraud. And to add my own words: Dershowitz is a willful liar.

Sorry, Mycroft, defending Peters and Dershowitz is beneath you, you can do better.

It's been awhile since I looked into all this but my takeaway was almost exactly the same. Finkelstein was almost childish with regards to some of his rants against Dershowitz and he used the word plagiarize repeatedly in an unusual way to describe something which was arguably not plagiarism.

Having said that my sympathies were with Finkelstein in this, Dershowitz did use somebody else's work product without appropriate attribution. And his work failed to acknowledge the difficulties with the accuracy of Peter's work. If Finkelstein had limited himself to an objective critique of Dershowitz's work without all the vitriol I think he might have succeeded in winning a few people to his side by the dint of his argument. As it was, I don't think he accomplished much except to prove that even accomplished academics can resort to childish behavior.

[Matt Giwer]

Originally Posted by davefoc

It's been awhile since I looked into all this but my takeaway was almost exactly the same. Finkelstein was almost childish with regards to some of his rants against Dershowitz and he used the word plagiarize repeatedly in an unusual way to describe something which was arguably not plagiarism.

In this case he used the Harvard guidelines on plagiarism. This is a case of using the research of another person without attribution.

[angrysoba]

Originally Posted by ddt

How can you know when the book is built on false premises? Has anyone done a properly scholarly study to the same? You are also aware that the US is the only country in the world where it received praise - that it was torn to shreds in, e.g., the London Review of Books, the British Observer, and that it was ridiculed in the Israeli press even before there was a Hebrew translation?

And I would call Finkelstein's work a bit more than a review. He systematically analyzed the book and checked all its sources. A lot more work than the review of Paul Blair I linked to, and that one is very extensive.


Not one Mark Twain quotes but multiple quotes. See, e.g., this Counterpunch article with a list. Note that there's one quote in there which contain ellipsis which turn out to span 12 pages. There's another quote - don't remember if it's Twain - where the ellipsis span more than 200 pages. That's not quoting, that's more akin to piecing a ransom note out of letters clipped from magazine headings.


Dershowitz relied heavily on quotes he borrowed from Peters. Like one per page. Then, yes, his book relies on those quotes. Peters' book dates from 1984, and was at last torn to shreds in the US press in 1986. Dershowitz' book dates from 2003. He should have been aware that Peters' book is a fraud, and nevertheless, he used them without checking beforehand. It's clear he copied them without checking, or else he wouldn't have exactly the same quotes with the same errors, small and big.

The plagiarism charge of Finkelstein is about the attribution, and he may have overstated his case there - I haven't studied the Chicago Manual of style, My gut feeling as a non-humanities scholar would be that the proper attribution would be "Twain as quoted in Peters", that, however, that would be ludicrous with a readily available source as Twain.

But by perpetrating these - essentially - warped Peters quotes, Dershowitz did commit fraud. And to add my own words: Dershowitz is a willful liar.

Sorry, Mycroft, defending Peters and Dershowitz is beneath you, you can do better.

The problem is that Finkelstein upped the ante himself. Instead of critiquing Dershowitz's book, which may well have been a shoddy and slapdash work, Finkelstein expressly said that the "plagiarism" involved meant that Harvard should fire him.

I think this is a problem for two reasons:

1) Towards his own argument which even Chomsky noted was irrelevant. The important thing is not so much that Dershowitz may have been relying on a crappy and inaccurate source but that his book could be shown to be demonstrably innacurate.


2) He initiated the dirty tactics that both of them ended up using, that of personally damaging the other's academic careers.

Even the movie "American Radical" which I assume is supposed to be sympathetic to Finkelstein makes it look like he was angling to get someone fired. In the same movie Dershowitz said Harvard assigned another academic not particularly friendly with Dershowitz to look over the palgiarism case and who decided that there wasn't a case.

I think that's worth knowing as this summary that you gave misses out on that detail.

Quote:

Norman Finkelstein's PhD thesis was about Joan Peters' book "From Time Immemorial", which basically defended the myth that Palestine was a "country without people for a people without a country". Finkelstein researched the sources she used, analyzed how she misused them and overstated to the point of lying the amount of immigration into Palestine in the 50 years preceding the founding of Israel. For another extensive review of the book, see here. BTW, Joan Peters has no academic credentials nor has she written any other books.

When Dershowitz wrote his book "The case for Israel", Finkelstein noted that he quoted Peters, or rather, that he copied verbatim quotes that Peters had misquoted from other sources. He went on to analyze Dershowitz' book and wrote an equally scathing critique of it.

Since then, Dershowitz seems to have made it a mission to try to destroy Finkelstein. In particular, Dershowitz lobbied with Finkelstein's employer to not give him tenure two years ago.

[Lamafarmer]

Originally Posted by Virus

Normal Finkelstein on Hezbollah's "resistance".

Originally Posted by Finkelstein

Even Hitler didn’t want war. He would much prefer to have accomplished his aims peacefully, if he could.

Good grief.

Originally Posted by Paranormal Inquirer

WTF? Really? This guy is supposedly an intellectual?

Originally Posted by pipelineaudio

I don't think he's supposed to be an intellectual. I thought he was seen as a mentally challenged guy

Boy, did I have fun now.

[JihadJane]

Who let the dogs out?