Actually, Nalini, discussion about this transcript made it to the Freepers yesterday. I was reading the comments on it yesterday and thought of you. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/991229/posts --Deb --- In NewPacifica@yahoogroups.com, "asongwithin" <LasiewiczN@a...> wrote: > This transcript of the show under discussion is now featured on Amy's > website. > > Ya gotta love that headline too...."Scholar Norman Finkelstein Calls > Professor Alan Dershowitz's New Book On Israel a "Hoax." > > I suspect we'll be seeing it duplicated throughout the years on right- > wing blogs, commerical media and liberal-bashing websites.....all > because Alan quoted Mark Twain from a source that Finkelstein made > his minor claim to fame over bashing. This petty debate was > obviously a personal grudge match, unfairly stacked to give the > advantage towards "scholar Finkelstein" over "professor Hershowitz." > > This was not, as some might have hoped for, an intelligent debate > over the ideas presented in the book. This was just a small time > street fight. So this is what our listeners are financing now, a > boxing match with Alan Dershowitz? We've come a long way, Pacifica. > > http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/24/1730205 > > NL > ===================================== > September 24, 2003 > RUSHED TRANSCRIPT > > Scholar Norman Finkelstein Calls Professor Alan Dershowitz's New Book > On Israel a "Hoax" > > > AMY GOODMAN: > Why don't we start with you laying out the thesis of your latest > book, The Case for Israel. > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: > I wanted to write a progressive liberal case for the two-state > solution, which I think that most Israelis favor and have favored for > a long time. I dedicate the book to professor Aaron Barak, the > president of the Israeli Supreme Court and for a reason. Because I > argue in the book that no country in history faced with comparable > threats both external and internal has ever tried to hard to comply > with the rule of law. I compare Israel favorably to the United > States. In this regard: its court intervened actively in support of > Palestinian rights. Even during fighting in war time during the > Jenin events the Israeli courts enjoined the Israeli military from > engaging in certain actions which in its view violated the rule of > law, The Israeli Supreme Court had banned the kind of rough > interrogation techniques that are now being employed by the United > Nations in Guantanamo Bay. Israel is the only country in modern > history that has never deliberately and explicitly retaliated against > those who attack its civilian targets. For example, during the Six > Day war in 1973 war, the 1948 war, it's own residential areas were > bombed by Egypt, Syria, Jordan, 1600 shells lobbed into west > Jerusalem. Israel never bombed Aman, Damascus or Cairo, they have of > course bombed areas of Beirut in the process have killed innocent > civilians. That is deliberately targeting civilians and going after > the way the United States did in Iraq, which I am very critical, but > nonetheless with the United States did going after military targets, > knowing that they're going to kill civilians in the process. And so > myself, I oppose the settlements, always opposed the settlement since > 1967 I opposed the occupation. I think Israel made in my view a > terrible view in my view what it should have done is made border > adjustments pursuant to U.N. resolution 242 which I actually > consulted with justice Goldburg, he was the ambassador to the U.N. > was involved in the process of that 242 resolution, which presupposed > some territorial adjustments. The problem is Israel should never > have occupied people. Land is different from people. And today I > think unilaterally what it ought to do eventually is if it can't kind > the peace partner to make some unilateral changes, small ones. End > the settlements, in fact my peace proposal is that Israel ought to > have schedule for ending settlements. That is a schedule for saying > on so and so date the settlement ends conditioned on best efforts by > the Palestinians to end terrorism. That would create incentive to > ending terrorist acts. By the way you never condition anything on > the end of terrorism, that gives terrorists a veto. What you > condition it is on making good faith efforts and if we can get Israel > to end the settlements and occupation and Palestinian leadership to > stop using terrorism as a tactic, I think finally something could > have happened in 1917, two-state solution, in 1937 when the > commission recommended noncontiguous Jewish homeland and Israelis > accepted it and the Arabs rejected it. In 1947 when the U.N. > allocated that portion of Palestine that had majority of Jews in it > to a Jewish state, and the portion of Palestine that had Palestinian > majority in it to an Arab state, could have had a two state > solution. Could have had a two state solution in 2001 and 2000 when > Barak and president Clinton offered to be sure noncontiguous state on > 90% of the west bank and capital and Jerusalem with the 35 billion > dollar refugee package. When Arafat responded by violence, came back > to the table maybe we'll negotiate for more. The two-state solution > is inevitable. It's going to happen. The only question is how long > it takes to happen. My hope is that we can have a reasonable serious > debate about the future; about the rights and wrongs I think the > rights and wrongs on both sides. But I'm nervous because I heard > from my debating partner in the beginning what sounded like it was > going to be simply an ad homonym attack on me as to whether I'm > qualified to teach at Harvard. I would hope we could elevate the > discussion keep it on the merits. I won't attack Mr. Finkelstein on > his merits of his position; let people read his book and judge for > themselves. And if he would refrain from personal attacks on me, let > people judge the book on the merits I think we can move the ball > forward have a reasonable serious debate. I think it would be > interesting to know where we agree and disagree. What facts we share > in common, what facts we have different views on and whether they're > empirical and could be subjected to reasonable resolution, where we > have moral disagreements, I really think that in the end today you > read the news about Israel is other good news. There is a prisoner > exchanges between Hezbollah and Israel which Israel would get back > one person, civilian who was captured by Hezbollah in exchange for > Israel giving back 400 or so prisoners. There's movement forward. > Let's not destroy that movement forward by getting involved in > meaningless ad homonym discussion, let's see if we can elevate the > debate see if we can really move forward to the two state solution > that I think virtually everybody in the world today wants. > > AMY GOODMAN: > Professor Alan Dershowitz author of The Case for Israel Norman > Finkelstein, your response. > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: > I appreciate Alan Dershowitz's seriousness at least in these > remarks. I have no intention whatsoever of getting involved in an ad > homonym debate with Mr. Dershowitz. I'm interesting in the facts. I > was asked to come in and discuss his new book. I went home, > purchased one copy, in fact I purchased two copies. I read the book > very carefully. I did what someone serious does with a book. I read > the text, I went through the footnotes. I went through it very > carefully. There's only one conclusion one can reach having read the > book. This is a scholarly judgment, not an ad homonym attack. Mr. > Dershowitz has concocted a fraud. In fact Mr. Dershowitz has > concocted a fraud which amazingly in large parts, he plagiarized from > another fraud. I found that pretty shocking, shocking coming from a > Harvard professor. I find it shocking coming from any professor. > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: > We have to cut off I just want to warn everybody here that although > I'm not a litigious person when you make allegations . . . > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: > I'm proceeded to . . . > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: > When you make allegations of plagiarism that's a . . . It has great > legal implications. And I can't obviously sit quietly by and . . . > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: > You shouldn't. I agree. Well that's Let's look at the evidence. > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: > . . . of plagiarism . . . > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: > Let's look at the evidence. In the first two chapters of your book > you extensively reproduce all of Joan Peters' pages in her book. I > read it carefully. In 1984 . . . > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: > Show me one sentence. > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: > I am going to show you I think I have . . .I made available the > charts to you. > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: > You've shown me nothing. Let's start with that. That's a > categorical lie. What you're hearing now on radio is a claim that > Mr. Finkelstein made available to me certain charts. That is a lie. > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: > Mr. Dershowitz, I think you had about five minutes' time I wasn't > looking at the clock. If we're going to have a civil debate you're > going to have to remain . . . > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: > It's not going to be about me let me be very clear about that. > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: > I have no interest in you, Mr. Dershowitz. None at all. I'm > interested in the scholarship, I'm interested in the facts, I'm > interested in your book. In 1984 one Joan Peters published a book > called From Time Immemorial the book was universally recognized by > serious scholars to be a fraud. Without wanting to toot my own horn > I'm widely recognized as the person who exposed the fraud. I know > that book inside out. I read it at least four times, I went through > all 1854 footnotes. I started to read your book, Mr. Dershowitz, I > then came to chapter one footnotes 10, footnote 11, footnote 12, > footnote 13, footnote 14, footnote 15, footnote 16, all of the quotes > are from Joan Peters. They're so from Joan Peters that you have a > long quote here from Mark Twain on pages 23 to 24. I turned to Joan > Peters page 159 to 60, identical quote from Twain with the ellipses > in the . . . > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: > Is the Twain quote wrong? > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: > . . . with the ellipses . . . let me finish sir. They're in the same > places. The identical quote from Twain with the ellipses in the same > places. > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: > It's been quoted, as you know. > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: > Mr. Dershowitz I . . . > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: > What's your point? > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: > Let me finish . . . > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: > I would ask you a question. Is it a direct quote? Is it an accurate > quote of Twain? Did Twain say . . . > > AMY GOODMAN: > Professor Dershowitz the way we can have a civilized discussion here > is that each person will get a chance to make their point and won't > be cut off. > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: > You have a nearly full page quote from one William Young a British > consul from May 1839. > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: > Is it an accurate quote? > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: > I'm going to finish, sir. On page 18 of your book. I turn to Joan > Peters page 184, the identical quote with the ellipses I'm holding it > up for the camera perhaps they can see this is the length of the > quote. > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: > Is it an accurate quote? > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: > It's in the identical place. Last point. I'm not going to go > through chapter two where there are 29 plagiarisms from Joan Peters. > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: > To be very clear, it's not plagiarism to quote Mark Twain correctly. > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: > Except that you cite Mark Twain not Joan Peters. I'm a professor, > sir. I know what plagiarism is. > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: > And plagiarism is . . . What is your definition of plagiarism? > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: > We're not going to get involved dash in that now. > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: > You're using a word you're not going to tell us what you mean by it? > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: > The documentation, you know what we'll let everybody else decide for > themselves because documentation one last example. I want to make it > very clear, in Joan Peters' book From Time Immemorial she coins a > phrase. The phrase is "turn speak". > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: > She borrows it from . . . > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: > Sir, I'm sorry she coins the phrase, you see you don't know what > you're talking about that's pretty terrible. She coins the > phrase, "turn speak," she says she's using it as a play off of George > Orwell which is all listeners know used the phrase "news speak". She > coined her own phrase, "turn speak". You go to Mr. Dershowitz's book > he got so confused in his massive borrowings from Joan Peters that on > two occasions I'll cite them for those who have a copy of the book, > on page 57 and on page 153 he uses the phrase, quote, George Orwell's > turn speak. Turn speak is not Orwell, Mr. Dershowitz, you're the > Felix Frankfurt chair at Harvard, you must know that Orwell would > never use such a clunky phrase as turn speak. > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: > I like it. > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: > Well, maybe you like it. Evidently Joan Peters liked it. But George > Orwell never heard of it to the best of my knowledge. > > AMY GOODMAN: > We have to break for stations to identify themselves. 60 seconds. > When we come back professor Dershowitz can respond. We're talking to > professor Alan Dershowitz author of a new book it's called The Case > for Israel and debate with Norman Finkelstein. You're listening to > Democracy Now! Stay with us. [Music Break] > > More music here from the late Frank Lowe as we continue our debate on > Alan Dershowitz's new book called The Case for Israel. Alan > Dershowitz is professor of law at Harvard law school. In discussion > with Norman Finkelstein who teaches at De paul University in > Chicago. His book Image and Reality: Israel Palestinian Conflict and > The Holocaust Industry professor Dershowitz your response to this > very serious charge of plagiarism. > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: > It's a frivolous charge, of course. What happened was this. Of > course I read the Peters book, anybody writing a book on the Middle > East anybody would. I also read The Myths and Facts a book put out > originally by APAC then published separately and independently > probably 30 or 40 other books which use the same quotes, they're very > extensively used quotes by Mark Twain because Mark Twain traveled to > Palestine, Mark Twain is a very prominent American writer. What he > saw in Palestine is very relevant to the debate. He saw barren > lands, didn't see a Palestinian community. He saw empty roads and he > writes extremely vividly and 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, I don't know whether or not Mr. Finkelstein read > footnote 31 that appears on page 246 which says, the research of > French Cartographer Vital "Cuinct" relied on for the I may of > mispronounced it. > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: > No, you misspelled it. > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: > See Joan Peters from Time Immemorial then Peters' conclusions and > data have been challenged and then I quote from Said and Hutchins, I > do not in any way rely on them in this book. In other words, what I > did, and it's very common for scholars to do that. Is I read her > books, I read Mr. Finkelstein's criticism of them I came away from > enough doubt about the conclusions that although I don't regard the > Peters' book in any way as a fraud, I think it was well intentioned > effort to recreate and very difficult to recreate the very difficult > to recreate events that existed in 1890 and 1900. Did I find her > quotes which have been as I said used extensively by Facts and Myths > and other publications, to be quite compelling. This book and none > of my writing, I don't purport to be independent historian who goes > back to the Middle East and reads original documents. I am making a > case. I'm doing what a lawyer would do and what lawyers do is they > find sources, they check the sources, I had a research staff that > obviously checked the sources. I haven't heard a word from Mr. > Finkelstein suggesting that the quote from Mark Twain is not an > accurate quote. If Peters had made up a quote that hadn't existed. > Mark Twain had never written and then somebody borrowed the quote > without going to check back on whether Mark Twain had said that, > obviously that would be a serious charge. I've done nothing like > that. The vast majority of my book deals with current situations. > In fact I start my book by saying there has to be a statute of > limitations on grievances. I don't try to base the case for Israel > on the fact that Jews lived in Palestine before the birth of Jesus or > the fact that Jews were expelled from what is now Israel in 72 A.D. > and I argue that Palestinians can't really make the case against the > two-state solution based on historic claims that go back 100 years > but first couple of chapters which are quite brief, I recount never > purporting to be creative or original in the recounting, I recount > what has been accepted as traditional history. That includes the > fact that the land particularly what is now what would be western > Palestine, what was the part of Palestinian allocated to Israel in > the 1947 division was land that before the Jews got there in the > first aliyah in1880 in the beginning of the 20th century was land > that was coming into disuse. Now these are controversial, by the > way, there are some Palestinians who say you shouldn't trust Mark > Twain. Some Palestinians say you shouldn't trust the various English > travelers. Reasonable people could disagree about that. I quote > those sources, I lay them out there for people to read so that they > can evaluate the claims that Israel was established on the basis of > colonialism. I make the following argument which I'd love to hear > Finkelstein rebut. You can't be a colonialist country unless another > country sent people there as soldiers to take over that country. For > example, France sent its settlers to Algeria. England sent settlers > to India. Dutch and other countries sent their settlers to parts of > Africa with guns to take over. What did the Jews do during the first > and second aliyah. They escaped from countries that were persecuting > them. They escaped from Russia and Poland, Lithuania. They didn't > come at the request of those countries, if you claim people were > colonialist you have to say on whose behalf they were working. The > Jews weren't working on behalf of Russia or Poland or Lithuania. > They came as refugees. Much like American Jews came as refugees to > America. The ones who went to Palestine went with rakes and hoes to > try to build the land, to try to join collectively with the local > population. They did in fact improve the land as the result of work > projects in western Palestine many Arabs from eastern Palestine moved > there, I cite statistics, Peters cites the same statistics in fact > showing that in various the fact that I can't remember the exact > numbers, Jews moved there attracted 300 or 400, you may disagree with > it. But those are the data that I presented and we can reasonably > disagree with that. Now I just want to make one point about Mr. > Finkelstein's research. I don't want to get ad homonym I don't want > to get into this debate. But for example I do quote Mr. Finkelstein > at one point I think only once in the book. That is he makes an > argument in Edward Said's collection that to judge the 1947 partition > the only fairway to do it is to look at either all of Palestine, > which I don't know whether he needs to include what became Jordan, > trans-Jordan or not or you have to look at what became of Israel > after the 1948 war. I disagree with that. What I say respectfully > in the book is that when you look at the fairness of the 1947 > petition, you only look at the land that was allocated to the state > of Israel. In that land Jews were clearly a majority according to > the U.N. census to be sure once the Arab nations attacked Israel, > once the Palestinians attacked Israel there was a war and Israel > secured more land which was regularized by a crease fire in 1949. > What Mr. Finkelstein does is he counts that land and says, look how > much they got and look at the proportion of Jews and Palestinians > that's not the correct demographic to look at. So we can have > reasonable . . . > > AMY GOODMAN: > Let's get the response to that. > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: > Stay away from the ad homonyms and get to the merit of the case. > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: > Professor Dershowitz, I'm not a professor at Harvard but I do . . . > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: > You seem to resent that a lot. > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: > I do teach elsewhere. And when we discuss issues like falsifying > information, plagiarizing, lifting whole cloth from other books I've > never heard that called ad homonym for a serious scholar and a > serious academic, those are very fundamental issues. > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: > But when they're false . . . > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: > If they're false then you dispute them. To characterize them as ad > homonym seems really out of court for a professor . . . > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: > You said I don't deserve to teach at Harvard that sounds pretty . . . > > AMY GOODMAN: > Professor Dershowitz let Norman make his case. > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: > You raise that issue then I'll address it then returning to the > substantive issues of your book. > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: > First tell me why I shouldn't be teaching at Harvard. > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: > On page 207 of your book you say that to deliberately misinform, > miseducate, and misdirect students is a particularly nasty form of > educational malpractice. > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: > Of which I accuse Noam Chomsky and others. > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: > I consider what you have done in the book to be a paradigmatic > example of misinforming, miseducating and misdirecting. Allow me to > finish. > > AMY GOODMAN: > Let him make his point. > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: > Allow me to finish Mr. Dershowitz I've with very respectful of your > time. On page 213 you discussed Holocaust fraud by Robert Faurisson > and you write, quote, "There was no extensive historical research" > referring to his book. > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: > That's right. > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: > "Instead there was the fraudulent manufacturing of false anti > history". > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: > That's right. And Chomsky wrote as you . . . > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: > Please don't bring in Mr. Chomsky. He can defend himself. We're > talking about you and your book. It was the kind of deception > referring to Faurisson's book that let me quote clearly, "for which > professors are rightly fired". > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: > I stand by that. > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: > Not because their views are controversial, let me underline this > again, but because they are violating the most basic canons of > historical scholarship. > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: > Let me respond to that. You compare me to Faurisson . . . > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: > I didn't ask . . . > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: > You made up the story that the Holocaust . . . > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: > I'm referring to your standards. I have no interested in Faurisson > now I'm talking about your standards. To miseducate, misinform and > misdirect to violate the standards of historical scholarship are > grounds for expulsion. > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: > Absolutely. > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: > It's not an ad homonym argument it's using your standards. > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: > No, it's an ad homonym. . . > > AMY GOODMAN: > I'm going to interrupt here because I want to get to some of the main > points of your book. Also we were intrigued on watching Scarborough > Country when you debated Sam Husseini, the offer that you made just > play it for a moment. > > > Play clip from Scarborough Country: > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: > Tell you what I will give $10,000 to the P.L.O. in your name if you > can find historical fact in my book that you can prove to be false. > I issue that challenge, I issue it to you, I issue it to the > Palestinian Authority, I issue it to Noam Chomsky to Edward Said, > every word in my book is accurate and you can't just simply say it's > false without documenting it. Tell me one thing in the book now that > is false? > > AMY GOODMAN: > Okay. Let's go to the book. The Case for Israel $10,000. > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: > Let me tell you what he came up with this is really fascinating if > you show the rest of the clip. He came up he said on television, I > saw a photograph or a videotape of Israeli soldiers aiming their guns > at that, whatever 12-year-old boy who was caught in the cross fire > and killed and I actually upped the offer to $25,000 if he could > produce a photograph or if he could produce proof that he had seen > that. Why was I so confident? Because German television did a very > thorough study of that one particular incident. Let's just spend one > minute on that. What happened is when that child was killed in his > father's arms, the nation of Israel went into almost universal > mourning, it was as if they were sitting Chiva on one of their own > children. A child had died it looked as if possibly Israeli soldier > might have shot him. When you contrast that to how Palestinians > respond to a child dying in Israel from terrorism dancing in the > streets, it's a very striking comparison. Then German television did > a study they found out that the Israeli soldiers were positioned in a > way that it was physically impossible for the bullet from Israeli > soldier to have hit that Palestinian child and it was virtually > certain that the bullet had come from a Palestinian gun. In my view > that's not particularly relevant when a child is caught in cross fire > it's a tragic death resulting from the crossfire. Which bullet > actually hit I am was not relevant. But that was the answer that he > came up with. > > AMY GOODMAN: > Norman Finkelstein. > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: > Well, first of all I want to clarify the monetary issue. Is it now > $25,000? > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: > $25,000 on that issue. > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: > Just on that issue. In general $10,000. > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: > Let me be clear... > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: > We just saw the tape. I think it's clear. > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: > I made it very clear I said afterward a material willful > distortion. . . > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: > I don't want afterwards. Professor Dershowitz it's on tape. We just > saw it. > We're not talking about a spelling mistake. We're not talking about > a minor . . . > > AMY GOODMAN: > All right. Let's talk about . . . > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: > Serious material. Let's start. Number one, I'm going to first deal > with just concrete facts which are not particularly controversial, > which can easily be confirmed. On page 80 of your book you write, > according to Benny Morris between April and June. . . > > AMY GOODMAN: > Benny Morris is an Israeli historian. > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: > I have a copy of his book here, which I'll hold up. 2,000 to 3,000 > Palestinians were made refugees during the second stage of the > flight. Here is the book in front of you. Page 256, can you read > what the sentence says. > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: > Let me read you what I say in my book, in some areas Arab . . . > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: > Please don't read the whole paragraph. > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: > Let me put in the context. Chomsky says that Morris does not believe > that any Arab leaders told the Palestinians to leave. I say, in some > areas I quote from Morris," in some areas Arab commanders > ordered . . . > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: > I'm not disputing that. > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: > . . . to clear the ground for military purposes to prevent > surrender. More than half dozen villages, et cetera, were abandoned > during these months as result of such orders. Elsewhere in east > Jerusalem in many villages around the country, the Arab commanders > ordered women, old people and children to be sent away out of harm's > way. Indeed psychological preparation for the removal of the > dependents had begin in 1947-48 when the Arab high command and Arab > League periodically endorsed such a move in contemplating the future > of Palestine." And I say therefore, Chomsky is simply wrong when he > says that there's no evidence, he says again in another point, nobody > today believes that any of the refugees were told to leave. And so I > dispute that by quoting Morris himself. > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: > You seem to have an obsession with Mr. Chomsky but he's not here. > I'm here. Let's look at the next sentence. . . > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: > Actually, I thought I was going to be debating Chomsky today. I was > surprised . . . > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: > Let's be serious. > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: > I agree with you. > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: > Read the next sentence. Morris estimates in your book I have right in > front of me. Next sentence. > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: > "Morris estimates that between 2,000 and 3,000 Arabs fled their homes > during this phase of the Arab initiated fighting." > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: > Can you please read what Mr. Morris wrote? > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: > You're talking about . . . > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: > Please read what he wrote? > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: > If I have the whole book I will find for you if you want to take time. > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: > Can you read the sentence? > > AMY GOODMAN: > I'm looking at page 256 of Benny Morris book, Righteous Victims: A > History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict. > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: > He is referring to phase two now same one as you. Go ahead. > > AMY GOODMAN: > "Altogether about 200,000 to 300,000 Arabs fled their homes". > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: > There is a big difference between 2,000 and 3,000 and 200,000 and > 300,000. You could check this many times, Mr. Dershowitz. But you > are really going to have to pay the $10,000. I hope you allow me to > earmark it for Jenin. I would like to give it to Jenin. > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: > We're talking about a variety of . . . > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: > This is not the O.J. trial. This is not the O.J. trial. We're not > going to play a game. > > AMY GOODMAN: > Is your point... what you are saying Norm Finkelstein is that in Alan > Dershowitz's book The case for Israel he says 2,000 to 3,000? > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: > It's 200,000 to 300,000. > > AMY GOODMAN: > Your response to that? > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: > I argue that 700,000 Arabs . . . > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: > Don't change the subject, Mr. Dershowitz. > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: > I'm not changing the subject. > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: > We're talking about phase two. April through June. Please don't > play this game. > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: > Obviously, the phrase 2,000 to 3,000 Arabs refers either to a sub- > phase or is a typographical error. > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: > This is why lawyers have a bad reputation. Because you are playing a > game now. I've read the book twice. In fact I've read the book six > times because I've read Peters four times and yours twice that makes > six times. > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: > Did she make this point? > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: > Of course. > > AMY GOODMAN: > I'm going to interrupt a second because stations have to make their > point which is they have to identify themselves. We'll come back if > you can stay with us for the show, we will continue this discussion > our next guest will ask him to wait we'll do interview after the > program I think this is too important. We're talking to Alan > Dershowitz his new book is called The Case for Israel he is debating > Norm Finkelstein his books are the the Holocaust Industry and the > Israel-Palestine Conflict. Stay with us. [MUSIC BREAK] > > AMY GOODMAN:: I'm Amy Goodman and we're talking with Professor Alan > Dershowitz his new book is called The Case for Israel. Mario Cuomo > writes, "Alan Dershowitz detailed and penetrating analysis of the > issues that fuel the continuing war in Israel should be read by > everyone". > > Norman Finkelstein's book The Holocaust Industry has a recommendation > on the back by Raul Hilberg who is the leading Holocaust historian in > this country. And he says, "when I read Finkelstein's book at the > time of the appearance I was in the middle of my own investigations. > I came to the conclusion he was on the right track I refer now to the > part of the book that deals with the claims against Swiss banks." I'm > jumping ahead. He says, "I am by no means the only one who in the > coming months or years will totally agree with Finkelstein's > breakthrough." > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ:: Let me focus on the 2,000 or 3,000. This is such > an obvious point. What is the context I'm arguing. I'm arguing that > lots and lots of Arabs in distinction to what Chomsky said were told > to leave by their Arab commanders. Obviously it's in the interest of > that argument to maximize the number who would leave. Only an idiot > would deliberately minimize the number who'd leave > > AMY GOODMAN: Let's refrain from ad homonym attacks. > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ:: I'm talking about myself now. I would have been an > idiot had I used 2,000 when actual number was 2 to 300. If you wanted > to make an accusation you would say instead of saying 2 to 300. He > said 4-500,000. Remember the argument, the argument I'm making is > that lots of the Palestinian refugees left, left as the result of > orders from their leaders during this period of time. So my incentive > if we take Mr. Finkelstein would be to exaggerate the number. Now he > accuses me of reducing the number by 100 fold. Obviously there are > only two possible explanations. > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: You asked me for factual errors. > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Why would anyone make a factual error... > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: I don't know. > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ:: That would hurt their position. It's the stupidest > allegation. > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Mr. Dershowitz with all due respect with all due > respect I cannot understand for the life of me why someone with your > reputation and with your accomplishments would cobble together a > fraud. That to me is the most perplexing question. > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Let me ask you a direct question. > > AMY GOODMAN: We only have ten minutes. We want to go to content. > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Am I right or am I wrong that it would serve the > interests of my argument to over state rather than to under state > that figure? > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Mr. Dershowitz there is no argument there. There > are no arguments in your book. Your book is a collection of fraud, > falsification, plagiarism and nonsense. > > AMY GOODMAN: We're going to close both microphones. > We're going to go through this in a civilized way over the next ten > minutes. You have laid out a challenge professor Dershowitz on > Scarborough country the program on MSNBC you said if anyone can find > factual error in the book we're not talking spelling errors, that you > will give $10,000. Sorry? > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: I'm prepared to do that. > > AMY GOODMAN: Now I'm going to interrupt. This is a major challenge > You put it out on television. Norman Finkelstein you have laid out > one error. > Whoever is interest it served you did respond. You said 2 to 3,000 > quoting /citing Benny Morris, Israeli historian in fact he said two > to 300,000 Arabs. > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Let me make the point that I do make an argument > Here is the argument I make. I make the argument that the issue is a > complex one of the refugees that in fact many of the refugees of the > 700,000. > > AMY GOODMAN: But, you're citing Benny Morris. He made a different > point than you did. > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: He made a point that strengthens my argument. > > AMY GOODMAN:: But it's wrong in your book. Whether or not it > strengthens. > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Let me be very clear. > If you make- I do make an argument. My argument it's very serious, > that many of the Palestinians were told to leave by the commanders. > If in fact 200,000 were told to leave instead of 2,000, that > strengthens my argument. That is argument that I make. If the book > says 2,000 to 3,000 there were only two explanations. Either it is a > typographical error or I have to check the book obviously, I was > referring to a smaller phase. But it would be ridiculous for anybody > to understate when the purpose would be to overstate. > > AMY GOODMAN: Okay. Let's leave that and go to another point. > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: What I'm going to do for the interest of time and > trying to be respectful of Professor Dershowitz is I'll simply quote > your statements in the book one after another slowly. You can simply > stop me and say, I can prove that or I have the evidence. Okay? > Simple. Page 206 you write, "Israel is the only country in the Middle > East to have abolished any kind of torture in fact as well as in law." > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Absolutely. > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Let's start with that one. Israeli Center for > Human Rights in the Occupied Territories has a website. I follow it > quite closely. I went to the website and I checked under the heading > for torture. I would ask again Amy Goodman rather than myself to > simply read the first sentence for the latest issue of that and if > she wants to continue down. > > AMY GOODMAN:: It's called B'Tselem Israeli Information Center for > Human Rights in Occupied Territories. > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Please keep in mind he said, Mr. Dershowitz > said "in fact as well as in law". > > AMY GOODMAN:: The first headline says, "torture. Interrogation by > torture is absolutely prohibited by Israeli and international law. > Despite this, Israeli security forces breached the prohibition and > torture Palestinians during the interrogation." > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: I would disagree with that. We have a reasonable > dispute about that. What Israel does and what Israel did until 1999 > was what the United States is now doing on Guantanamo Bay. That is > they put people in uncomfortable "shabach" positions, they put hoods > over their head, often foul smelling hoods, they play loud music, > there's a cover story in the Atlantic Monthly this month which talks > about rough interrogation techniques. It describes what the United > States is doing and it says that Israel used to do that, some > possibility it continues to do it. That's simply not the kind of > torture that international law prohibits and in fact my point is, in > Jordan torture is routine, in Egypt it's routine. > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Definitely. > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: The Israeli Supreme Court already took an > extraordinarily courageous decision in 1999, it's online, in which > Justice Barak said that as democracy we must try terrorism with one > hand tied behind our back but in the end we have the upper hand. > Because we comply with the rule of law. Israel is to be commended for > its attempt to regulate and control the torture of ticking bomb > terrorists. > > AMY GOODMAN: You stand by your statement that they do not torture, > Norman Finkelstein. > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: And that the Supreme Court has abolished it and if > anyone were to engage in an act that gave the possibility of torture > they would be in contempt of court > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Mr. Dershowitz. > > AMY GOODMAN:You have six minutes. Less than six minutes to go. > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Amnesty International, whom I know you think is > an untrustworthy source, Human Rights Watch, B'Tselem they all reach > the same conclusion. > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: and they're wrong. > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Israel still continues to practice law. > You can say they're wrong but let's be clear. Sir, I'm not going to > debate- > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: What do you define as torture? > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: I'm not an an expert in the topic. > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: certainly not. Yet you're making accusation. > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: I don't make the accusation, Mr. Dershowitz > you're confusing things. I go to the mainstream respected human > rights organizations and I look at what they say. > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Let me talk about amnesty > > AMY GOODMAN: You have a number of points here. We have five minutes > to go. > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: I need to respond > > AMY GOODMAN:: You did respond. You have 30 seconds to respond. > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Amnesty international- > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: I am quoting B'Tselem > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: ...recently said that Aharon Barak should not > receive an international prize because he doesn't believe in human > rights. > He is one of the greatest advocated of human rights, they also- > > AMY GOODMAN: Alan Dershowitz let me ask you a question. > I'm going to interrupt because you're on another point. B'TSELEM, you > just think it's wrong. Norman Finkelstein, next point. We have four > minutes to go. > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Number two, you write on page 126 "there is no > evidence that Israeli soldiers deliberately killed even a single > civilian in Jenin." > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Absolutely. > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Now, Mr. Dershowitz, I looked carefully at your > book. You don't like Amnesty International. > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: I'm a member and contributor to Amnesty > International. > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: and you don't particularly like B'TSELEM > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: If I were an Israeli I'd belong to B'TSELEM. So > don't characterize my views, you don't know my views. > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: I read your book. Or the book you purport to have > written. > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ:Now you claim somebody else wrote it? > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: I hope so. For your sake I truly hope you did > not write this book. > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: I proudly wrote it. > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: I think the honorable thing for you to do would > be to say I didn't write the book, I had no time to read it. I'm > sorry. > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: I wrote every word of it. > > AMY GOODMAN: Okay, you made the point about Jenin and whether or not > the Israeli soldiers- > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Deliberately shot a civilian. > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Let's quote Human Rights Watch. They put out an > extensive report on Jenin. Now, Human Rights Watch, you no where in > the book mention, no where - Let's see what Human Rights Watch > concludes, quote, "there's prime facie evidence that Israel > committed, quote, war crimes in Jenin." Further, quote, "I want > everyone to listen carefully, many of the civilian killings > documented by Human Rights Watch are mounted to unlawful or willful > killings by the IDF." Please listen to the words. Willful killings. > And then > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ:I've listened to the words and I deal with this very > directly in my book. > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Then Human Rights Watch copiously documents > multiple cases of willful killings by Israel. What did Mr. Dershowitz > write? There's not a single case of- > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: There's not a single case of- Not only in Jenin > Let me tell you why I make my point. Because there is absolutely no > incentive for the United States or Israel or for any other democracy > ever willfully to kill an innocent civilian. Every time an innocent > civilian is killed it hurts Israel, hurts it domestically and- > > Let me finish my point, every country engaged in urban guerilla > warfare will inadvertently kill civilians. But the very idea that an > Israeli soldier who are trained in the idea of the holiness of arms, > who get better training about avoiding- > > AMY GOODMAN: We have one minute. > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Who are punished for... > > AMY GOODMAN: Let Norman Finkelstein respond, you are making the point > that in general you wouldn't think they would- > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: A very lovely bar mitzvah speech. > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: That's a little ad homonym, I would think. > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Human Rights Watch wrote, quote, "among the > civilian deaths were those of Kamal Zgheir" listen carefully "a 57- > year-old wheelchair bound man who was shot and run over by a tank on > a major road outside the camp on April 10 even though he had a white > flag attached to his wheelchair." That sounds pretty deliberate to > me, Mr. Dershowitz. > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: If it's true. > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: The whole world is lying only Joan Peters tells > the truth. > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: First of all, Joan Peters has never written about > this issue. This issue is one where not only Israeli military but > United States has investigated Jenin, the United Nations has > investigated Jenin. > Some of the- > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Did they make up that example? Let's get this > clear. Did Human Rights Watch make up that example? > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: No, that was- > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Mr. Dershowitz this is disgraceful. You're > shaming the institution. > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: > Not a single one! > > NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Did Human Rights Watch make that up? > Did it make it up! > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Let me continue. > > AMY GOODMAN: On that note, we're wrapping up the program. Professor > Dershowitz let me ask this question. > Did you investigate the human rights watch report? > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Of course I did. I read it. > > AMY GOODMAN: You found that to be incorrect. > > ALAN DERSHOWITZ: Not only that the United States government found > that to be incorrect. > > AMY GOODMAN:: On that note we have to wrap up the show. > Thank you both for being with us. Alan Dershowitz The Case for Israel > Norman Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry. You decide. Our website > www.democracynow.org. I'm Amy Goodman, thanks for joining us. ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511 http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/xYTolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> New Pacifica Working Group http://www.egroups.com/group/NewPacifica 'Save Our Stations!' To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: NewPacifica-unsubscribe@egroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/