Dershowitz makes case for Israel

[Herschel]

cut

"It's not cool to be pro-Israel on many college campuses today," Dershowitz said, "and if you know your kids and your grandkids, you know what effect peer pressure has. Young men, young women, assistant professors tell them Israel is the worst; it becomes part of their reality.

"There is so much misinformation about Israel on college campuses around the world," he said. "Some of it is deliberate; some of it is just ignorance. So I had to try to fill the void. The book has two target audiences: people with open minds, which are most Americans, and people who want to make the case for Israel better."

One of the nation's most renowned appellate attorneys, Dershowitz said he has been defending Israel for 35 years. In a conversationf+t f-tafter the dinner, Dershowitz said he played "Jewish Geography" with others at his table.

"I have met so many nice people and found out I have no more than one or two degrees of separation from everyone," Dershowitz said.

Last year, Dershowitz said there was a divestiture campaign on Harvard's campus to try to get the Ivy League university to refuse investing money in companies doing business with any companies in Israel.

"I immediately announced if Harvard divested from Israel, I would divest from Harvard," Dershowitz said.

cut

http://www.palmbeachdailynews.com/news/newsfd/auto/feed/news/2004/01/31/1075528494.26609.5840.4936.html;COXnetJSessionID=AcLtOoFd2JYQyJUKYL6FFr5nLPvpEWACU2N3Ldwf9msj2iC02oqn!1903289165?urac=n&urvf=10755796932220.4781951365471956

Marvelous to see this outstanding progressive supporting Israel.

[reprehensor]

1. Whatever.

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 . . .

GOODMAN: Benny Morris is an Israeli historian.

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. Page 256, Can you read what the sentence says.

DERSHOWITZ: Let me read you what I say, in some areas Arab . . .

FINKELSTEIN: Please don't read the whole paragraph.

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 . . .

FINKELSTEIN: I'm not disputing that.

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, 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 and Arab League periodically endorsed such a move. 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. I dispute that by quoting Morris himself.

FINKELSTEIN: You seem to have an obsession with Mr. Chomsky but he's not here. I'm here. Let's look at . . .

DERSHOWITZ: I thought I was going to bewas surprised . . .

FINKELSTEIN: Let's be serious.

DERSHOWITZ: I agree with you.

FINKELSTEIN: Read the next sentence. Morris estimates in your book I have right in front of me. Next sentence.

DERSHOWITZ: That between 2,000 and 3,000 Arabs fled their homes.

FINKELSTEIN: Can you please readwhat Mr. Morris wrote.

DERSHOWITZ: You're talking about .

FINKELSTEIN: Please read what he wrote.

DERSHOWITZ: If I have the whole book I will find for you if you want to take time. Norm Finkelstein if you want the . . .

GOODMAN: I'm looking at page 256 of Morris book.

FINKELSTEIN: Phase two now same one as you. You're talking about . . .

GOODMAN: About 200,000 to 300,000 Arabs fled their homes.

FINKELSTEIN:There's 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.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/24/1730205&mode=thread&tid=38

[brainshrub]

76. I saw that interview

it blew me away! It was one of the best interviews I've EVER seen.

[Darranar]

2. Yes, Dershowitz, the outstanding torture-supporting progressive!

[MikeGalos]

10. Of course you didn't actually read his book

but are happy to repeat the lies you were told about it...

If you HAD read it, you'd know that he didn't advocate torture. He said the US is currently getting around the law by sending prisoners to our dear peace-loving Arab allies in Egypt and Jordan to be tortured. In the book, he said that we need to pass laws to stop the government from secret torture by proxy or get laws passed so that we have some civilian control over these secret torture policies.

Of course, when you're a public supporter of Israel, you tend to get lies spread about you by people who repeat what they WISH was the truth...

[plurality]

16. noone said he supported torture in his book

Instead he supported torture on CNN and numerous other networks after 9/11. He stated plainly that because of terrorism, it was time the US look at lifting it's prohibtion on torture.

Here's an article with some of Dershowitz's 'progressive remarks.'

In it he advocates torture, and let's see, what else, oh yeah, the DESTRUCTION OF ENTIRE PALESTINIAN VILLAGES. Progressive indeed!

http://www.salon.com/audio/interview/2002/09/17/dershowitz/ (subscription required)

and where he advocates destroying entire villages

http://www.hlrecord.org/news/2002/03/21/Opinion/Responding.To.Palestinian.Terrorism-397873.shtml

Following the moratorium, Israel would institute the following policy. It will announce with precision exactly what it will do in response to the next act of terrorism -- for example, the destruction of a small village which has been used as a base for terrorist operations.

[MikeGalos]

18. Wow you didn't read your own "evidence" either

For those WITH a salon premium subscription (which you need to read the interview), read the article and you'll see that Dershowitz says that he's against torture but that if the US IS going to torture we need a public policy rather than continue in secret.

[plurality]

20. if he's so against it...

then why does he leave the door open for its use?

If he was really against it he would condemn it catagoricly.

That's like me saying, "I'm against suicide bombings, but if you're going to do it, here's how you should..."

And what about that trully PROGRESSIVE idea of destroying ENTIRE VILLAGES, for the actions of ONE PERSON. Something also known as collective punishment, and a war-crime.

If this guy's a progressive, consider me a Repub. Anyone who would advocate the things he does is scum, and I want nothing in common with them.

[MikeGalos]

21. A legal scholar who believes in the Constitution

doesn't say what US law should be. He says what the issues are and calls for laws to reflect the Constitution.

For example, what do YOU mean by torture? Does it include sleep deprivation? If so, how much? If I wake up all prisoners at 6AM is that torture? How about at 3AM? Is it torture if I play muzak 18 hours a day? How about heavy metal?

Dershowitz's book is meant to make the reader think about the issues and the complexity of coming up with a just, Constitutionally valid solution.

If, instead of thinking through the issues, you think complex questions are best answered by a demagogue telling you what to think, you probably aren't ready to read a grown-up book like "Why Terrorism Works".

[plurality]

26. here's more from the interview

http://www.salon.com/books/int/2002/09/12/dershowitz/index3.html


Probably the most controversial chapter in your book is about torture. A lot of people will be surprised to learn that in certain situations you believe that nonlethal torture might be necessary.

It might be necessary. I hope it isn't necessary. But if we ever had the ticking bomb case -- somebody who we believed had plans with others who were out free to blow up a major city or plant a nuclear bomb -- there's no question that the Americans would do everything they have to do to prevent it.

snip

Here we learn about Dershowitz's torture methods of choice. How progressive.


Any reason why you use needles under the fingernails as your torture method of choice?

A reviewer criticized me for that. I purposely wanted to do that. I don't want to be vague. I wanted to come up with a tactic that can't possibly cause permanent physical harm but is excruciatingly painful. I agree with the reviewer; he's right when he said, "different strokes for different folks." For different people, different kinds of nonlethal torture might be more effective. Obviously, to the experts, having seen the movie "Marathon Man," drilling the tooth might be better than some. But the point I wanted to make is that torture is not being used as a way of producing death. It's been used as a way of simply causing excruciating pain.

Aren't there other forms of torture that would be less painful than that, that you might have considered?

But I want more painful. I want maximal pain, minimum lethality. You don't want it to be permanent, you don't want someone to be walking with a limp, but you want to cause the most excruciating, intense, immediate pain. Now, I didn't want to write about testicles, but that's what a lot of people use. I also wanted to be explicit because I didn't want to be squeamish about it. People have asked me whether I would do the torturing and my answer is, yes, I would if I thought it could save a city from being blown up.

But you believe in torture only for the ticking bomb terrorist scenario?

Only for the ticking bomb terrorist -- if the threat is immediate, clear and mega.

And you're advocating that we have warrants for this?

Some accountability. It needn't be a warrant. It can be judicial or legislative. Something that brings it up and makes sure that the American public sees how it works. It's not just done beneath the radar screen.

Seems like he is advocating torture to me. I also like how you completely ignore his progressive stance on village destruction.

[Blitz]

30. He advocates torture in limited circumstances

And I agree with him 100%. I don't see a reasonable or sane argument that can be made AGAINST torture in a ticking time-bomb scenario.

If the U.S. had captured a 20th hijacker right after the planes took off and knew that he had information that could save thousands of lives that would otherwise be lost in the immediate future, how could they possibly NOT do everything possible to extract that information, by any means at all?

Count me in. In certain specific circumstances, I advocate torture.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MikeGalos]

37. I don't respond

to posts that refer to Jews by Nazi titles.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Blitz]

48. German is not the primary language at DU

And Professor Dershowitz is not German. Why did you use "Herr?" Be honest.

[plurality]

53. because I get tired of Mr. all the time...

and I think he's hardly deserving of Proffesor.

[Blitz]

59. You get tired of Mr.

And you didn't pick Senor or Monsieur or Gospodin. Right. Let me say this as a factual matter:

I do not believe you.

As for not being deserving of "professor," you apparently don't know much about Professor Dershowitz. He was first in his class at Yale Law, was on the Harvard Law faculty at age 25 and was the youngest full professor in Harvard Law history, at 28. The man is a giant.

[MikeGalos]

51. I don't

can you tell us why you chose to use a German honorific for a Brooklyn born Jewish lawyer and author if not to invoke a Nazi image?

Please, be honest here...

[cantwealljustgetalong]

57. do you?...

you're the one that opted to use Herr - where you trying to be complimentary?...

[Blitz]

41. Edit your offensive post

And I'll respond. May I suggest Professor Dershowitz or Dr. Dershowitz.

[MikeGalos]

54. Actually

He really doesn't even go that far. He says that a society MUST deal with these questions and must do so after reflecting on the actual costs and issues involved no matter how painful but actually in interviews says that he comes down slightly on the no torture side even in the ticking bomb scenario.

That's part of what makes all the "Dershowitz advocates torture" rants by those totally ignorant of his work even more insidious. It's like watching the Republican's tar and feather Gore. The facts aren't even the issue. The slander meme has been created and targeted and will get repeated no matter what the facts.

[MikeGalos]

34. No

If you'd kept the rest of the context you'd see that he's discussing what a theoritical torture policy would look like and not advocating it. In an earlier paragraph he states that he's against this policy he's discussing.

But you'd have to actually read the interview rather than cherry-pick quotes to understand that.

[plurality]

40. Ok,

so it's OK as long as you talk about how you'd do something that's vile and disgusting.

Such as if I said, "I don't think someone should try and kill all the Jews, but if I was going to do it, I think gas chambers would be the best way."

[Blitz]

22. This world could use 10,000 more Dershowitzes

But genius is exceedingly rare and men (and women) who possess both genius and coinscience are far rarer still. I have heard Dershowitz speak on two occasions, once taking a very unpopular (and correct, in my view) stance against leading American Rabbis. I do not agree with all of his view but I have tremendous respect for the man. He is the very definition of a progressive and what the movement, such as it is, should aspire to.

[plurality]

27. yes, all progressives should advocate

destroying villages, and torture. what a fine world we'd create.

:eyes:

[MikeGalos]

33. Yet another

person ignorant of what Dershowitz has said but happy to tell people what he THINKS he said.

I'd suggest you go out and attempt to read a copy of "Why Terrorism Works" before pontificating about its contents or its author's opinions.

[plurality]

36. I know exactly what he said, because I read th Op-Ed I linked to

Where he EXPLICITY STATES HE THINKS PALESTINIAN VILLAGES SHOULD BE DESTROYED!

Here's the link again in case you missed it.

http://www.hlrecord.org/news/2002/03/21/Opinion/Responding.To.Palestin...

Following the moratorium, Israel would institute the following policy. It will announce with precision exactly what it will do in response to the next act of terrorism -- for example, the destruction of a small village which has been used as a base for terrorist operations.

[MikeGalos]

42. We were discussing

torture as you did in your post. Don't change the subject and then claim you didn't.

[plurality]

44. no, we were discussing how progressive Mr. Dershowitz is.

And I gave TWO examples of how he is most decidedly NOT progressive. I never changed the subject, you did by saying this is specifically about torture, which it is not, it is about Mr. Dershowitz's 'progressive credentials'.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MikeGalos]

28. I'm a Salon Premium subscriber and I read it in full.

For those who are NOT premium subscribers, you get a summary of Salon political articles. In either case, I've read it.

Now, have you?

[plurality]

31. so did you read the part where he says...

that stick things under people's fingernails is his prefered form of torture. and how he also wants "maximum pain" to be inflicted on the victim of said torture?

[Blitz]

38. Subject

A person who participates in and withholds information about mass murder is hardly a victim.

[plurality]

46. and how does he know said person is a terrorist.

I thought Mr. Dershowitz was a constitutional scholar? Surely he knows that under our Constitution one is considered innocent until proven guilty.

[Blitz]

97. Innocent until proven guilty

is a legal fiction applied to finders of fact (juries and judges) only and only in the context of legal proceedings having to do with criminal prosecution. The words "innocent until proven guilty" are not found anywhere in the United States Constitution. In fact, you won't find the words "innocent" or "guilty" anywhere in that document or the Amendments thereto. The phrase represents a common law concept that is now a well established part of American jurisprudence that has been around quite a bit longer than the United States itself, as any Constitutional scholar could tell you.

In short, a person, using nothing but his faculties and common sense, can often know that an individual has participated in a criminal act, even if that fact had not been established through a legal proceeding.

[MikeGalos]

47. So you prefer forms of torture

that cause permanent physical harm and mutilation?

Because the context was which of those choices was preferable IF torture was deemed necessary by the US and Dershowitz's point was that IF torture is something the US does, we should strive to minimize the long-term costs to the victim.

So, either you advocate maximizing the long-term costs or you didn't have a clue of the context.

Which is it? Sadism or ignorant pontificating?

[plurality]

49. how about not using torture.

I thought for some reason that the days of the Inquisition were behind us. Sadly, some 'progressives' have shown me I was mistaken.

[MikeGalos]

52. That was the context of the question

Since you object to the answer you must disagree with it since, at the time of your objection, you didn't object to the premise but only the answer.

[plurality]

55. No, the context of the question was...

"Why is sticking items under the fingernails your prefered torutre method?"

Not to mention your insistance that Dershowitz is only being hypothetical when he stated in the interview that he thinks torture is apropriate.

[tinnypriv]

45. Obviously

Since like I said, you don't need to subscribe to Salon Premium in order to read it.

And like I said, that just simply proves you didn't click on the link provided.

Now you have added the information about being a Salon subscriber, that does add another option to hypocrisy, namely the fact that you did not know that this interview (article + audio) is free.

Since you stated the opposite (clearly in ignorance of the facts) and have now been corrected, you are free to withdraw your comment at a time of your choosing.

[MikeGalos]

56. Actually

if you ARE a Salon Premium subscriber you just follow the links and read. If you AREN'T then you get stopped.

And the audio, by the way, is NOT free. A short MP3 clip is but the full interview is for sale even to Premium subscribers.

[tinnypriv]

60. Try signing out

And trying both links.

I await your correction.

And you can add another one: the link to "buy" is to the book, not the audio.

[MikeGalos]

61. It's quite possible

That is it NOT premium-only content. If that's true, I was wrong.

On the other hand, saying that I hadn't read it was totally uncalled for and not backed up by the claim and for that I await your correction.

[tinnypriv]

62. It is true

And you are, though at least you have the grace to acknowledge that fact.

As do I: my initial post was slightly inaccurate.

You can have an apology for that, for what that is worth, since the reason I say "slightly" is that follow-up is accurate.

To wit, you did not click on the link you were provided with, and then promptly denounced your opponent for virtually the equivalent crime (consultation of sources).

[MikeGalos]

63. No

I DID click on the article link. As a premium member I don't know for sure what is and isn't premium only content.

[tinnypriv]

64. I would rethink that response

Since if true, it invalidates your previous response (#18), where you specifically say the link is premium content.

Now you say you "don't know for sure what is and isn't premium only content"

You either:

1. Do know what content is premium on Salon (#18 is true, #61 is not)
2. Do not know what content is premium on Salon (#61 is true, #18 is not)

You can pick which, though neither are particularly attractive choices, given the conclusions which follow at once.

[MikeGalos]

65. Right

And that's what I said I could be wrong about. It may well not be preimium content. Political content usually is and the initial posting about it said it was so I assumed (possibly incorrectly) that it was.

So, how many mea culpas do you really want about whether this is or is not premium content? Is this really something you care that much about? Personally, I think this discussion is getting a little wierd and obsessive.

[tinnypriv]

68. Fair enough

I'll drop the matter and turn my attentions to more productive endeavours.

[tinnypriv]

17. What page was that on?

He said the US is currently getting around the law by sending prisoners to our dear peace-loving Arab allies in Egypt and Jordan to be tortured. In the book, he said that we need to pass laws to stop the government from secret torture by proxy or get laws passed so that we have some civilian control over these secret torture policies.

?

[MikeGalos]

19. Are you saying you actually have a copy to look it up?

Or are you just accusing me of lying?

If the former, let me know and I'll look up some page numbers for you (be sure to let me know the edition so we're on, literally, the same page). If the latter, at least make your accusations openly.

[tinnypriv]

23. Testy

Just the page number in your edition please.

[MikeGalos]

29. Again

Do you have a copy to look it up or are you just accusing me of lying?

If the former, let me know and I'll look up some page numbers for you (be sure to let me know the edition so we're on, literally, the same page). If the latter, at least make your accusations openly.

I really don't want to get into a debate on my saying "On page 147 it says..." and then you replying that it doesn't say that on 147 because your edition has it on 149.

And, since you are in the UK, you should mention whether you've got a US or UK edition before we discuss page numbers...

[tinnypriv]

35. Tell you what

You give me your edition date, your page number, and I'll scan my copy, so there can be no confusion.

Deal?

[MikeGalos]

87. My edition is:

Why Terrorism Works
by Alan M. Dershowitz
Yale University Press
New Haven and London
(C) 2002 by Alan M. Dershowitz
1st Edition
1st Printing
ISBN 0-300-09766-2

FYI: this is the US hardcover release with the following contents:

---

Introduction 1

ONE
Deterring Terrorism 15

TWO
The Internationalization of Terrorism:
How Our European Allies Made September 11
Inevitable 35

THREE
How an Amoral Society Could Fight Terrorism 105

FOUR
Should the Ticking Bomb Terrorist Be Tortured?
A Case Study in How a Democracy Should
Make Tragic Choices 131

FIVE
Striking the Right Balance 165

Conclusion
Are We Overreacting? 223

Notes 229
Acknowledgments 261
Index 263

---

If these page numbers match, we can discuss page numbers, if not, let me know your page numbers and we can figure out the difference.

[tinnypriv]

110. Thanks to the wonders of the PM system, I was reminded of this topic

My page numbers match. My ISBN is different, but that doesn't matter.

Shoot.

[MikeGalos]

111. Try

page 138.

[tinnypriv]

112. I have

Try footnote 11 on the preceding page, in which Dersh makes the amusing revelation that:

"11. (...) It is of course possible that judicially supervised torture will work less effectively than unsupervised torture, since the torturee will know that there are limits to the torture being inflicted. At this point in time, any resolution of this issue seems speculative" (my emphasis, p.249)

No doubt once we have our lovely "supervised" torture in place and it turns out it either doesn't work, or destroys our humanity in the process, Dersh will be the first to decry leftist "supervised" torture, and call for no-holds barred "unsupervised" Under-The-Nail-A-Thon's.

Oh, and just as an aside, I found the introduction amusing, where Mr Legal decides to elegantly side-step making a defintion of "terrorism". Instead he decides to address the overall "phenomenon" of "terrorism", restricting analysis to the groups he considers a threat to the "world".

"World" isn't defined, but from his subsequent passages, you can infer it to mean "the west".

I'm not sure why any non-racist should take that view, and he mentions Israel so much one would think he has some kind of obsession.

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tinnypriv]

114. Yes

I usually don't read books I have in my collection. I buy them just for the sheer hell of looking at the spine and covers. My god, my secret is out.

Anyway, since I can't pick out anything worth responding to in your post, I'll just say this for the book: at least it looks like Dersh wrote this one. The difference between Why Terrorism (I Don't Like) Works and The Case For Israel is so pronounced in several instances that it is no wonder many people don't think he even wrote all of the latter.¹

On the other hand, the same lying² is prevalent throughout both, so at least there is some consistency. Let's give Dersh at least half a thumbs-up, eh?

I'll ignore the ad homiem, as is my custom.

-----

1. For analysis and substantial criticism of The Case For Israel, see Norman G. Finkelstein, The Dershowitz Hoax, and my post on the topic (the day Dershowitz issued a "challenge" to find an error within it). Democratic Underground Forums, 9 Sept 2003 (several elements of which will be repeated in a forthcoming critique by Finkelstein).

2. To name one example (by no means an isolated case, though it is illustrative), Dershowitz's fraudalent assertation that "recognising" the right of "armed struggle" in the case of an occupied population is "endorsing" suicide bombings and "terrorism".

[MikeGalos]

115. Without the deleted comment

The section of text is from, as you know, the section of the book that presents "What an Amoral society would do" and is explicitly listed as NOT being what the author advocates.

Since you insist you read the book, then you knew that so why are you pretending that it was what he advocated when you know by reading the book that what you said isn't true?

[tinnypriv]

116. Well, a few points need to be made

I politely suggest you re-examine the book, for reasons below.

1. The section of text I quoted (accurately) is from footnote 11, on page 137.

2. The chapter you suggest this footnote is in is called "How an Amoral Society Could Fight Terrorism", not what you have posted above.

3. That chapter (Amoral Society) starts on page 106 and ends on page 130.

4. To be completely accurate, the hypothetical scenario Dershowitz outlines in that chapter ends on page 127, paragraph 2.

5. As should be obvious from a moments thought, if what I quoted is on page 137, it is not in the chapter you claim it is in. It is actually in the chapter "Should the Ticking Bomb Terrorist Be Tortured?"

6. It is Dershowitz's opinion, as should be obvious from (5), and even if it wasn't, within 2 pages of that footnote Dershowitz says "How I Began Thinking About Torture" (my emphasis on the personal pronoun).

I presume this clears up your misunderstanding. You can withdraw your comments at any time (or not).

[MikeGalos]

117. So you agree

that at no point does Dershowitz say that what you quote is what he advocates?

I withdraw the comment about the chapter, I thought for some reason you'd said 127. My error.

But the point remains. Nowhere in the book does Dershowitz advocate torture. And I call on you now to give a page number to ANY place where he does. Since that was the original and very public charge, it shouldn't be hard for you to find an example.

[tinnypriv]

118. I'm afraid not

He says exactly what I quoted (accurately). Read into it however you like.

I've given you my opinion, and as such, this is not a discussion on fact, but supposition. If you disagree, at least realise the basis on which you are disagreeing.

To address the one relevant part of your post: you could not possibly have thought that I said "127", instead of 137 (your conceded basis for #115), since I never said either numerals. I said, "on the preceding page" to 138. Please re-examine the thread.

To address the irrelevant part of your post: the "very public charge" in this thread was not mine, nor will I address it for that reason. Ask the person who made it.

Incidentally, "the point remains" because all your other "points" were comprehensively demolished. I see no need to continue in that vein, not when there are more pressing matters at hand, and certainly not when the topic is Dershowitz's rantings (which I have substantially criticised elsewhere).

[MikeGalos]

119. Again, the original charge remains untrue

Nowhere in the book does Dershowitz support torture.

To say so is a lie.

Either withdraw the claim or show where it does.

[tinnypriv]

120. First

You would have to show where I claimed it.

To be even more specific, where I claimed that "in the book" Dershowitz supports torture.

Good luck on that one.

[MikeGalos]

121. So you agree he doesn't support torture

Good.

[tinnypriv]

122. Not what I said of course

I didn't say one way or the other whether he supports torture in the book or not.

You made the claim that I did, so I suggest you back it up.

If you cannot, I suggest you withdraw your fraudalent assertation that I did.

Assuming you want to reach the level of minimal argumentative honesty that is.

[MikeGalos]

123. Does he or doesn't he?

You demanded I back up my claim that he didn't and now you claim that you didn't say either way? Pretty silly.

Either he DID say he supported torture or he didn't. You claim to have read the book. Which is it?

[tinnypriv]

124. LOL

I asked you for a page number. Nothing else.

[MikeGalos]

125. And where did you ask the page number

for the people saying Dershowitz advocated torture?

I'm sure you just forgot to ask them being neutral and all, right?

So. Which is it?

I've documented that Dershowitz didn't advocate torture and that the accusations are slandarous lies.

You've claimed to have read the book.
If you think he did, show us where.
If you think he didn't, admit it.

If neither, you didn't read the book and really DID just look at the spine.

[tinnypriv]

126. I think I've wasted enough time in this thread

As anybody can determine.

[Name removed]

129. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Blitz]

25. In light of post 23

It's apparently the latter.

[hlthe2b]

3. He lost any respect I might have had for him...

when he advocated torture... Mr consitutional lawyer? Give me a break.

I suppose he must feel right at home with Sharon's policies, however.

[MikeGalos]

11. sigh

Another person heard from who didn't read the book but thinks he knows what it says well enough to speak from his ignorance. (See post 10 for what Dershowitz's book actually said)

[JasonDeter]

4. American policy is to support Israel because its the right thing to do.

That has been a historical fact and a fact today. I applaud Dershowitz and encourage him to continue prodding the majority of American's to stay the course re: Israel. Israel is in the right and in this case right will prevail.

[dudeness]

5. Tariq Ali..John Pilger...Noam Chomsky

Marvelous to see these outstanding progressives supporting peace..

[Jack Rabbit]

6. Marvelous to see this outstanding progressive supporting Israel

Who do you mean? I thought you were talking about Dershowitz.

Dershowitz is not a progressive. One cannot be a progressive and support the use of torture.

[MikeGalos]

12. and again

Another person heard from who didn't read the book but thinks he knows what it says well enough to speak from his ignorance. (See post 10 for what Dershowitz's book actually said)

[Jack Rabbit]

14. True, I haven't read the book

However, I have read reviews of it andx comments, such as your post:

If you HAD read it, you'd know that he didn't advocate torture. He said the US is currently getting around the law by sending prisoners to our dear peace-loving Arab allies in Egypt and Jordan to be tortured. In the book, he said that we need to pass laws to stop the government from secret torture by proxy or get laws passed so that we have some civilian control over these secret torture policies.

The only control over torture that is acceptable is prohibition. Mr. Dershowitz falls short of that standard. This view is to be condmened.

I stand on what I said.

[MikeGalos]

15. Perhaps

it would be better, then, if you didn't tell people what Dershowitz said since you admit you don't know. You even did it in your reply where you admit you don't know what he said.

Dershowitz, it his thought provoking book, "Why Terrorism Works", did NOT every advocate torture. Even indirectly. That you think he did says something about either the goals of the reviewers you read or your own filters on how you read them.

He DID, in the book, present the arguments made both for and against torture. He also presented the facts documenting that the US DOES torture prisoners in many cases with no oversight or consistant policy. (As an aside, a Canadian citizen was just featured last week on the CBC's "The National" who was returned after being held by the US in Guantanamo and sent off by the US to the Middle East for torture by our Arab allies).

In the book, the only thing Dershowitz advocated regarding US torture policy was that we stop being hypocrites and have a national debate on torture and set up a public, visible policy that can't be secretly hidden. While he opposed torture in the book, he called for the US citizens to set the law.

So, apparently either you or the reviewers you like to read think that asking the US to stop secretly torturing (primarily Arab) prisoners is advocating torture...

And people wonder why we pro-Israel types get tired of the lies...

[Jack Rabbit]

66. From the pen of Alan Dershowitz

Originally published in the Los Angeles Times
Dated November 8, 2001

Is There a Torturous Road to Justice?
By Alan Dershowitz

The FBI's frustration over its inability to get material witnesses to talk has raised a disturbing question rarely debated in this country: When, if ever, is it justified to resort to unconventional techniques such as truth serum, moderate physical pressure and outright torture?
The constitutional answer to this question may surprise people who are not familiar with the current U.S. Supreme Court interpretation of the 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination: Any interrogation technique, including the use of truth serum or even torture, is not prohibited. All that is prohibited is the introduction into evidence of the fruits of such techniques in a criminal trial against the person on whom the techniques were used. But the evidence could be used against that suspect in a non-criminal case--such as a deportation hearing--or against someone else.
If a suspect is given "use immunity"--a judicial decree announcing in advance that nothing the defendant says (or its fruits) can be used against him in a criminal case--he can be compelled to answer all proper questions. The issue then becomes what sorts of pressures can constitutionally be used to implement that compulsion. We know that he can be imprisoned until he talks. But what if imprisonment is insufficient to compel him to do what he has a legal obligation to do? Can other techniques of compulsion be attempted? . . . .
What if the truth serum doesn't work? Could the judge issue a "torture warrant," authorizing the FBI to employ specified forms of non-lethal physical pressure to compel the immunized suspect to talk?
Here we run into another provision of the Constitution--the due process clause, which may include a general "shock the conscience" test. And torture in general certainly shocks the conscience of most civilized nations.
But what if it were limited to the rare "ticking bomb" case--the situation in which a captured terrorist who knows of an imminent large-scale threat refuses to disclose it?

Even this goes to far. While Dershowitz does not approve of torture as broadly as some others would, he nevertheless approves of it under certain circumstances.

Any use of torture is to be condemned. Anyone who advocates it, even in narrow circumstances, is no progressive.

I rest my case.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Must_B_Free]

72. You really lost this argument.

now you are splitting hairs.

What's next, a discussion of what the word "is" means?

[IndianaGreen]

7. Dershowitz also made the case for torture

What's next? General Pinochet embracing Sharon?

[MikeGalos]

13. Nope. He didn't.

Another person heard from who didn't read the book but thinks he knows what it says well enough to speak from his ignorance. (See post 10 for what Dershowitz's book actually said)

[IndianaGreen]

39. I saw Dershowitz advocate torture on TV

I don't care about his book, and I don't care for anyone that advocates torture or state-sponsored murder.

[MikeGalos]

50. No you didn't

But perhaps that's what you wanted to see so you skipped seeing what you didn't like (like the context of a question like 'what if the US DID want to admit that we torture - what would a torture law look like?').

Please. Feel free to provide a citation. His books and public speeches don't say it so a TV show where he actually advocated torture would be newsworthy. We'd all love to see that reference. (Or a retration)

[Wonk]

78. CNN.com - Dershowitz: Torture could be justified - Mar. 3, 2003 (link)

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/03/03/cnna.Dershowitz/

[Must_B_Free]

79. Here's a classic distortion by Dersh:

"I agree with you, it will much better if we never did it. But if we're going to do it and subcontract and find ways of circumventing, it's much better to do what Israel did. " (i.e. torturing say 90 percent of the Palestinian security detainees they had)

The old "I am diffusing your argument by pretending to agree with you" trick.

Dersh has become demented. Here he claims to be against torture, yet he is the very one attempting to chiseling his way into that locked door.

Dersh wants a "torture warrant" power to be put in the hands on one man, not a "low-level" person, mind you, someone like Bush or Scalia.

Never mind that Bush doesn't read the newspaper and relies on others to tell him all of his "intelligence" which just happens to be unfortunately flawed, fortunately in his favor. Can you imagine entrusting this idiot with a torture warrant?

I lost all of the respect I had for Dersh when I saw this on CNN.

[Jack Rabbit]

80. Excerpt

Thanks for the link, Wonk.

BLITZER: Alan Dershowitz, a lot of our viewers will be surprised to hear that you think there are right times for torture. Is this one of those moments?

DERSHOWITZ: I don't think so. This is not the ticking-bomb terrorist case, at least so far as we know. Of course, the difficult question is the chicken-egg question: We won't know if he is a ticking-bomb terrorist unless he provides us information, and he's not likely to provide information unless we use certain extreme measures.

My basic point, though, is we should never under any circumstances allow low-level people to administer torture. If torture is going to be administered as a last resort in the ticking-bomb case, to save enormous numbers of lives, it ought to be done openly, with accountability, with approval by the president of the United States or by a Supreme Court justice. I don't think we're in that situation in this case.

BLITZER: Well, how do you know ...

DERSHOWITZ: So we might be close.

BLITZER: Alan, how do you know he doesn't have that kind of ticking-bomb information right now, that there's some plot against New York or Washington that he was involved in and there's a time sensitivity? If you knew that, if you suspected that, you would say (to) get the president to authorize torture.

DERSHOWITZ: Well, we don't know, and that's why (we could use) a torture warrant, which puts a heavy burden on the government to demonstrate by factual evidence the necessity to administer this horrible, horrible technique of torture. I would talk about nonlethal torture, say, a sterilized needle underneath the nail, which would violate the Geneva Accords, but you know, countries all over the world violate the Geneva Accords. They do it secretly and hypothetically, the way the French did it in Algeria. If we ever came close to doing it, and we don't know whether this is such a case, I think we would want to do it with accountability and openly and not adopt the way of the hypocrite.

This is basically the same argument Dershowitz makes in the article the Los Angeles Times piece linked in post no. 66. Again. he is not making a blanket endorsement of torture in all cases. However, he is condoning and recommending setting up procedures for its use.

That's advocating it. And that is abominable. Dershowitz should be ashamed of himself.

[Must_B_Free]

81. Dersh - selling "kinder, gentler torture"

interesting that noone has hit one key issue:

How do you know the information you are getting is accurate?

If there ever was a time to make up anything to stop the pain, wouldn't many torture subjects just invent something they thought their tormentor wanted to hear?

[Jack Rabbit]

82. That is a good point

We are focusing on the humanitarian concerns, which are sufficient to condemn Dershowitz' position on this matter.

However, you raise the practical matter about torture. I'm not that brave a fellow, and probably most people are as brave as I. Come at me with a cattle prod aimed my nuts and I'll tell you anything you want to hear.

[MikeGalos]

86. Why do you keep insisting

on citing what you claim is "Dershowitz' position on this matter" when you admit you haven't bothered to read the book.

If you HAD read it, you'd know that he discusses exactly those issues and cites them as arguments against torture.

Read the book and you'll find it doesn't say what you've been led to believe it says. (And then, perhaps, you'll take whatever sources you got the book reviews from with more than a grain of salt)

[Jack Rabbit]

88. I have read other things he has said on the matter

Including what was posted earlier (I read that two years ago and dug it up again this afternoon) and the CNN transscript.

The position taken there in indefensible. If there si something in the book that would make it more defensible, you like to elaborate on it, but I will let you know inadvance I will be a very tough sell on it.

Torture is a crime against humanity. Period. No exceptions.

Someone who advocates it and tries to provide guidelines as to when it is acceptable is not a progressive. He is part and parcel with the torturers.

[MikeGalos]

90. Here's a question for you

since you give a blanket statement that "Torture is a crime against humanity. Period. No exceptions."

If you could guarantee that every Republican candidate would be defeated in November by making a single phone call to Karl Rove at three in the morning on Thursday and then hanging up, would you do it?

If so, you've just said you'd torture. You've deprived sleep to a person in exchange for achieving your goal. And that IS torture.

Granted it's an insanely mild example but if you'd say that is "a crime against humanity." then, frankly, I hope you're not working on any Democratic campaigns. If not, then you've just made an exception and then it ISN'T a case of "Period. No exceptions." that you claim it is.

[Must_B_Free]

92. Woah, major flop of an argument, Mike

"If you could guarantee that every Republican candidate would be defeated in November by making a single phone call to Karl Rove at three in the morning on Thursday and then hanging up, would you do it?"

Uh... No.

Next?

[Jack Rabbit]

94. Sorry, I am not answering hypothetical questions tonight

In the real world, rather than a hypothetical one, torture is a crime against humanity. Period. No exceptions.

It is unfortunate that there is some part of that Mr. Dershowitz does not understand.

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MikeGalos]

85. That's a key point in his book

and one of the arguments he puts forth against torture.

Of course, if you haven't read the book and just believe what people here want you to think you'd never know that.

[MikeGalos]

84. And if you actually read it

he doesn't advocate torture at all. What he DOES advocate is that IF we are going to torture (and we do now) then we need to set up a process where there is accountablity for the decision.

Do you really think we shouldn't have accountablity? Do you really think we should continue to torture people by proxy in Egypt and Jordan?

Or do you agree with Dershowitz.

[Jack Rabbit]

98. I disagree with Dershowitz

He is attempting to make torture neat and acceptable. If that isn't advocating it, then what is?

His position on torture is morally abominable. The only acceptable position for a progressive to take towards torture is that is reprehesible and should be abolished.

Of course I don't think we should torture people by proxy through states like Egypt and Jordan. Those responsible for turning over suspects to such states to be tortured are just as guilty. You want accountablilty? They should be held responsible.

Torture is a crime against humanity. Period. No exceptions. If one is trying to give it the approval of legal institutions the way Dershowitz is, insraed of working to abolish the practice, then one is not a progressive.

[MikeGalos]

99. What IS advocating it

is burying your head in the sand and pretending that our current system bans torture.

Our system makes torture-by-proxy perfectly legal.

What Dershowitz is saying is that our current system is hypocritical and broken and we need to fix it. He also says that it is a complicated issue and we shouldn't make uninformed and unthought decisions.

After all, nobody here who has said "Torture is a crime against humanity. Period." has been willing (or able) to define the line where torture begins. Without even confronting that issue, we're never going to be able to deal with the issue and it will stay the prerogative of field commanders rather than national policy.

[MikeGalos]

100. To put it simply:

Assume the following scenario:

A prisoner is arrested and there is conclusive and undenied evidence that proves he is part of a known right-wing, violent terrorist group with a history of murdering civil rights advocates.

1. A detective politely asks him whether he knows of any plans by the terrorist group to cause harm to US citizens.
   Is this a Crime Against Humanity?
   
   
2. A detective asks him whether he knows of any plans by the terrorist group to cause harm to US citizens but asks rudely and loudly.
   Is this a Crime Against Humanity?
   
   
3. A detective asks him whether he knows of any plans by the terrorist group to cause harm to US citizens. He asks rudely, loudly and continues asking for an hour.
   Is this a Crime Against Humanity?
   
   
4. A detective asks him whether he knows of any plans by the terrorist group to cause harm to US citizens. He asks rudely, loudly and continues asking for four hours.
   Is this a crime against humanity?
   
   
5. A detective asks him whether he knows of any plans by the terrorist group to cause harm to US citizens. He asks rudely, loudly and continues asking for 8 hours without letting the prisoner sleep.
   Is this a Crime Against Humanity?
   
   
6. A detective asks him whether he knows of any plans by the terrorist group to cause harm to US citizens. He asks rudely, loudly and continues asking for 16 hours without letting the prisoner sleep.
   Is this a Crime Against Humanity?
   
   
7. A detective asks him whether he knows of any plans by the terrorist group to cause harm to US citizens. He asks rudely, loudly and continues asking for 36 hours without letting the prisoner sleep.
   Is this a Crime Against Humanity?
   
   
8. A detective asks him whether he knows of any plans by the terrorist group to cause harm to US citizens. He asks rudely, loudly and continues asking for 72 hours without letting the prisoner sleep.
   Is this a Crime Against Humanity?
   

If you can't draw a line of what IS and ISN'T torture you can't condemn it. If you don't discuss torture, you can't draw a meaningful line.

Either that or you devalue "Crime Against Humanity" to mean anything that causes anyone anything they don't like. I, personally, don't want real Crimes Against Humanity diluted to being meaningless.

It's all well and good to pat yourself on the back and say "I oppose all forms of Torture - PERIOD" but without defining what you mean, it's just meaningless self praise.

[Jack Rabbit]

104. Let me make it even simpler for you

Here is the definition of torture used by the UN Convention against Torture (1984), which, I am happy to say, both the US and Israel have ratified:

For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

If you would like to apply your hypothetical situations to that standard, please feel free to do so. I still fail to see the point of answering such questions.

Specifically, when used in the above context, torture can mean such measures as applying a cattle prod to the subject of interrogation, sliding bamboo shoots under his fingernails, tying him to a chair and slapping him silly and sleep or sensory deprivation. Let's not do anything so futile as attempt to make an exhaustive list.

Such measures are a crime against humanity. I find the idea that one can make this all very neat and pretty with a judicial warrant barbaric. Rather than rid the world of torture, such proposals would enshrine torture as an institution. There is no place for that in a civilized society. No one who would make such a proposal is a progressive.

[MikeGalos]

108. Torture as defined by the UN

is absolutely horrible. However that is NOT what Dershowitz is talking about in the book. He addresses a much larger range of practices including many that are NOT banned by the UN Convention.

He says we need to address all these issues as a people and not just let it be done by proxy in secret because we refuse to discuss the issue.

BTW: Thanks for pointing out that Israel and the US both agree with the UN Convention against Torture. You'll also note that Israel has also put regulations in place that are MUCH more restrictive than the UN calls for and, unlike the US, does not use proxies to get around the law.

[Jack Rabbit]

103. Wrong

You're right that we should not pretend that our current system does not ban torture. We need to change it so that it does.

You're also right that our system uses torture by proxy rather than tortures suspects directly. However, that practice is illegal under Article Three of the Convention against Torture (1984).

Dershowitz suggests that in some circumstances torture is warranted. For such circumstances, Dershowitz would establish a procedure whereby authorities may obtain a torture warrant from a judge.

In short, Dershowitz approves of torture under limited circumstances and would establish legal procedures to warrant torture. That's advocating torture.

[MikeGalos]

107. No

Dershowitz says that we, as a people, may choose to consider torture warrented in some situations and that by not addressing the issue, we effectively have done so. That's different from his saying that torture is good. He's saying we're doing it now with NO oversight and NO consent of the people and no matter what way we decide, that has to change.

[MikeGalos]

83. You didn't bother to read that one either, I guess

since Dershowitz said when asked that he didn't think torture was justified in the scenario he was asked about. He did say, as I've said here repeatedly, that it is a choice that should be made by the American people and be a public policy choice rather than a secret policy done by military commanders by shipping prisoners to Jordan and Egypt.

[Must_B_Free]

93. Unfortunately that is a step down a slippery slope

and a step best not taken. That is why so many are disappointed at this apparant flash of dimentia displayed by Alan Dershowitz.

Going back to your Karl Rove 3 AM phone call example of torture, the crux of this seems to be "If you could cheat and get away with it, would you do it?"

The answer is no.

Once you have adopted the means of that which you oppose, once you lower yourself to that level, you effectively become that which you oppose.

[MikeGalos]

96. So you'd have no problem

with a ticking bomb going off and killing thousands of people rather than annoying a prisoner no matter how slight the annoyance?

Care to tell us when an annoyance becomes torture? There has to be some point in your mind. Please. Share that line with us.

[MikeGalos]

101. So ignorance is preferable to discussion?

So, care to answer the questions in Post #100?

[IndianaGreen]

105. You can't provide a link to something that was on TV

Proving a negative seems to be the preferred methodology of those that supported the war in Iraq, and it appears to also be the choice of those that support the status quo in US-Israel relations.

[Lurking Dem]

106. You can provide a citation.

[JasonDeter]

8. I thank God for people like Dershowitz and 70% of Americans agree.

And its too bad the Professors aren't teaching the children to think for themselves. But that's the republican mentality in a nutshell, telling everyone what to think. But 9/11 changed the way America thinks about terrorism, no longer is it an abstract. bin laden brought it terribly home and we got an inkling of what Israel is going through.

"All wars are planned by older men,
in council rooms apart,
Who call for greater armament,
and map the battle chart.

But out along the shattered field,
where golden dreams turn gray,
How very young the faces were,
where all the dead men lay.

Portly and solemn in their pride,
the elders cast their vote
For this or that, or something else,
that sounds the martial note.

But where their sightless eyes stare out,
beyond life's vanished toys,
I've noticed nearly all the dead,
were hardly more than boys."

Grantland Rice

[tinnypriv]

9. Cut and paste, cut and paste, cut and paste

:)

[MikeGalos]

58. Great article by the way

It's nice to see an intelligent article on Israel. (Even if the side show on here keeps discussing the article itself from happening)

[Must_B_Free]

69. Post 10: "our dear peace-loving Arab allies "

Mike - I am sorry, but you are clearly biased.

I heard Dersh on TV and it sounded to me as if he supported torture, albeit in whatever remote circumstance, however to hear ideas such as this coming from a "progressive" is alarming.

Mike, the problem is this simple: that Israel posesses and uses weapons of modern warfare against children with rocks. Until that fact can be escaped, you really don't have a case.

You hold yourself up as some person who is persecuted for "speaking the truth", when a quick glance at the disbursement of resources on both sides reveals how truely misled you are.

[MikeGalos]

71. Our dear peace-loving Arab allies

of Egypt and Jordan have ongoing agreements with the US to torture our prisoners to get around the US ban on torture. An Arab-Canadian man was just released to Canada after just such proxy torture ordered by the US staff in Guantanamo.

Care to defend that practice?

[Must_B_Free]

74. gee I'm sorry

I don't have a clue at what you're getting at.

I am against torture, so why would I care to defend it?

[MikeGalos]

75. You seem to raise some objection

to my being pissed off at our dear peace-loving, Arab ally states who torture our prisoners.

So, why are you defending them?

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Must_B_Free]

89. I merely pointed out that your sarcasm

in the form of "dear" and "peace-loving" speaks volumes about your bias.

How does that equate to a defense of torture?

[MikeGalos]

91. Where did you do that

precisely?

I'd love to see that in your post.

I, personally, am happy to be sarcastic as hell about people who torture prisoners for contract. It's the very least I can do.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

67. Case Closed?...

Alan Dershowitz tends to be a magnet for controversy. Unsurprisingly, the release of his latest work, The Case for Israel, corresponded with two predictably Dershowitzian rackets. First, Dershowitz developed an amusing publicity stunt, offering to write a $10,000 check to the Palestinian Authority should anyone find a factual error in his book. Soon afterward, two of Dershowitz's opponents concocted a silly charge of plagiarism against the Harvard Law School professor, seeking to discredit the author rather than his arguments. Norman Finkelstein and Alexander Cockburn complain that Dershowitz seems to have found a number of primary source quotations in the work of another scholar, Joan Peters, and that he sometimes cites only the original source rather than Peters. This charge is hard to fathom in light of a passage in the Chicago Manual of Style that explains, "With all reuse of others' materials, it is important to identify the original as the source. This helps avoid any accusation of plagiarism." Most scholars agree that even if Finkelstein and Cockburn's charges are true, they simply do not amount to plagiarism under any accepted definition of the word.

At any rate, these allegations of plagiarism must have pleased Dershowitz, for they illustrate well the central premises of his short volume: that a large number of people around the world exhibit a deep-seated antipathy toward Israel and its advocates, and that many of these people seem to have little regard for facts. Dershowitz has easily beaten the plagiarism rap, and his book defeats a series of charges against Israel with equal facility.

...

Though he clearly takes sides, Dershowitz admirably keeps the overblown rhetoric to a minimum in his treatment of an issue where grandstanding and pontification has been the fashion. Instead, he offers copious and well-documented evidence, a diligence that makes Finkelstein and Cockburn's charges seem all the more implausible.

Dershowitz frames the debate as well as he makes his case: The Case for Israel is structured as a legal brief, and it methodically seeks to debunk what Dershowitz considers to be 32 common myths about the Jewish state. These, of course, include some of the most enduring questions about the Israel-Palestine conflict, addressing everything from Israel's alleged violation of U.N. Resolution 242 to the legitimacy of the Balfour Declaration and even the historical demographics of the disputed territories. In forcefully answering these questions, The Case for Israel not only offers advocacy for Israel but also a well-researched, wide-ranging, and accessible primer in the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that is conscious of its own biases.

...

http://www.hpronline.org/news/2003/12/07/BooksAndArts/Case.Closed.shtml

[MikeGalos]

73. I'm guessing

that Dershowitz still has the $10,000 check.

BTW: I'd say "The Case for Israel" is a good read but hardly up to his usual standards since the facts he presents are well known to anybody who had done ANY reading on the subject and isn't so biased as to decry all factual data as "Zionist propaganda".

Still, worth a read.

[dudeness]

109. a dissenting view

The Glove Does Fit: A reply to Alan Dershowitz


Alan Dershowitz either cannot or refuses to understand why there is a controversy surrounding The Case for Israel ("Plagiarism Accusations Political, Unfounded," 30 September 2003). Perhaps I can enlighten him. Quite simply, the book he claims to have written is a hoax: (1) substantial swatches are lifted from another notorious hoax on the Israel-Palestine conflict, (2) it is replete with egregious falsifications, and (3) the few scholarly sources actually cited are mangled beyond recognition. In this reply, I will only illustrate points (1) and (2). These, along with point (3), will be fully documented in a forthcoming monograph.

In 1984, Joan Peters published From Time Immemorial, which claimed that Palestine was virtually empty on the eve of Zionist colonization, and that Palestinians are in fact foreigners who surreptitiously entered Palestine after the Zionists "made the desert bloom." The book is now widely recognized as a fraud. Baruch Kimmerling (of the Hebrew University) and Joel S. Migdal, in their authoritative study, Palestinians: The Making of a People, published by Harvard University Press, observe that Peters's book is "based on materials out of context, and on distorted evidence," and, citing my own conclusion that the book "is the most spectacular fraud ever published on the Arab-Israeli conflict," report that "similar evaluations were expressed by notable historians" in Israel and Europe.

Dershowitz states that he uses only a "few sources" cited in the Peters hoax. In fact, fully 22 of the 52 endnotes in chapters 1-2 are lifted straight from her without any form of attribution. In his defense, Dershowitz claims that no foul play is involved because he checked Peters's original sources before citing them, a laughable argument were an undergraduate to make it before a plagiarism committee. Dershowitz focuses on a lengthy citation from Mark Twain to argue this point. Yet, although Dershowitz reproduces Peters's page references to Twain's book in his own endnote, the relevant quotes do not appear on these pages in the edition of Twain's book that Dershowitz cites. Furthermore, Dershowitz cites two paragraphs from Twain as continuous text, just as Peters cites them as continuous text, but in Twain's book the two paragraphs are separated by 87 pages. It would be impossible for anyone who checked the original source to make this error.

Dershowitz similarly "checked" Peters's other sources. Quoting a statement depicting the miserable fate of Jews in mid-19th century Jerusalem, Peters cites a British consular letter from "Wm. T. Young to Viscount Canning." Dershowitz cites the same statement as Peters, reporting that Young "attributed the plight of the Jew in Jerusalem" to pervasive anti-Semitism. Turning to the original, however, we find that the relevant statement did not come from Young but, as is unmistakably clear to anyone who actually consulted the original, from an enclosed memorandum written by an "A. Benisch" that Young was forwarding to Canning. One wonders if Dershowitz also consulted Peters's original source for the term "turnspeak" - a coinage of Peters, which she says was inspired by George Orwell's 1984, but which Dershowitz, confounded by his massive borrowings from Peters, not once but twice credits directly to Orwell ("George Orwell's `turnspeak,'" "Orwellian turnspeak"). On which pages of 1984 did Dershowitz find "turnspeak"?


more ...http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/id142.htm

[durutti]

102. Forthcoming Finkelstein Book

Norman Finkelstein's next book will be a point-by-point refutation of The Case for Israel. It will be entitled Letters to an Old Shyster: How Professor Alan Dershowitz Concocted a Ludicrous Hoax and Why Harvard University Should Expel Him for It, and is due to be released by the New Press in the near future.

I expect Finkelstein to make short work of Dershowitz, just as he did Joan Peters.

[Jim Sagle]

127. The Dersh RAWKS, and The Fink SUX!

[Jim Sagle]

128. The Dersh comes through with a grand slam homer!!!!!!!!!!!

:thumbsup: