Dershowitz-Finkelstein affair
|
|
Shortly after the publication of the book The Case for Israel, Norman Finkelstein accused its author, Alan Dershowitz, of "fraud, falsification, plagiarism and nonsense." Specifically, Finkelstein noted that in twenty instances that all occur within about as many pages, Dershowitz's book excerpts the same words from the same sources that Joan Peters used in her book From Time Immemorial, a book about the history of Israel that several critics have accused of distortion, and which Finkelstein had labeled a "monumental hoax." Several paragraph-long quotes that the two books share have ellipses in the same position, Finkelstein pointed out; and in one instance Dershowitz referenced the same page number as Peters, although he was citing a different edition of the source, in which the words appear on a different page.
| Contents |
Responses and opinions
Dershowitz has responded that all of the excerpts were at least compared to, if not directly drawn from, authoritative texts, and that they are accurate; a claim that Finkelstein has chosen not to dispute. Dershowitz has also characterized the excerpts as quotations that historians and scholars of the region cite routinely, such as Mark Twain and the reports of government commissions.
The conclusion Finkelstein drew from the similarities was that Dershowitz had not researched his sources directly, but instead in twenty instances had used Peters' book and without crediting her. Finkelstein found a mis-attribution that he said supported this conclusion. In writing his book, Dershowitz had attributed an Orwellian neologism to Orwell himself, when actually Peters had coined it in her book in an allusion to Orwell, in which she mentioned him by name (her neologism "turnspeak" resembles the 1984 author's "Newspeak"). The mistake by Dershowitz, Finkelstein said, fit a pattern of cribbing from Peters while not crediting her. Academic propriety demanded that she be credited, he said.
On the basis of Finkelstein's comparisons, political commentator Alexander Cockburn joined him in concluding that Dershowitz had drawn his excerpts directly from Peters' book. This he characterized as unscholarly. Noting a footnote in which Dershowitz referred to the controversial status of Peters' book and said that he did not "rely" on it for "conclusions or data," Cockburn assessed Dershowitz furthermore as having more or less lied about what Cockburn and Finkelstein concluded he had done. Echoing Finkelstein's charge of plagiarism, Cockburn called on Harvard to fire Dershowitz as a professor.
Dershowitz replied to the various charges of academic impropriety at length (see [1] (http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn10112003.html)). Among various points of contention, he wrote that in fact he had not been reticent to credit Peters. "I cited her eight times in the first eighty-nine pages (Ch. 2, fn 31, 35; Ch. 5, fn 8; Ch. 12, fn 34, 37, 38, 44, 47)." He also disputed that in the twenty instances identified by Finkelstein the proper practice would have been to credit Peters, instead of the original source as he had done.
It appears that Harvard intends to take no action.
The $10,000 challenge
In an appearance on MSNBC's Scarborough Country, Dershowitz made the following challenge to Sam Husseini:
- I will give 10,000 to the PLO. 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 [2] (http://www.democracynow.org/static/dershowitzFin.shtml).
Finkelstein rose to the challenge on Amy Goodman's Democracy Now!. He first started with "concrete facts which are not particularly controversial". Finkelstein cited for a count of between 2,000 and 3,000 emigrant Arabs actually gave the range as between 200,000 to 300,000. Dershowitz replied that the mistake could not have been intentional on his part, because he had used these numbers to counter a claim that no Arabs at all had emigrated during the interval he had been addressing, and because it would only have served his argument to have gotten the numbers right. "Obviously, the phrase '2,000 to 3,000 Arabs' refers either to a sub-phase [of the emigration] or is a typographical error," Dershowitz said.
Finkelstein countered Dershowitz's claim that "Israel is the only country in the Middle East to have abolished any kind of torture in fact as well as in law." on page 206 by quoting The B'Tselem Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in Occupied Territories. "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." Finkelstein showed how also Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch reached the same conclusion. Dershowitz said that "They are wrong.". Next was Dershowitz's claim that "There is no evidence that Israeli soldiers deliberately killed even a single civilian in Jenin." on page 126 Finkelstein quoted Human Rights Watch as concluding that "there's prima facie evidence that Israel committed war crimes in Jenin. Many of the civilian killings documented by Human Rights Watch are mounted to unlawful or willful killings by the IDF." and "among the civilian deaths were those of Kamal Zgheir, 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." Dershowitz said the HRW's report was wrong.
Other accusations and replies
Dershowitz has asserted that Finkelstein's and others' accusations of plagiarism are insincere and that the real motivation is a dislike for his political advocacy for Israel. He linked the attacks on his reputation to accusations against Elie Wiesel and others, saying they represented an organized and well-funded effort. He also characterized them generally as baseless.
In particular he cited Finkelstein's accusation against Wiesel in the book The Holocaust Industry. Finkelstein had called Wiesel a liar for claiming to have read Kant's Critique of Pure Reason in Yiddish and had asserted that no translation of the work existed in Yiddish at the time. Dershowitz responded that this was not so, asserting that one had been published in Warsaw in 1929. "The Harvard Library has a copy and Wiesel did read it," Dershowitz wrote.
Finkelstein describes this latter claim as false and inept...writing that the only Yiddish Kant text the library owns is a single-chapter of the Critique of Practical Reason--a different and far less renowned work than the one referred to by Wiesel and Dershowitz.
Some similarities between Dershowitz's and Peters' references
Here are two similarities between the books as an example. Far more are featured at Norman Finkelstein's webpage on the matter (http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=1).
Similarity 1
The Case for Israel p. 17, "In the sixteenth century, according to British reports, 'as many as 15,000 Jews' lived in Safad, which was a 'center of rabbinical learning.'" (Source cited: Palestine Royal Commission Report, pp. 11-12.)
From Time Immemorial p. 178, "Safad at that time, according to the British investigation by Lord Peel's committee, 'contained as many as 15,000 Jews in the 16th century,' and was 'a centre of Rabbinical learning.'" (Source cited: Palestine Royal Commission Report, pp. 11-12.)
Both excerpts are somewhat misleading and commit the same error:
Palestine Royal Commission Report (i.e. the document that both books cite), "Safad, which according to Jewish tradition contained as many as 15,000 Jews in the sixteenth century, became a centre of Rabbinical learning..." [emphasis added] (Occurs on p.11, not pp.11-12 as cited.)
Similarity 2
The Case for Israel p. 20, "Several years later, the same consul attributed the plight of the Jew in Jerusalem to 'the blind hatred and ignorant prejudice of a fanatical populace,' coupled with an inability of the poverty-stricken Jewish community to defend itself either politically or physically." (Source cited: Wm. T. Young to Viscount Canning, January 13, 1842.)
From Time Immemorial p. 188, "In Palestine, [it] was reported: 'It is a fact that the Jewish Subjects... do not enjoy the privileges granted to them. This Evil may in general be traced...: I. To the absence of an adequate protection whereby they are more exposed to cruel and tyrannical treatment. II. To the blind hatred and ignorant prejudices of a fanatical populace....IV. To the starving state of numerous Jewish population.'" [emphasis in original] (Source cited: Wm. T. Young to Viscount Canning, January 13, 1842.)
External links
- The Dershowitz Hoax (http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/id143.htm) Finkelstein's website including links to coverage of the controversy.
- Finkelstein's chart of the similarities between the two books (http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/id141.htm)
- Finkelstein's picture of the only book by Kant in Yiddish at the Harvard library (http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/id148.htm)
- Alan Dershowitz, Plagiarist (http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn09262003.html) Alexander Cockburn's Counterpunch magazine article on alleged plagiarism
- Dershowitz's letter of reply and response from Cockburn (http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn10112003.html)
- Democracy Now!: Debate between Finkelstein and Dershowitz (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/24/1730205)
- Norman Finkelstein Ambushes Alan Dershowitz (Part I) (http://www.theexperiment.org/articles.php?news_id=1990)
- Video record of a speech given by Finkelstein at Vancouver Public Library (http://www.workingtv.com/finkelstein.html). Finkelstein's comments on Dershowitz can be found in part 7.
- Public Committee Against Torture in Israel vs. Dershowitz (http://www.zmag.org/content/print_article.cfm?itemID=7650§ionID=107)
- The New Finkelstein's book "Beyond Chutzpah. On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History". (http://informationclearinghouse.info/article8594.htm)