"This is not the O.J. trial."

|

Now we have yet another accusation of high-profile plagiarism, this one involving Alan Dershowitz and his book The Case for Israel. Norman Finkelstein argues that Dersh was not merely influenced by Joan Peters' discredited From Time Immemorial, but stole from it shamelessly. Finkelstein and Dershowitz debate the issue here.

NEXT: Rough Draft

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I am not the world’s biggest Dersh fan, but this is really pretty shameless on Finkelstein’s part. Dershowitz’s definitive response appears in the Harvard Crimson:

    http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=349031

  2. Finkelstein asks:
    “Is this scandalous scholarship, or is it plagiarism, or is it both?”

    Even if it’s just the former,(if not the latter, its close; read the passages) its still pathetic.
    In the “Crimson” piece Dershowitz doesn’t even address the his mis-attribution. After his wholsale borrowings from Joan Peters’s lying book, in the face of the storm, he mentions a few points where he is in disagreement with her. As if that makes him seem more reasonable.

  3. Fuck Dershowitz because he shills for the obviously guilty, fuck him because he’s so goddamn shrill in the interview with Finkelstein, fuck him because he’s an anti-Arab racist, or fuck him because he endorses torture. Fuck him.

  4. I have nothing against Dershowitz personally, but the “turnspeak” mis-attribution is the sort of slip up you’d expect from a total rookie.

  5. Wow, Alan Dershowitz has really lost it. Earlier, he advocated “torture warrants” and now he’s lifting from Joan Peters’s “From Time Immemorial.”?! Thats kind of like stealing Charles Manson’s identity. And, in doing so, he even commits mis-attribution of the term “turnspeak” to Orwell! Dishonest and sloppy! With friends like this…of course Dershowitz says “Israel” but it’s not, his real mission is to justify the thieving Sharon agenda. Finkelstein, on the other hand, is a meticulous scholar for whom apprehension of the TRUTH is paramount. His “Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict” is a really engaging read.

  6. Let’s forget that Finkelstein’s the crackpot here. I just want to ask, Jesse, shouldn’t that be ‘Joan Peters’ “discredited” FROM TIME IMMEMORIAL’ or do you get to make these calls from now on?

  7. In just two sentences, the Oct.8 annon. poster discredited him/her self. Is that a new record?

  8. I just want to ask, Jesse, shouldn’t that be ‘Joan Peters’ “discredited” FROM TIME IMMEMORIAL’ or do you get to make these calls from now on?

    What, I’m not supposed to express opinions? I don’t often say this, but: What a profoundly stupid comment.

  9. Jesse, part of this controversy–the part Finkelstein actually cares about–is whether or not Peter’s book is discredited. (I won’t get into whether it actually matters much even if he’s correct since that’s a bit beyond your squib.) I recognize many in Norman’s camp blithely believe it’s discredited, but to assume this, en passant, is to end the argument without actually making an argument. And that’s profoundly clueless. Like Rick Barton, you apparently believe it’s better to dismiss those you disagree with than actually bother to meet their claims.

  10. Peters’ book is certainly discredit, mainly in part to Finkelstein’s own work. See his book, Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict (2nd edition). There is a chapter on the Peters’ fraud.

    Alan Dershowitz’s Letter (“Professor Dershowtiz ‘Rest His Case,'” Harvard Crimson, October 3, 2003) is a pathetic performance, coming from one of the most prominent lawyers in the United States. The wholesale lifting of quotations, from Joan Peters’ fraudulent book “From Time Immemorial” cannot be intellectually or morally justified (see http://www.normanfinkelstein.com for a table documenting this). It is simply not acceptable practice to use more than 20 exact quotes from another book, without making due acknowledgments. Indeed it is shameful to do so.

    Dershowitz proves nothing by engaging in an ad hominem attack on Professor Finkelstein and by labeling him and Alexander Cockburn as “fabricators.” In fact Finkelstein’s scholarly work has been praised among others by Christopher R. Browning, Raul Hilberg, Ian Kershaw, Arno Mayer, and William Quandt. His four books, Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, The Rise and Fall of Palestine, A Nation on Trial, and The Holocaust Industry are major contributions, which were highly regarded by experts.

  11. > I am not the world’s biggest Dersh fan, but this is really pretty shameless on Finkelstein’s part.

    The truth is shameless? I suppose it is.

    > Dershowitz’s definitive response appears in the Harvard Crimson:

    You may not be his biggest fan, but you’re way up
    there if you take his intellectually dishonest drivel as “definitive”. Tell me, just where in Orwell’s work
    does the work “turnspeak” appear?

    > Jesse, part of this controversy–the part Finkelstein actually cares about–is whether or not Peter’s book is discredited. (I won’t get into whether it actually matters much even if he’s correct since that’s a bit beyond your squib.) I recognize many in Norman’s camp blithely believe it’s discredited, but to assume this, en passant, is to end the argument without actually making an argument. And that’s profoundly clueless. Like Rick Barton, you apparently believe it’s better to dismiss those you disagree with than actually bother to meet their claims.

    How to be a sophist in one easy lesson, eh?

    The work has been DISCREDITED, just as,
    say, Lysencko and Cyril Burt have been discredited.
    That is not “assumed en passant”, but rather
    is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence,
    as any HONEST investigator could readily
    establish for themselves, and as you would
    know if you had actually looked into the matter.
    Who do you think you’re fooling, eh?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.