Search News


Browse Archives

News

First Amendment Furor

June 27, 2005

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Some books are destined to set off controversy. The University of California Press has such a volume in Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, slated for release in August. The book argues that supporters of Israel prevent human rights abuses by that country from getting the attention they deserve, in part by calling those who raise such issues anti-Semites. That thesis would be controversial from most authors, but the book in question is by Norman G. Finkelstein, a political scientist at DePaul University who has enraged Jewish groups by questioning the role of the Holocaust and with consistently harsh criticism of Israel.

Even before the release of Beyond Chutzpah, the book has set off a broader debate over the First Amendment. An article published Friday by The Nation charges that Alan M. Dershowitz, a Harvard law professor who is attacked in the book and who has been a critic of Finkelstein, tried to get the California press to call off publication.

The article -- by Jon Wiener, a professor of history at the University of California at Irvine -- says that Dershowitz had lawyers send threatening letters to the press, and that Dershowitz appealed to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, top University of California officials and others to try to block publication. Given that Dershowitz is famous for his defense of the First Amendment, the clear implication of the article is that he is a hypocrite.

Dershowitz, in an interview on Friday, said nothing could be further from the truth. He said that the letters referenced in The Nation article were designed to prevent publication of falsehoods about him, specifically the charge that he was not the true author of one of his books, The Case for Israel (Wiley). Dershowitz said that the letters he sent offered definitive proof that he did write the book, and he noted that the University of California Press has in fact asked Finkelstein to remove the charge from his book.

"I want to see his book published now," Dershowitz said of Beyond Chutzpah, which he said was in some ways "a sequel" to the notorious anti-Semitic tract Protocols of the Elders of Zion. "I want to see it demolished in the marketplace of ideas."

But Lynne Withey, director of the University of California Press, said in an interview Friday that Dershowitz had tried to stop publication of the book. "He doesn't want the book published," Withey said, adding that it was "outrageous" for Dershowitz to charge the book with being anti-Semitic. "To say that the book is anti-Semitic is to say that any criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic," she said. (Finkelstein could not be reached for comment.)

As detailed in The Nation article, Dershowitz first became aware of Beyond Chutzpah when it was under review at The New Press. When the book ended up at California, he started sending letters to the press there, as well as to political and education leaders in the state.

One letter from one of Dershowitz's lawyers, quoted by The Nation, said that the California press, in publishing the book, was "part of a conspiracy to defame" Dershowitz, adding, "The only way to extricate yourself is immediately to terminate all professional contact with this full-time malicious defamer."

Dershowitz said that sending such letters was not inconsistent with his support for the First Amendment, which he noted assured citizens both of free speech and of the right to petition the government over grievances. He was exercising the latter right, he said, when he sent copies of his letters to California officials.

As to the part of the First Amendment that provides for free speech, Dershowitz said, "Any person has a right to make an honest mistake, but no one has the right to defame another maliciously and knowingly."

On The Case for Israel, Dershowitz said not only that the claim that he didn't write the book himself was false, but that he could prove it was false. Dershowitz said that he writes all of his books longhand, and saves his drafts, and that he offered to share copies with the California press. He also said that while Finkelstein questions some of his footnotes, implying that they came from another book, Dershowitz was able to show that he was citing those sources before the other book was published.

"I don't think Finkelstein takes these charges seriously. He just uses them as a weapon," Dershowitz said. "I'm not going to let him get away with it."

He stressed that objecting to these statements did not amount to trying to quash the book as a whole. "My whole career is devoted to being involved in controversies," Dershowitz said. "I never, ever sought to suppress criticism or this book, but he cannot expect to get away with saying that I didn't write my book."

Withey, the press director at California, said that the book will not suggest that Dershowitz didn't write The Case for Israel. Finkelstein did originally have a reference that might have been read that way, she said, but that was not necessarily the only reading. "It was unclear the point he was trying to make and he couldn't document that, so we asked him to take it out," she said.

Press officials reviewed Dershowitz's complaints, she said, and took them seriously. But Withey added that debate over the book's claims won't be black and white. "What constitutes an error can be a matter of opinion," she said.

And Wiener, the professor who wrote about the controversy in The Nation, said in an e-mail interview that one of the letters he quoted from to press officials asked them to reconsider the decision to publish the book. "Please note that he did NOT ask them to make sure errors were corrected," Wiener said.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Comments on First Amendment Furor

  • Separating criticism of Israel from anti-Semitism
  • Posted by Japanned , Professor at Osaka Jogakuin College, Japan on June 27, 2005 at 7:21pm EDT
  • As Scott no doubt realizes, "for Dershowitz to charge the book with being anti-Semitic" merely supports the basic thesis of the book. This just states the obvious to those who have been following the allegations of AIPAC ruining politicians who don't kiss up to Israel, spying on the Bush administration and wrapping the latter around Israel's finger. For such news articles, although selections tend to be one-sided, see: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/

    It would be regrettable if errors allowed detractors to destroy the basically true thesis by discrediting the messenger, a familiar modus operandum of Republican operatives so cosy with Israel, in cases such as Bush's National Guard duty or absence thereof.

    There are, or should be, no sacred cows in Academia, no matter how far they graze into public policy.

  • First Amendment Furor
  • Posted by Alan Dershowitz , professor at Harvard Law School on June 27, 2005 at 11:04pm EDT
  • Jon Wiener, like his friend Norman Finkelstein, is simply lying about the contents of my letters. I repeatedly said that, "I have no interest in censoring or surpressing Finkelstein's freedom of speech" and that I am not trying "to prevent the publication of Finkelstein's book." The purpose of my letters was two-fold: to encourage the University of California Press to give "serious consideration" to their decision to publish a clear, willful and defamatory lie, namely that I did not write The Case For Israel and "did't even read it prior to publication." My letters were stimulated by an email Finkelstein sent to the Dean of Harvard Law School several days earlier in which Finkelstein said that he was "completing a book manuscript for the University of California Press" which will "demonstrate that he [Dershowitz] almost certainly didn't write the book, and perhaps didn't even read it prior to publication." Finkelstein has gone even further, asserting that I didn't write any of my books:
    "[Dershowitz] has come to the point where he's had so many people write so many of his books...[I]t's sort of like a Hallmark line for Nazis...[T]hey churn them out so fast that he has now reached a point where he doesn't even read them."
    This was after he compared me to Adolf Eichmann.
    The other purpose of my letter was to inform them of what Finkelstein's own muse - Professor Peter Novick, whose work stimulated Finkelstein's book on the Holocaust - had said about Finkelstein's reliability as a scholar:
    "As concerns particular assertions made by Finkelstein concerning reparations and restitution, and on other matters as well, the appropriate response is not (exhilarating) "debate" but (tedious) examination of his footnotes. Such an examination reveals that many of those assertions are pure invention.[....] No facts alleged by Finkelstein should be assumed to be really facts, no quotation in his book should be assumed to be accurate, without taking the time to carefully compare his claims with the sources he cites."
    Novick also concluded that the book as a whole, with its concoction of an international Jewish conspiracy, is a "twenty-first century updating of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion" and a piece of "trash".
    I questioned whether a university press should be lending its imprimatur to a sequel to what the New York Times also characterized as: "...a novel variation on the anti-Semitic forgery, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", which warned of a Jewish conspiracy to take over the world...."
    I pointed out that Finkelstein will have no difficulty having his defamatory bigotry published "by the kind of publisher who specializes in this kind of material, and whose imprimatur will not be misused by Finkelstein, as the University of California's imprimatur is already being misused by him."
    My office was advised today that Finkelstein is threatening to pull his book from the University of California Press because they are insisting that he make changes in order to satisfy standards of truthfulness. Finkelstein is trying to bully the press into not making the changes by putting the following fraudulent statement on his website: "Dershowitz wins: University of California Press will not publish Beyond Chutzpah." This lie is typical of Finkelstein's modus operandi. The editor of the University of California Press told my office today that they intend to publish his book. Finkelstein's lie persists on his website. His book will be published but without his willfully false statement that I did not write The Case For Israel. Now that Finkelstein's false statement about my authorship of The Case For Israel has been removed from the book, I welcome a comparative judgement of our substantive arguments in the marketplace of ideas. In my forthcoming sequel to The Case For Israel -- entitled The Case For Peace to be published in August 2005 -- I demolish all of Fineklstein's claims, proving that he has made up quotes and facts. I challenge your readers to read my book and then judge.
    As any reader of my book will immediately see, I do not equate criticism of Israel with anti-semitism. I welcome criticism of Israel and I, myself, have been quite critical of many of its policies. I devote many pages of my new book to distinguishing between criticism of Israel, which is not anti-semitic, and the kind of statements that Finkelstein makes (for example comparing Israel to Nazi Germany, comparing Jewish supporters of Israel to Adolph Eichmann, blaming anti-semitism on the Jews, generalizing about the Jews, (such as his statements that "American Jews... put unruly Blacks in their place"), espousing a worldwide Jewish conspiracy, and supporting Hesbolah's overtly anti-semitic policies and its terrorism against innocent Jewish civilians.) In my book I set out 30 criteria for distinguishing criticism of Israel from anti-semitism. I also challenge anyone to quote a single prominent Jewish leader who has ever equated mere criticism of Israel with anti-semitism. It is a false charge and it lies at the center of Finkelstein's false book. Let the marketplace of ideas judge and condemn Finkelstein's despicable ideas.

  • Re: First Amendment Furor
  • Posted by Japanned , Professor at Osaka Jogakuin College, Japan on June 28, 2005 at 4:36am EDT
  • The issue is too important to be eclipsed by a spat between two writers. If any of the above rebuttal is true, a more scholarly and disinterested messenger is needed to make the case, and Cal seems overanxious to publish the message because it is long overdue. If the predictable furor from pro-Israel quarters can strike at clear untruths, or if there are personal axes grinding in the book, then the message will be discredited again, so Cal should reconsider. The issue ceases to be about academic freedom when authors get personal and trade accusations, threatening to spill over into the courts. Don't go there.

  • Actions speak
  • Posted by Japanned , Professor at Osaka Jogakuin College, Japan on June 28, 2005 at 4:37am EDT
  • Prof. Dershowitz challenges "anyone to quote a single prominent Jewish leader who has ever equated mere criticism of Israel with anti-semitism. It is a false charge and it lies at the center of Finkelstein’s false book." A lawyer could get pretty legalistic about what would constitute proof for the above, but it is implausible in light of the steady stream of news of actions emanating from Israelis and their U.S. allies. The vast majority of American Jews are of course fine people having nothing to do with such intrigues. Just look at what has been happening in U.S. foreign policy and put 2 and 2 together. Leaders won't say stupid things, but will do clever things to advance their agendas.

  • False charges
  • Posted by Perry on June 28, 2005 at 8:02am EDT
  • Dershowitz: "I also challenge anyone to quote a single prominent Jewish leader who has ever equated mere criticism of Israel with anti-semitism. It is a false charge and it lies at the center of Finkelstein’s false book."

    from: http://www.wworld.org/programs/middleEast.asp?ID=204
    "As in the U.S. in general, major Jewish organizations active on campuses have for the most part struck a thoroughly defensive posture, asserting that Israel is always and entirely right and accusing anyone who questions Israeli policy of anti-Semitism. ... [NYU's Israel Public Affairs Committee co-president Ronen Khordipour] explains, criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic because other countries do things that are far worse and nobody complains"

  • Posted by Tim on June 28, 2005 at 10:42am EDT
  • the link in Perry's quote above is broken, here's the correct one:
    http://www.wworld.org/programs/middleEast.asp?ID=204

  • Please answer this Mr. Dershowitz
  • Posted by Stephane on June 28, 2005 at 7:57pm EDT
  • On the topic of authorship...

    Are you the author of the following pamphlet?

    http://www.campusj.com/files/2005/04/18/10/14/32/dershowitzpamphletfinkelstein.doc

    I asked you by e-mail, and you did not respond, yet, all it takes is "yes" or "no".

    Surely you can find the time to type 2-3 letters.

  • Posted by Professor William D Rubinstwein at Univerity of Wales-Aberystwyth on June 29, 2005 at 7:16am EDT
  • It seems to me to be completely inappropriate for the University of California Press to publish Norman Finkelstein's book, which is highly tendentious and certainly not a work one would expect a leading academic press to publish. It also sems highly inconsistent with the other works on Jewish history and related topics published by the University of California Press, which are all scholarly in nature. I have no objections to a mainstream press publishing his work and selling a million copies. I know nothing about this beyond what I have read, but it seems strange that Verso, Finkelstein's Holocaust Industry, did not agree to publish Beyond Chutzpah.

  • Academic freedom
  • Posted by Pablo Stafforini on June 29, 2005 at 4:55pm EDT
  • One may challenge the accuracy of Prof. Rubinstein's judgment by invoking the authority of Avi Shlaim, Professor of International Relations at Oxford University, who describes the book as a "brilliantly illuminating study of the lengths to which some American Jews will go to present Israel in a favorable light. On display are all the sterling qualities for which Finkelstein has become famous: erudition, originality, spark, meticulous attention to detail, intellectual integrity, courage, and formidable forensic skills". The issue at stake, however, is not whether Finkelstein's book should or shouldn't be published by University of California Press, but whether a book that was approved for publication by a competent panel of reviewers should now be taken from circulation as the result of Dershowitz’s intimidating threats. This is a flagrant violation of academic freedom, and all those truly concerned about the free flow of ideas in academia should be alarmed by the potential implications of this regrettable incident.

    Pablo Stafforini
    Graduate student
    University of Toronto

  • accusations of anti-Semitism
  • Posted by John Farley on June 30, 2005 at 4:29am EDT
  • Dershowitz demands the name of one prominent Jewish figure who claims that criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism. How about Dershowitz himself! “Dershowitz claims that most critics of Israel are either intentionally anti-Semitic or they are anti-Semitic in effect by causing harm singly to the Jewish nation” according to Ariel Schneller’s flattering review of Dershowitz’s book The Case for Israel, in Yale Israel Journal (Fall 2003). Hence Dershowitz concedes that not “all” criticism of Israel is anti-Semitism, he thinks “most” of it is. If things are worse off anywhere in the world, then don’t criticize Israel, that’s anti-Semitism. It’s a good thing that Martin Luther King, in his struggle against Jim Crow racism in the 1950's and 1960's, didn’t follow Dershowitz’ idiotic logic, which would be: Don’t criticize racism in Alabama or Mississippi because things were even worse in South Africa. If you follow that pinhead logic, you better not criticize the US war on Iraq, that’s anti-Americanism (either intentionally or in effect). Better not criticize the Mafia either, that’s anti-Italian racism (intentionally or in effect). Don’t criticize Stalin, because Hitler was even worse, etc.

  • Beyond Chutzpah
  • Posted by Riccardo Bonano on June 30, 2005 at 5:51pm EDT
  • It is a sad day for scholarship in the United States when a work such as Finkelstein's whose scholarly merit has been amply established by peer review is altered because its conclusions are not acceptable by some. A shameful display by the University of California in allowing this attempt at censorship to continue.

  • Alan D and free speech
  • Posted by r. hellman , Dr. on July 2, 2005 at 8:47pm EDT
  • Professor AD manifested the extent of his interest in free speech in a radio "debate" with Norman Finkelstein. Throughout the alotted time AD filibustered and interrupted Finkelstein in most unscholarly fashion.
    I recall a Jewish colleague once saying that, while Third Reich antisemitism remains an unparalleled and horrible mystery to him, societal antisemitism "becomes easier to understand every time I am forced to listen to that incarnate vulgarity from Harvard law school."
    I wouldn't have said that myself, but I got the point.
    RH

  • Zionism and Racism
  • Posted by Andrew Allen on July 3, 2005 at 5:48am EDT
  • Professor Finkelstein often makes insightful
    comments on our society. The brazen and disgraceful antics of Alan Dershowitz to
    blacklist Professor Finkelstein's work
    underscores Dershowitz's hypocrisy on
    every subject from free thought through
    criminal rights.
    When I hear Alan Dershowitz speak I the words
    "Mad dog racist/Zionist" spring to mind.

  • Anti-Semitism and Free speech
  • Posted by Scott Spitzer on July 3, 2005 at 5:48am EDT
  • Any good graduate student can plug a paper full of prominent footnotes, and twist the logic of those sources to suit their own political agenda. Academic scholarship should be dedicated to guarding against one's own desire to argue a political agenda, and should rather be focused on understanding one's chosen subject of study more thoroughly and honestly than before. It seems clear to me that Finkelstein and Dershowitz are polemicists, and that neither are engaged in academic scholarship by this definition.

    What separates them? One seeks to defend a nation whose very survival has been repeatedly threatened, since its first days of independence, whose people have suffered through expulsions and murderous rampages throughout the last 2000 years, aimed at destroying them, and whose people recently suffered an unspeakable loss from an attempted genocide that not only killed 6 million, but also virtually destroyed a vibrant, rich culture and society that will never ever be regenerated. The other author - Finkelstein - has made his career on attacking those who wish to give the holocaust prominence, and who now wishes to discredit those who hope to ensure Israel's survival as somehow hypocritical. We might ask, what is his underlying purpose in pursuing these aims? Why is he devoting so much time and energy to this? Could it be that his parents victimization as holocaust survivors has resulted in a deepseated, uncouscious hatred of his own judaism for somehow inviting these horrors?

    It is almost idiotic to even think that this is a debate about freedom of expression. Dershowitz could no more prevent publication of a book than President Bush or any other individual. Our freedom of expression is in no danger, when people can publish whatever they'd like. As I said before, since neither Finkelstein nor Dershowitz are properly engaged in scholarship, but are simply polemicists, we should worry less about their affect on our first amendment, and more about the motivations and merits of their respective arguments. If the University of CA press feels that Alan Dershowtiz's concerns warrant canceling the planned publicatin of Finkelstein's book, then shame on them. If Finkelstein's book really is a travesty, then they shouldn't have taken it this far in the first place, and shame on them again. If Dershowitz is angry about being accused of plagiarism and is seeking to prevent such accusations from harming his professional reputation - isn't that understandable? He is an individual and owes no special deference to Finkelestein just because Finkelstein is trying to publish his polemic with a University Press. Let the blame be affixed where it belongs - with the University PRess who must be responsible for reviewing books for publication not based on whether or not they like the argument put forward, but based on an assessment of the quality of the scholarship.

  • Neutrality and Scholarship
  • Posted by Joseph C. on April 3, 2007 at 3:50pm EDT
  • "Academic scholarship should be dedicated to guarding against one’s own desire to argue a political agenda, and should rather be focused on understanding one’s chosen subject of study more thoroughly and honestly than before."

    Quotes like this are more helpful when one doesn't follow them up with . . . arguing a political agenda.

    Often when doing work in a controversial, politicized field one necessarily will be viewed as arguing a political agenda.

  • Dersh and free speech
  • Posted by Frank H. Wallis on April 12, 2007 at 12:00pm EDT
  • It seems each time Dersh makes a categorically outrageous statement [support for torture laws, support for collective punishment of Palestinians], his immediate defense is something along the lines of "Well, this is a controversial view, but it should be discussed." Meanwhile, when someone questions his views, this is of course anti-semitic and must be stiffled.