First Amendment Furor

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.

Alan Dershowitz, professor at Harvard Law School, at 11:04 pm EDT on June 27, 2005

Actions speak

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.

Japanned, Professor at Osaka Jogakuin College, Japan, at 4:37 am EDT on June 28, 2005

the link in Perry’s quote above is broken, here’s the correct one: http://www.wworld.org/programs/middleEast.asp?ID=204

Tim, at 10:42 am EDT on June 28, 2005

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.

Professor William D Rubinstwein, Univerity of Wales-Aberystwyth, at 7:16 am EDT on June 29, 2005

accusations of anti-Semitism

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.

John Farley, at 4:29 am EDT on June 30, 2005

Alan D and free speech

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

r. hellman, Dr., at 8:47 pm EDT on July 2, 2005

Anti-Semitism and Free speech

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.

Scott Spitzer, at 5:48 am EDT on July 3, 2005

Dersh and free speech

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.

Frank H. Wallis, at 12:00 pm EDT on April 12, 2007