36 votes

Epic video of an anti-Zionist DESTROYING a Zionist LIAR to pieces!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DeTpKASahAc

Had you seen this epic video?! It is incredibly epic!

I'm not sure when this took place, suspect it's from back in 2005. All 3 participants in this video are Jewish: Norman Finkelstein an avowed anti-Zionist, Alan Dershowitz the lying/scheming Zionist, and the moderator Amy Goodman.

Finkelstein literally smashed Dershowitz to the curb, exposing his filthy frauds. This video is truly a joy to see.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

that was an great interview

Finklestein philosophically destroyed the frauduelent Dershowitz and his phony book. Dershowitz has politician like skills as the whole time danced around the points Finklestein made. The last point was really the nail in the coffin to dershowitz. This kind of shit disgusts me especially when stuff like this becomes so widely accepted being from the "prestigious" Ivy leagues, though they are known fir this kind of stuff.

Lesson learned: question everything and believe no one, at least not without first examining the facts first for yourself.

Douch-o-witz: No Martial Law in USA

Same Douche-o-witz used by CNN to propagandize there is no martial law in USA, after the Boston debacle.

Immoral funding of Military Industrial Complex by Federal Reserve and US taxation system must stop!!!! End illegal/unconstitutional wars! Preserve US currency!
http://facebook.com/NoPropagandaZone
http://twitter.com/the_chiefe71

Douch-o-witz Pierce Morgan connection

Hang on a second, this is the SAME Douche-o-witz with Pierce Morgan 2nd Amendment fame that wants to see Alex Jones killed. I had somehow missed that connection. All the Zionist agenda stuff makes sense now.

Immoral funding of Military Industrial Complex by Federal Reserve and US taxation system must stop!!!! End illegal/unconstitutional wars! Preserve US currency!
http://facebook.com/NoPropagandaZone
http://twitter.com/the_chiefe71

to be fair

i'm not sure NF is actually "anti-zionist". i've never heard him question whether israel should or should not exist. he just criticizes their policies, right?

"Zionism - is a form of nationalism of Jews and Jewish culture that supports a Jewish nation state in the territory defined as the Land of Israel." - wikipedia

in contrast to NK, TTJ, and miko peled that believe it should not exit and could therefore be called "anti-zionist."

let me know if i'm wrong here.

Zionism

Is NK = Neturei Karta? Who is TTJ? True Torah Jews? I'm not very good with acronyms.

Similar to the terms "conservative" or "liberal"...[What's a classical liberal, a neo-conservative, a neo-liberal, a Constitutional conservative, a social conservative, a social liberal and on and on and on??]....the term "Zionism" itself has changed its interpretations over time.

In today's context, uttering the word Zionism immediately brings negative connotations. And association with following long list of scum characters to mind: Leo Strauss, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Theodore Hertzl, Bernard Baruch, Jacob Schiff [the older one, NOT Peter's dad in jail], Irving Kristol, Bill Kristol, Samuel Untermyer, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Pearl, Rupert Murdoch, Ariel Sharon, Bibi Netanyahu, Michael Bolton, David Frum and on and on and on.

In historical context Zionism did not necessarily mean something so dark and nefarious. It will surprise many people to know that Noam Chomsky was one of very few openly declared "Zionists" among American public figures before 1967 Six Day War. In that context, the term Zionism did not mean as negatively as it does today : Controlling media and financial infrastructures, lying, pillaging, murdering, launching outright wars of lies and resource grabs etc. None of that. It simply meant the rights of Jewish population to co-exist with Palestinian Arabs in Palestine. What of the Old Yishuv Jews who lived for generations and generations in Palestine without any issues? There was never and will never be any basis for them to leave land of their ancestors, just like there should have never been any issue of evicting Palestinians from their land.

[Now I agree the number of Old Yishuv were minuscule before launches of all aliyahs; and it could become mathematically impossible for all to coexist peacefully, after huge hordes of Ashkenazis started arriving. Supposedly people like Chomsky claim that peaceful solutions could be applied to this issue. I'm not qualified to declare if I agree or disagree with him.]

As for Norman Finkelstein himself: I realize your point & agree I used the term loosely referring to today's negative context. I've heard he's bit of an anarchist & opposed to structure of state in the first place. I don't know for 100% to be sure.

Immoral funding of Military Industrial Complex by Federal Reserve and US taxation system must stop!!!! End illegal/unconstitutional wars! Preserve US currency!
http://facebook.com/NoPropagandaZone
http://twitter.com/the_chiefe71

perhaps i'm sleepy and missed

perhaps i'm sleepy and missed something..

when did zionism ever specifically mean, "the rights of Jewish population to co-exist with Palestinian Arabs in Palestine." or when did it ever mean anything other than the above quote from wikipedia?

were you just drawing the distinction that it didn't bring up such negative, tense or apprehensive feelings in the past as it does now?

i seem to remember getting the same idea from NF. likely anarcho-syndicalist like chomsky. i can't recall what it was that gave me that impression though.

anyhow, thanks for your detailed answer and not assuming i was trying to just nitpick.

.

I'm by no means an expert on classical interpretation of that word during years of 1897-1967. I sense that after 1967 Six Day War, the word gathered its negative connotations.

I read scattered references that an early Zionist like Nahum Goldmann fully believed in Wikipedia definition you posted YET at the same time emphasized peaceful co-existence with Palestinian Arabs. It didn't have to mean anything "OTHER THAN" Wikipedia definition, rather carried inferences "IN ADDITION TO" Wikipedia definition.

Person like Uri Avnery never questions right of Jewish state of Israel to exist - satisfying classical Wikipedia definition of Zionist - yet has dedicated his life struggling for peaceful co-existence with Palestinian Arabs. As stated before, Noam Chomsky is a similar example.

People like David Ben Gurion, Chaim Weizmann, Elie Wiesel did not fall in such category. They showed no regard about fate of Palestinians, and outright fabricated lies about them. Elie Wiesel is still alive, and in fact (regardless of his fraudulent Nobel Peace Prize) his viewpoints are aligned with "negative" interpretation of Zionism.

Talking about Norman Finkelstein himself, here are words from the horse's mouth. Go to 23:00 mark in below video. Finkelstein says: The word "Zionism" has transformed so much over time & means so many negative or positive things to so many people, that it causes too much confusion. He has stopped using it altogether.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jquFBluif6M#t=1391s

That's as much as I can say on this nitpick, given my limited expertise on the topic. I'll go & try to find those references about Nahum Goldmann I had seen. If I can locate them, I'll post them here for further clarification.

Immoral funding of Military Industrial Complex by Federal Reserve and US taxation system must stop!!!! End illegal/unconstitutional wars! Preserve US currency!
http://facebook.com/NoPropagandaZone
http://twitter.com/the_chiefe71

I don't know--

I think *we* begin to meet ourselves coming and going--

I just appreciate the integrity of those who question Godless acts and meaningless violence.

As to what their personal politics or policies are, I am not sure.

I appreciate personal integrity.

A person can have all the 'right' politics but lack personal integrity.

A person with personal integrity will accomplish good things, in spite of his/her exact political opinions or 'stand'.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

you are mistaken

if you believe i was making any moral judgement in my comment.

i agree with everything you just stated.

oh--

all right. :)

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

I was trying to lighten things up, but . . .

obviously my humor wasn't appreciated. At least one person upvoted me--

:)

My post disappeared, so I went back into the history and deleted it.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Agree with downvoted comments

Dershowitz is a scumbag but he comes off as reasonable while Finklestein nitpicks typos. Too bad.

ecorob's picture

typo, my arse!

deuchebag-o-witz is a liar and a fraud (just like the gov't he supports)

its 'cos I owe ya, my young friend...
Rockin' the FREE world in Tennessee since 1957!
9/11 Truth.

Try using logic. I didn't say

Try using logic. I didn't say Dershowitz isn't a scumbag. I said the other guy didn't comport himself well. Finklestein didn't tackle the major issue of the double standards for human rights in the region--which is the only real issue. Finklestein nitpicked the most trivial and absurd points as a personal attack on Dershowitz as a scholar...which even if done well, which it wasn't, would not affect the discussion of Zionist policy in Palestine.

That was great!

I love 'Torah-man' Norman Finklestein!

Why Dershowitz is a fraud

To those on this thread who are considering Dershowitz's appeal for a serious debate as a point in his favor should understand the background first. NM is a forensic scholar - which means he has based his academia and research on meticulously combing through the footnotes of published works to understand where authors are deriving their information. In this debate, NM refutes AD and his book (The Case for Israel), by claiming that their sources - those little numbers in the footnotes and appendices are dishonest and fraudulent. NM refuses to engage in a serious debate (if you know AD, then you know that means evasion, half-truths and broad brushstrokes) because AD is a fraudulent scholar to begin with. One of the debate highlights is when NM glaringly points out that one of the footnotes is from "Sony Pictures". Another highlight is when NM shows that he knows more about what's in AD's book than AD himself. That's because AD doesn't write his books, but rather has his "graduate students at Harvard" do that for him. But, since AD has created a name of sorts for himself, it would be political suicide to claim "The Emperor Has No Clothes". BTW, NM and AD have a long, divisive history between them. There's a lot out there on the web on the feud between these two.

that's interesting--

I don't have time to watch it all now--

I appreciate those who don't call anyone they oppose names.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Namecalling

Calling lying, scheming, thieving, warmongering, devil worshippers & murder propagators by their characteristics is NOT calling names. It's exactly what today's brand of Zionists are, one among which is Dershowitz.

Immoral funding of Military Industrial Complex by Federal Reserve and US taxation system must stop!!!! End illegal/unconstitutional wars! Preserve US currency!
http://facebook.com/NoPropagandaZone
http://twitter.com/the_chiefe71

Perhaps you are correct, technically--

it can often be counterproductive. But I thank you, personally, for all the youtubes you posted; I have watched most of them.

it's hard to be awake; it's easier to dream--

Thank you

for posting this video. I believe Eric Holder took lessons on evading the question, in a long winded manner, from Alan Dershowitz.

This is one of the best interviews i have seen

on Democracy now. douche-witz gets torn apart, piece by piece.

Still at the beginning

but I already noticed Derpowitz trying to paint himself as the victim while attempting to undermine Finkelsteins's character (before he says word one) by accusing him of "ad hominem tactics" some time before the show.

It's a slick, yet typical move.

A signature used to be here!

I'm only 7 mins into this vid

AD asked NF to seriously debate.

NF rejects AD's proposition for serious debate, and then accuses AD of fraud, without qualifying his allogation, IOW expalining WHY. NF again accuses AD of fraud, and AD (to the protest of AG) informs NF that, while he is not litegeous, this kind of defaming is not acceptable. I agree.

So, at 7 mins into this, I have learned where AD stands, I know why I don't agree with him, and NF has refused a serious debate.

I know I am not going to get a serious debate from the interveiw on NF's side, which is a disapointment FOR ME, because I too would like a serious debate.

Even here on DP, many agree that name calling and insults are not debate. So I'm not understanding why anyone at this point would be siding with NF who is not willing to give you a serious point of view, and so far has done nothing but slander AD.

Maybe I should ask el chief_ 71. Do YOU want a serious debate? I look forward to your response and will refrain from posting in this thread until you let me know, because I respect you.

meanwhile I'm still listening and thank you for the vid.

...

Now you sound like Alan Dershowitz. Are you qualified to have this debate? If you believe you are, what do you know about plagiarism?

I agree with you on this one.

I agree with you on this one. While I disagree completely with Israel's policies and corruption of the American political system through dual citizen politicians and APAIC this was not a true debate on the issues. At least AD cited actual events and points to contend on while NF simply nit picked his book on stupid things like copying a mark Twain quote. By doing this it weakens the argument against Israel’s actions as such attacks are often seen as a replacement for people that don’t have a real factual argument to stand on.

We all share this eternally evolving present moment- The past and future only exist as inconsequential mental fabrications.

I'm listening to the Video

From the beginning, it is biased against AD (who I do not agree with 100%) and from the posts I see below, several who have posted, did not bother to watch, but rather simply make a post to attack.

On all the threads concerning the issue of Israel/Palestine conflict, very few appear to want to KNOW the truth. They assume they KNOW, based on MSM, like "Democracy New Order World".

AD begins by making his case, which I don't understand what the problem is here on DP by those who claim they want freedom.

What do you not agree with AD's statement:

The Arab-Israeli conflict should end with a two-state solution under which all the Arab and Muslim states-indeed the entire world-acknowledge Israel's right to continue to exist as an independent, democratic, Jewish state with secure and defensible boundaries and free of terrorism. In exchange, Israel should recognize the right of Palestinians to establish an independent, democratic, Palestinian state with politically and economically viable boundaries. For these mutually compatible goals to be achieved, extremists on both sides must give up what they each claim are their God-given or nationalistic rights. Israeli extremists must give up their claimed right to all of biblical Eretz Yisrael (the land of Israel), and their claimed right to maintain Jewish settlements on, or to continue the military occupation of, disputed areas that would be allocated to the Palestinian state. Palestinian extremists must give up their claimed right to all of "Palestine," including what is now Israel, as well as the alleged right of millions of descendants of those who left or were forced out of what is now Israel during the war of 1947-1949 to "return" to their "ancestral homes" in Israel. Unless these claimed rights are mutually surrendered in the interest of achieving a pragmatic, compromise resolution to the conflict, there can be no enduring peace. But if these claimed rights are surrendered, peace can be achieved. The remaining disputes-and there are many-will be much easier to resolve if agreement is reached on these fundamental issues.

With Respect to ALL opinions, I will not be responding to posts that employ name calling and insults. I am not asking you to not insult and call me name. You are free to do that to your full enmjoyment and satisfaction, I'm letting you know up front that I will not be responding to posts with name calling and insults because I am seeking those interested in a serious debate, not Jerry Springer show type of fight.

In my opinion, AD is a SECULAR ZIONIST (Not all Zionists agree on WHY Israel should be a state. AD wants Israel as a state of the UN NWO. I want Israel a country and the UN to be disolved, because the UN is the seat of the corporate elite in the NWO. NWO is a corporate global control of all resources and that includes people).

The right of return is not

The right of return is not "alleged." It is international law, supported by US votes in the UN in the past.

I'm listening to the Video

From the beginning, it is biased against AD (who I do not agree with 100%) and from the posts I see below, several who have posted, did not bother to watch, but rather simply make a post to attack.

On all the threads concerning the issue of Israel/Palestine conflict, very few appear to want to KNOW the truth. They assume they KNOW, based on MSM, like "Democracy New Order World".

AD begins by making his case, which I don't understand what the problem is here on DP by those who claim they want freedom.

What do you not agree with AD's statement:

The Arab-Israeli conflict should end with a two-state solution under which all the Arab and Muslim states-indeed the entire world-acknowledge Israel's right to continue to exist as an independent, democratic, Jewish state with secure and defensible boundaries and free of terrorism. In exchange, Israel should recognize the right of Palestinians to establish an independent, democratic, Palestinian state with politically and economically viable boundaries. For these mutually compatible goals to be achieved, extremists on both sides must give up what they each claim are their God-given or nationalistic rights. Israeli extremists must give up their claimed right to all of biblical Eretz Yisrael (the land of Israel), and their claimed right to maintain Jewish settlements on, or to continue the military occupation of, disputed areas that would be allocated to the Palestinian state. Palestinian extremists must give up their claimed right to all of "Palestine," including what is now Israel, as well as the alleged right of millions of descendants of those who left or were forced out of what is now Israel during the war of 1947-1949 to "return" to their "ancestral homes" in Israel. Unless these claimed rights are mutually surrendered in the interest of achieving a pragmatic, compromise resolution to the conflict, there can be no enduring peace. But if these claimed rights are surrendered, peace can be achieved. The remaining disputes-and there are many-will be much easier to resolve if agreement is reached on these fundamental issues.

With Respect to ALL opinions, I will not be responding to posts that employ name calling and insults. I am not asking you to not insult and call me name. You are free to do that to your full enmjoyment and satisfaction, I'm letting you know up front that I will not be responding to posts with name calling and insults because I am seeking those interested in a serious debate, not Jerry Springer show type of fight.

In my opinion, AD is a SECULAR ZIONIST (Not all Zionists agree on WHY Israel should be a state. AD wants Israel as a state of the UN NWO. I want Israel a country and the UN to be disolved, because the UN is the seat of the corporate elite in the NWO. NWO is a corporate global control of all resources and that includes people).

Looks interesting. Will make time to watch all of it.

Bookmarked for later viewing. Thanks for posting this video here.

“It is the food which you furnish to your mind that determines the whole character of your life.”
―Emmet Fox

I believe you owe Finkelstein $10,000 Dershowitz,

you wormy little scumbag.