I was way not impressed with the AG interview, and it seems neither was Rashad Daoudi, who penned the article (BTW,, in the AG interveiw, you hear AD say, "I thought I was going to be debating Chomsky".. and then Harvard provided that interview which I posted for this thread.)
It's a difficult article to read past the name calling and insults.
Dershowits was shocked by the number Finkelstein provided because it makes Dershowits case. That was the irony.
"But even more shocking than the professor's attempts to conclude the program and save him from the much deserved misery that Norman Finkelstein was putting him through was that when Finkelstein pointed out the fact that Dershowitz used the numbers 2,000-3,000 when quoting a source that stated 200,000-300,000, Dershowitz argued that the book must have had a 'typo.' Interesting considering that the book somehow lies in the top 20 on the NY Times Bestseller list, Dershowitz himself 'proudly wrote the book', and no one ever brought to his attention that the book used a median number of 2,500 when it should have been 250,000. "
All this adn you have a debate over numbers.. what do these numbers represent?
moving down the article is the answer:
"Dershowitz claims that the 2,000-3,000 number must have been a typo because the issue the number referred to was the amount of Palestinian refugees that left there homes at the request of certain Arab leaders so the Arab armies could attack the remaining Jewish population; an important claim for people like Dershowitz who defend Israel because it is supposed to prove that the Jews did not create the refugee problem."
THE ARAB LEADERS REQUESTED THE PALESTIANS LEAVE, Not Israels.
BTW, the typos in quote are not mine, which is funny becasue the author of the post condemn Dershowits for typos.
"But it shouldn't have to be that hard for Finkelstein or anyone else who is trying to defame Dershowitz from doing so because Dershowitz in his own words during the debate fully admits to plagiarism when he claims "one scholar is entitled to read a book as I did, Peters' book and to find quotes in the book and check them against the original quotes. And find them to be accurate and then do what I did."
If this is in fact what he did, he has committed plagiarism. He is openly admitting that he read Peter's book, found the quote, checked it against the original and then sourced the original work as if he found it there himself. His source for the Twain quote wasn't Twain, it was Peter's and he says it himself! "
Too bad Mark Twain is not alive to sort out who has the right to quote him. I don't see any plagerism, so they used simular quotes that..
All this about what may be a typo (and I believe it was becsue the bigger the number, as the author points out, the better it is for Dershowit's case), and plagerism over a Mark Twain quote.
So where is the lie?
The one thing the author and I completely agree on is the AG interview was not good.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
Content of posts and comments on the Daily