DERSHOWITZ THE SODOMITE
When asked the direct question:
"what makes something right?", Dirshowitz gave a number of lame excuses for not
answering, like "there are no simple answers", before he finally admitted
"I don't know". He went on to say that, not only does he not know what is
right, but they he knows that WE don't know what's right.
Huh? He believes that he is
so much smarter than every single Christian in the country, that if he doesn't know what's
right, then nobody else possibly could? Dirshowitz is even smarter than God, and
therefore nobody else in the world could possibly know what's right? The supreme
arrogance of such a statement is bad enough, but the implication is that, if Christians
don't know what's right, then jews like Dirshowitz, who ADMIT that they don't even know
what's right, should be the ones telling Christians what's right and wrong?! This
brilliant moral minor then followed up by calling the Holy Bible "homophobic",
"racist", "sexist", and "anti-jewish". This is
blasphemy in every sense of the word, and it's the type of blasphemy which disqualifies
him to practice, much less teach, law in this country.
DERSHOWITZ THE LIAR
Dirshowitz then LIED in such a convincing manner that his
continuation at Harvard MUST be questioned. Alan Keyes was at his most brilliant
when he called him on that LIE. Dirshowitz said, and I quote: "He [Keyes]
simply has no right to tell two adults who choose to gratify themselves in a certain
way [sodomites] that they are wrong, and he has no basis for his conclusion. What is
he going to do--cite some Biblical verse?"
Alan Keyes then reminded
Dirshowitz that believing that Americans have no "right" to even speak out
against ANYTHING is the very definition of totalitarianism. If Dirshowitz had had
false teeth, they would have flown across the auditorium as he spluttered and LIED again, and said " I said no such thing",
which of course was met by spontaneous "boos" from the audience.
"I said no such thing"! For 5,000 years
now, Jews have believed that they can say ANYTHING to Christians because they think they
can merely deny that they ever said them. And for 4,950 years they were just about
right. But now we have TV and radio and the internet and audio and video tape which
keep permanent RECORDS of their LIES making it impossible now for them to get away with
This is EXACTLY what Dirshowitz said. It's on video
tape. Nobody in that audience or debate but Durtbag said it, or could have!
DERSHOWITZ THE BLASPHEMER
From this point forward, what
Dirshowitz says has utterly no credibility. He doesn't know right from wrong but
wishes to impose his ignorance on those who DO. He can willy nilly say that they
"simply have no right" and then claim that he never made such a claim. He
admitted that he knows that sodomy is a learned behavior, claimed that sodomy occurs only
in private bedrooms, then ignored that sodomy is INEVITIBLE when sodomites are permitted
to be around young Boy Scouts.
He next misquoted George
Washington, and when Keyes called him on that, he claimed that the New York Times
misquoted Joseph LIEberman who misquoted George Washington. He whined that the Boy
Scouts are "too Christian" and "an established right wing"
organization, even though he acknowledged that he was admitted to the Boy Scouts as a
known JEW. He attempted to hold Alan Keyes to the purportedly Constitutional
principle of "separation of church and state" [which is not in the
Constitution], criticized Thomas Jefferson as "just a man" [whose misquoted
letter about separation of church and state was the issue] , and then said that even if
this wasn't in the Constitution that "I would add it" [read: jews can't be held
to mere words written in Constitutions and bibles because the Kol Nidre removes them from
any obligation to adhere to the written contract]. He condemned the Baptists for the
statement: "women must submit gracefully" and claimed that Christians will be
apologizing for that travesty "just as they apologized for the Inquisition and the
It was the most supreme display of
jewish arrogance to ever come out of this jew's mouth, and he's had plenty. He
invoked the holocaust in the name of his 40 dead relatives, to which Keyes, a black man,
challenged Durtbag to try top slavery--a brilliant deep six to Durtbag's
victimization ploy. When booed, Dirshowitz whined in a little girl's voice: "If
you think your boos will scare me, you don't know me".
No, Durtbag, audiences don't boo
people to "scare" them--they boo them to let you know how STUPID you look and
sound when you get caught in a big fat LIE, right there on stage, before thousands of
viewers, on VIDEO TAPE. How revealing that a little faggot like you, who went to
great lengths to make sodomy appear as nothing but a life style choice rather than the
social pathology it is, would view a boo as an attack on your safety.
Boo, Durtbag. Boo, boo, boo.
DERSHOWITZ THE PLAGIARIST
The Case for Israel is a hoax, much like the book
Alan Dershowitz plagiarized to write it.
Dershowitz Admits Plagiarism
By Rashad Daoudi
One thing mediator Amy Goodman did wrong during the debate on Democracy Now! between
Norman Finkelstein and Alan Dershowitz, where the former accused the latter of
plagiarizing his latest book, The Case for Israel, is when she told her guests how much
time was remaining in the show, noting the 10, 6, 5, 4 and 1 minute marks as the show
ended. The reason: because doing so only sparked Dershowitz to ramble on at an even slower
pace, talk about issues not relevant to the discussion, and interrupt both Goodman and
Finkelstein in order to end the interview and bail him out of what will surely be the
Harvard professor,s most embarrassing and utterly pathetic performance yet.
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
This is just one question and one example of a long list of subjects that Dershowitz must
be forced to answer to a superior. Might I second Alexander Cockburn's nomination of
Harvard President Lawrence Sumners?
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.
So, Dershowitz makes the point that the number must be a typo or refers to a different
phase of refuges leaving because reducing the number only weakens his argument. Amazing
that someone who writes a book has no idea why a particular passage has the wrong piece of
information. "Why would I underestimate the number when it is actually overestimating
the number that helps my case?", he asks.
Why, indeed. Either Dershowitz is so foolish that he used the smaller number thinking for
some reason it would help his argument or he needs to hire new editors and fact checkers.
Whatever it was, we never receive an answer from him during the show and I highly doubt
one is coming anytime soon. I also doubt the PLO is getting their $10,000 Dershowitz
promised if anyone proved a fact in his book to be false since he thinks the error was a
typo and not an intentional error. Finkelstein prefers to call a spade a spade.
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!
However, his only defense to this is asking Finkelstein if the quote is real because if
the quote is not real, and only if it is not real, then there exists a 'serious' charge.
But if he simply found a quote in someone's book and acted as if he found the quote in the
original source himself, then there is no charge. Imagine if one of Dershowitz's students,
or any self-respecting teacher's student, made this claim. How long before the student is
suspended, expelled or given a failing grade in the class? How long before Dershowitz
loses his job?
As the debate concludes, Goodman tries hard to add content to a debate that was beginning
to consist of two men yelling over one another. After cutting both microphones, Goodman
asks Finkelstein for another piece of evidence of how the book is a forgery.
Finkelstein is up to the task when he brings out the issue of torture, which Dershowitz
claims that Israel no longer practices. Finkelstein then reads a quote from B'Tselem, a
leading Israeli human rights group that states that while the Israeli government prohibits
torture, the practice is still used.
Dershowitz of course discredits B'Tselem accusing them of lying even though he later says
he would be a member of the group if he lived in Israel. (Why someone would be a member of
a group they think deliberately lies is beyond me).
But what is even more shocking is that Dershowitz slips again and says in his own words
when referring to an Atlantic Monthly article about torture, "It describes what the
United States is doing and it says that Israel used to do that, some possibility it
continues to do it."
For a second time during the debate Dershowitz openly admits to falsifying a fact in his
book. He refers to an Atlantic Monthly article as a credible source of information and
then claims that that source admits there is a possibility that Israel still employs
torture. So if there is reason to believe the Atlantic, why not B'Tselem?
And why not believe Human Rights Watch? With only a couple of minutes left in the debate
Finkelstein is able to bring up one more piece of forgery in Dershowitz's book regarding
his claim that not one civilian in Jenin was deliberately killed by Israeli Defense
Finkelstein reads the case of Kamal Zgheir, a man reported by HRW to have been crushed to
death by an IDF tank when he was clearly in the view of the tank. When asked if HRW is
lying, Dershowitz does not say yes like he does in the case of B'Tselem. He says no
civilians were deliberately killed but then cannot say that HRW is lying even though he
also says he researched that specific case.
The only reason I can think of as to why Dershowitz is so confused with this example is
because he actually said that no civilian was 'deliberately shot.' He never said anything
about being deliberately run over by a bulldozer. A distinction that Dershowitz is
probably able to make.
But this last comment was an ad hominem by me and for anyone familiar with this case,
that's the last thing we want. What we want are answers to the many questions that Alan
Dershowitz must be held accountable to explain. Answers for the many issues that
undoubtedly support the allegation that Alan Dershowitz did in fact write a fraudulent
book and that The Case for Israel is a hoax, much like the book he plagiarized to write
it. In closing, this article would not be complete without taking a parting shot at one
Daniel Pipes and his website campus-watch.org, a group that "reviews and critiques
Middle East studies in North America with an aim to improving them."
Not surprisingly, Pipes makes no mention of this case on his website
when at the same time he never hesitates to
mention the names of pro-Arab professors who he disagrees with. Either he has never heard
of the Dershowitz/Finkelstein saga, or is trying to stay as far away from it as possible.
My guess is the latter. But can you imagine the uproar from people like Pipes, the NY Post
and Fox News, if Alan Dershowitz's name was Mohammed and the book was called 'The Case for
NOTE: It's impossible for an author who writes a book like this to not know
whether there were 3,000 or 300,000 Palestinian refugees. This is something a real
author would think about for days and make sure they got it right.
This is proof that Dirshowitz did NOT write this book. Just like jew Einstein,
and nigger Michael King (aka, Martin Luther King), he's a PLAGIARIST!
Someone else wrote everything FOR them.