xmas3.gif (5334 bytes)


dirshowitz.gif (62821 bytes)

To characterize Durshowitz's response to Alan Keyes in this debate as "childish" would be an insult to children.  It's hard to imagine that an adult in this country would hold such childish views.  If we accept this jew's words as truthful [a true oxymoron], then he must be the first man on the boat to Madagascar.


Durtbag advocates torture.


See the original video of his LIES: http://video.c-span.org:8080/ramgen/odrive/ap112500.rm I


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.


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 it.

This is EXACTLY what Dirshowitz said.  It's on video tape.  Nobody in that audience or debate but Durtbag said it, or could have!


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 Crusades".

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. Sue me.


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 been 250,000.
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 Forces.
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 Palestine?'


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.