Debate on Alan Dershowitz's Book

I'm Alan Dershowitz, and in my new book,

The Case for Israel...

Hi, I'm Norm Finkelstein.

I read Alan Dershowitz's book twice.

I carefully checked the sources,

and it's my impression that the book does

raise serious questions about his academic integrity,

his intellectual honesty,

and raises serious questions about whether

he's even qualified to teach at Harvard University.

We're going to begin with Professor Alan Dershowitz.

Welcome to Democracy Now!

Thank you very much for having me.

I argue in the book that

no country in history faced with comparable threats,

both external and internal, has ever tried so hard

to comply with the rule of law.

Norman Finkelstein, your response?

I was asked to come in and discuss his new book.

I went home, purchased one copy.

In fact, I purchased two copies.

I went through it very carefully,

and there's only one conclusion one can reach,

having read the book.

And this is a scholarly judgment.

It's not an ad hominem attack.

Mr. Dershowitz has concocted a fraud.

In fact, Mr. Dershowitz has concocted a fraud which,

amazingly, in large parts, he plagiarized from another fraud.

Now, I found that pretty shocking.

I found it shocking coming from a Harvard professor.

I find it shocking coming from any professor.

Let's look at the evidence.

Now, in 1984, one Joan Peters published a book called From Time Immemorial.

The book was universally recognized by serious scholars to be a fraud.

Without wanting to toot my own horn,

I'm widely recognized as the person who exposed the fraud.

You have a long quote here from Mark Twain on

pages 23 to 24.

I turn to Joan Peters, page 159 to 60.

The identical quote from Twain with the ellipses...

Is the Twain quote wrong?

Let me finish, sir.

With the ellipses in the same places.

The identical quote with the ellipses.

I'm holding it up for the camera.

Perhaps they can see.

This is the length of the quote.

Is it an accurate quote?

The ellipses in the identical place.

I'm not going to go through chapter 2

where there are 29 plagiarisms from Joan Peters.

Let's be very clear.

It is not plagiarism to quote Mark Twain correctly.

Except if you cite Mark Twain and not Joan Peters.

I'm a professor, sir.

I know what plagiarism is.

I'm not debating you.

I have no interest in you, Mr. Dershowitz.

None at all.

We were intrigued on watching Scarborough Country when you debated Sam Husseini.

The offer that you made.

We want to just play it for a moment.

I will give $10,000 to the PLO in your name

if you can find historical fact in my book

that you can prove to be false.

I issue that challenge.

Let me be very clear what I said.

We heard it.

We just saw it on the tape.

Let me be very clear.

I then made it very clear.

I said, afterward, a material willful distortion of fact.

Professor Dershowitz, it's on tape.

We just saw it.

We're not talking about a spelling mistake.

Oh, no. I'm not spelling.

We're not talking about a minor mistake in a footnote.

Far be it from me to be so trivial.

We're talking about a serious material willful mistake of fact

that I deliberately engaged in.

Serious material facts.

Here's the book in front of you.

Page 256.

Can you read what the sentence says?

Well, let me read you what I say in my book.

In some areas, Arab commanders...

Please don't read the whole paragraph.

Morris estimates that between 2,000 and 3,000 Arabs

fled their homes during this phase of the Arab-initiated fighting.

Can you please read what Mr. Morris wrote?

Please read what he wrote.

If I have the whole book, I will find for you...

Norm Finkelstein, if you want the...

Altogether, about 2,000 to 300,000 Arabs fled their homes during the second stage of the exodus.

The difference between 2,000 and 3,000 and 2,000 and 300,000.

Now, you could check this many times, Mr. Dershowitz,

but you're really going to have to pay the $10,000.

No, no, no.

Let's be sure...

I hope you'll allow me to earmark it for Janine.

I would like to give it to Janine.

Let's be sure what the context is of this.

I know the context.

We're talking about a variety of stage trials.

This is not the OJ trial.