Jump to content

Dershowitz–Finkelstein affair

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 81.130.69.34 (talk) at 01:20, 9 December 2003 (not a courtroon, an encyclopedia). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortly after the publication of the book The Case for Israel, Norman Finkelstein accused its author, Alan Dershowitz, of what Finkelstein called "plagiarism." Specifically, Finkelstein noted that in twenty instances that all occur within about as many pages, Dershowitz's book excerpts the same words from the same sources that Joan Peters used in her book From Time Immemorial, a book about the history of Israel that several critics have accused of distortion, and which Finkelstein has labelled a "monumental hoax." Several paragraph-long quotes that the two books share in common have ellipses in the same position, Finkelstein pointed out; and in one instance Dershowitz referenced the same page number as Peters, although he was citing a different edition of the source, in which the words appear on a different page.

Dershowitz has responded that all of the excerpts were at least compared to, if not directly drawn from, authoritative texts, and that they are accurate; a claim that Finkelstein has chosen not to dispute. Dershowitz has also characterized the excerpts as quotations that historians and scholars of the region cite routinely, such as Mark Twain and the reports of government commissions.

The conclusion Finkelstein drew from the similarities was that Dershowitz had not researched his sources directly, but instead in twenty instances had used Peters' book and without crediting her. Finkelstein found a mis-attribution that he said supported this conclusion. In writing his book, Dershowitz had attributed an Orwellian neologism to Orwell himself, when actually Peters had coined it in her book in an allusion to Orwell, in which she mentioned him by name (her neologism "turnspeak" resembles the 1984 author's "Newspeak"). The mistake by Dershowitz, Finkelstein said, fit a pattern of cribbing from Peters while not crediting her. Academic propriety demanded that she be credited, he said.

On the basis of Finkelstein's comparisons, the political polemicist Alexander Cockburn joined him in concluding that Dershowitz had drawn his excerpts directly from Peters' book. This he characterized as unscholarly. Noting a footnote in which Dershowitz referred to the controversial status of Peters' book and said that he did not "rely" on it for "conclusions or data," Cockburn assessed Dershowitz furthermore as having more or less lied about what Cockburn and Finkelstein concluded he had done. Echoing Finkelstein's charge of plagiarism, Cockburn called on Harvard to fire Dershowitz as a professor.

Dershowitz replied to Cockburn at length (see [1]). Among various other points of contention, he wrote that in fact he had not been reticent to credit Peters. "I cited her eight times in the first eighty-nine pages (Ch. 2, fn 31, 35; Ch. 5, fn 8; Ch. 12, fn 34, 37, 38, 44, 47)." He also disputed that in the twenty instances identified by Finkelstein the proper practice would have been to credit Peters, instead of the original source as he had done.

Sayres Rudy, a professor at Amherst who has studied the affair, says, "I can say unequivocally that under Davidson College's and other schools' honor codes Dershowitz's quotations constitute plagiarism, with clear attempt to deceive as to (A) his research and (B) his findings. Thus his plagiarism is serious and unambiguous, and if it were a student in question, the debate would regard levels of punishment. Maximal punishments would be considered without any doubt, including at UVA expulsion, at Davidson two-term suspension, and at military schools such as West Point or The Citadel a discharge."

Dershowitz's strong advocacy for Israel have drawn criticism from advocates for the Palestinians, whom both Finkelstein, Cockburn and Rudy have championed in the past.

The $10,000 challenge: Finkelstein & Dershowitz on "Democracy Now"

In a related dispute, Finkelstein rose to a challenge that Dershowitz had issued previously, where in defending his book Dershowtiz had offered to donate $10,000 to the PLO in the name of anyone who could find a factual error anywhere within its 264 pages. In a confrontation that was broadcasted on the radio, Finkelstein showed that a reference Deshowitz had cited for a count of between 2,000 and 3,000 emigrant Arabs actually gave the range as between 200,000 to 300,000. Dershowitz replied that the mistake could not have been intentional on his part, because he had used these numbers to counter a claim that no Arabs at all had emigrated during the interval he had been addressing, and because it would only have served his argument better to have gotten the numbers right. "Obviously, the phrase '2,000 to 3,000 Arabs' refers either to a sub-phase [of the emigration] or is a typographical error," Dershowitz said. Finkelstein was not persuaded.

An example of similarity between the two books [2]

The Case for Israel p.17

  • In the sixteenth century, according to British reports, "as many as 15,000 Jews" lived in Safad, which was a "center of rabbinical learning."
Source cited: Palestine Royal Commission Report, pp. 11-12.

From Time Immemorial p.178

  • Safad at that time, according to the British investigation by Lord Peel's committee, "contained as many as 15,000 Jews in the 16th century," and was "a centre of Rabbinical learning."
Source cited: Palestine Royal Commission Report, pp. 11-12.

Note both excerpts are somewhat misleading and commit the same error:

Palestine Royal Commission Report (i.e. the document that both books cite)

  • Safad, which according to Jewish tradition contained as many as 15,000 Jews in the sixteenth century, became a centre of Rabbinical learning..." (emphasis added)
Occurs on p.11, not pp.11-12 as cited.

The Case for Israel p.20

  • Several years later, the same consul attributed the plight of the Jew in Jerusalem to "the blind hatred and ignorant prejudice of a fanatical populace," coupled with an inability of the poverty-stricken Jewish community to defend itself either politically or physically.
Source cited: Wm. T. Young to Viscount Canning, January 13, 1842.


From Time Immemorial p.188

  • In Palestine, [it] was reported: "It is a fact that the Jewish Subjects?do not enjoy the privileges granted to them. This Evil may in general be traced...: I. To the absence of an adequate protection whereby they are more exposed to cruel and tyrannical treatment. II. To the blind hatred and ignorant prejudices of a fanatical populace....IV. To the starving state of numerous Jewish population." (Peters's emphasis)
Source cited: Wm. T. Young to Viscount Canning, January 13, 1842.

Relevant Links:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dershowitz–Finkelstein_affair&oldid=1909014"