Chomsky, Dershowitz and Finkelstein believe in the >Holocaust-Shoah<?
If so, they
are engaging in HATE SPEECH against Germans!
Correspondence: Match Point
by Alan Dershowitz & Noam Chomsky
1 July 2007
It is always
intriguing to see just how far Alan Dershowitz will go in his efforts to conceal
the fact that Norman Finkelstein exposed him as a vulgar and fraudulent
apologist for Israeli human rights violations--carefully, judiciously, with
extensive documentation - "Taking the Bait,", May 21. Knowing that he cannot
respond, Dershowitz is reduced to a torrent of slanders and deceit about
Finkelstein's alleged misdeeds--which would, transparently, be irrelevant if
there were a particle of truth to his easily-refuted charges. The latest chapter
in Dershowitz's efforts at self-protection is a campaign to undermine
Finkelstein's tenure appointment, actions that are utterly without precedent,
even reaching to an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal. In an attempt to obscure
what he is up to, along with other little fibs that I'll ignore, Dershowitz has
now invented a new fairy tale: that he is following my course when I "led [my]
own jihad" to deny Kissinger a faculty position at Columbia.
As reported in such exotic sources as the national press - e.g., The Washington
Post, May 27, 1977, when Henry Kissinger left the government, the Columbia
administration created a special endowed chair for him, apparently without
faculty consultation or normal review procedures. That elicited widespread
opposition on campus, including a front-page denunciation in the student
newspaper, protests signed by hundreds of faculty and students, and much more.
My role in this was precisely zero, as Dershowitz knows, with one exception: I
was invited by Columbia faculty members to speak at one of the events they
organized. So much for the precedent Dershowitz invents to try to defend his
disgraceful efforts to block Finkelstein's tenure.
Why does he drag me into this? For the same reasons as his Finkelstein rampage.
I have been the target of a deluge of Dershowitz deceit and inventions since
1973, when I responded to his slanders about the Israeli League of Human Rights,
even gross falsification of Israeli court records as he sought to defend serious
violations of elementary civil rights that the court barred--exactly contrary to
his claims - The Boston Globe, April 29, May 17, May 25, June 5, 1973,
available online. As always when his performances are exposed, Dershowitz knows
he cannot respond, and makes no effort to do so, instead resorting to the device
that comes naturally to him: a torrent of vilification and deceit, of which his
"Cambridge Diarist" submission is the most recent. As of today.
Alan Dershowitz responds:
It is not surprising that Noam Chomsky would leap to the defense of his
ideological soul mate Norman Finkelstein. He always supports the academic
freedom of those with whom he agrees, never those with whom he disagrees. But
even Chomsky cannot actually cite any scholarly contributions that
Finkelstein--who admits that he has never had an article published in a
peer-reviewed journal--has made. What passes for Finkelstein-scholarship is
charging me, and virtually every other pro-Israel writer, with plagiarism for
citing material to their original rather than secondary sources. Anti-Israel as
well as pro-Israel scholars use the same citation method because it is the one
preferred by the Chicago Manual of Style and other authoritative sources. For
example, Professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer repeatedly cite primary
sources for material they found in secondary sources. I proved this and
challenged Finkelstein to level the same charge against these anti-Israel
writers as he did against pro-Israel writers. He refused, because his is not
scholarship; it is propaganda.
Finkelstein's other claim to scholarship is to cite the conclusions of
anti-Israel human rights organizations as proof that I and other pro-Israel
writers must be wrong when we come to independently researched conclusions that
are different. He never provides independent research and when asked why not, he
replied: "Why should I interview people?"
Finkelstein's only contribution to public discourse is to coarsen the level of
debate about the Middle East. In a recent speech, Finkelstein called for all "monsters
and freaks in the White House and their collaborators in Tel Aviv" to "drop
dead." When Irshad Manji, the Canadian Muslim dissident, was subject to death
threats, Finkelstein supported those threats and wrote to a website that was
collecting petitions against the death threat the following: "Is there a
petition supporting the death threats?" He has also supported, he claims in
jest, my assassination. Some of his followers did not understand his humor and
have made threatening phone calls to me. He has called me a moral pervert, a
Nazi and commissioned a cartoon showing me masturbating in ecstatic joy to dead
That is what passes for scholarship on Planet Chomsky. I challenge Chomsky to
cite specific pages of Finkelstein's writings that warrant the grant of tenure.
Since Finkelstein writes only for popular audiences and never for scholarly
ones, his work can easily be evaluated by lay readers. The pages please!
Chomsky characterizes my input into the Finkelstein debate as "disgraceful." Yet
he admits that he, as an MIT professor, spoke at a rally against
granting an academic position to Henry Kissinger. He claims that he was invited
to speak by Columbia faculty members. I too was invited to write about
Finkelstein by a DePaul faculty member. Moreover, my comments about Finkelstein
have mostly been responsive to attacks by him against me. Would Chomsky deny me
my freedom of speech when attacked? Has Chomsky ever remained silent in the face
In addition to distorting the record with regard to Finkelstein's scholarship
Chomsky distorts the history of my criticism of him. It began when he endorsed a
notorious neo-Nazi Holocaust denier named Robert Faurisson by writing an
introduction to his book. He also legitimated his falsification of history by
characterizing Faurisson's fabrications--he claimed that Hitler's gas chambers
never existed and that the Holocaust "never took place"--as having been based on
"extensive historical research". Chomsky also legitimated Holocaust denial by
writing that he saw "no anti-Semitic implications in denial of the existence of
gas chambers, or even denial of the Holocaust." Chomsky once told a group of
people that he himself was "agnostic" on whether the Holocaust occurred. When
professor Robert Nozick, who was part of the group, confronted Chomsky with this
outrageous statement following a debate at Harvard Medical School, Chomsky
shoved Nozick, saying, "How dare you quote an off-the-record remark I made to a
small group at Princeton." He did not deny making the statement.
Chomsky then championed another anti-Semite, this time a Jewish one named Israel
Shahak who has written that Jews worship the devil and that Israel is comparable
to Nazi Germany. Shahak, like Chomsky, was a phony civil libertarian who
believed in defending only the rights of the left, tried to hijack an Israeli
human rights group.
Now Chomsky is once again championing an anti-Semite who has made a career out
of rewriting the history of the Holocaust and denying the reality of Holocaust
survivors. Chomsky and Finkelstein deserve each other. The DePaul community
Alan Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter professor of law at Harvard and author
of Preemption: A Knife That Cuts Both Ways.
Noam Chomsky is a professor
of linguistics at MIT and author, most recently of Failed States: The Abuse
of Power and the Assault on Democracy.
4 June 2007
The Chomsky-Dershowitz-Finkelstein Controversy
>>Unmögliches wird sofort erledigt
Wunder dauern etwas länger<<
- Prof Siegfried Tischler’s
response when asked to write up an English version of his German comment
It was a real treat to be
able to savour the diatribes between Chomsky and Deshowitz over the Finkelstein
tenure. It became abundantly apparent that the vaunted >>peer review<< is little
else but a magic wand put up in front of former - and present - misdemeanours
and abominations of judaized sciences.
A consensus should emerge from within the realm of real science as to a boycott
of >peer reviewed< science faction literature - which is ever more becoming an
integral part of the >dumbing machine<. The Finkelstein Saga is living proof for
Dershowitz & Co. not being willing - able? - to act within the scientific method
as defined by Sir Francis Bacon.
They only ever plagiarize
themselves and their paradigms. Come to think of it, what has that kind of
>science< come up with? Novel things (as in real novelty / qualitative as
opposed to quantitative / different as opposed to >more<) never sees the light
of day. Reports on innovative research fade away in the drawers of the >Elders
of the Disciplines< where they have been put for safe-keeping - so that they
cannot rattle the cages within which paradigmatic scientists are >kept<. Whoever
rummages inside the >peer reviewed< journals will discover all sorts of
incredible - literally! - and mind-boggling nonsense, which is printed with
alacrity so as to shore up the paradigms, set within the shifting sands of
Platonic >idealism< - or is it ideology?
What did the paradigmatic sciences come up with during the 20th century that was
of any real benefit to mankind and Gaia - the latter is probably more to the
point! - ? Atomic bombs, Neutron bombs, computerized mass unemployment,
zombified species, hybridized plants and animals that have provided sustenance
to mankind - not to mention the >achievements< of the >humanities< - an oxymoron
if there ever was one. For example, Poppers >falsification< - not to mention
his >propensity theory< which was surely the crowning achievement of >modern<
thinking in terms of the goings-ons in the subatomic realm - leg-irons for real
thinking, just as the >participant knowledge< of Habermas makes idiots out of
anybody not capable - or willing? - to use the arcane language of those who
think that science is an activity that discovers truth only to bury it deeper in
Really significant results of historical research would necessitate >history< to
be re-written for most periods. But that will never be because it would reveal
history - as written in the books one has to have read - is little else but an
endless string of lies and things not mentioned. Should it really become known
that the horrid tales that are written regarding the >history< of the 20th
century are little more than stories concocted in sick minds, then the Zionist
cabal could not go on to turn their possibilities into everybody else's
Right - it is much easier to send out the dog-patrols so as to seek out all
scientific work that endangers the home-spun halo around the >GREATS< of science
and toss it deeply into the septic tank of >unparadigmatic science<. But there
it all ferments, and when will a revolt ensue from all this? If there is no such
revolt, then the academies should be de-funded and closed by the sovereign. As
asked above, what >good< are >active denial< weapons - all weapons for that
matter - they only enable those who have to keep their ill-gotten gains, what
good are gene-manipulated - we should call them genetically perverted! - species
and concepts like >collateral damage<? This sick verbiage is ample proof for the
uselessness of what emanates from academia these days.
I wait for the hysterical comments of mental castrates and mental pygmies who
consider this a demented rave. My salute to Norman Finkelstein and all those in
academia who have the raw guts and brawn, not to mention brain, to oppose the
rabbinical / talmudic nonsense that controls us all!
Aus dem genüßlichen Briefwechseln von Chomsky und Dershowitz wird endlich einmal
deutlich, daß >Peer Review< eigentlich nur sicherstellt, daß vergangene - und
gegenwärtige - Schwindlereien - und Schweinereien- der judaisierten
>Wissenschaften< nicht aufgedeckt werden. Es sollte sich ein Konsensus der
wirklichen Wissenschaftler der Welt bilden, die >peer reviewed<
Schundromanproduzenten dieser Welt - sie sind ein integraler Teil der globalen
Verdummungsmaschine - einfach zu boykottieren.
Die Finkelstein Saga ist der schlagende Beweis dafür, daß Dershowitz & Co. von
wissenschaftlicher Methode rein gar nichts halten und nur von sich selber immer
abschreiben..... wozu eigentlich >wissenschaftliche< Forschung? Wirklich neue
Dinge sehen sowieso nie das Licht des Tages und Berichte über sie vergilben in
den Schubladen der Weisen der Disziplinen. Wer in >peer reviewed< Journalen sich
umtut, wird viel haarsträubenden Unsinn finden .... der aber mit Freuden
gedruckt wird, wenn er die morschen Paradigmen aufrecht erhalten kann.
Was haben >die Wissenschaften< im 20. Jahrhundert denn wirklich >gebracht<?
Atombomben, Neutronenbomben, computerisierte Massenarbeitslosigkeit,
zombifizierte natürliche Sorten, hybridierte Nutzpflanzen und - Tiere ..... von
den >Leistungen< der Humanwissenschaften sei gar nicht erst gesprochen: Poppers
wie auch seine >Propensitaetstheorie< sind ebensolche geistige Fußangeln wie
Habermas's Forderung nach >participant knowledge<. Wirklich signifikante
Ergebnisse historischer Forschung nötigten dazu die "Geschichte" der Welt über
weite Strecken neu zu schreiben; damit es dazu ja nicht kommt >wo kämen wir denn
da hin, wenn einmal bekannt würde, daß die >Geschichte< - so wie sie in den
Lehrbüchern - Leerbüchern? - steht - nur eine endlose Aneinanderreihung von
Lügen und >Auslassungen< darstellt? Wenn sich einmal zeigen täte, daß die
Schauermärchen die über das 20. Jahrhundert propagiert werden nur eine
Fortsetzung schon seit anbeginn der Geschichtsschreibung - Schreibung von
Geschichten...- üblicher Unsinn sind, dann könnte sich der zionistische Kabal
nicht mehr seine Möglichkeiten aus unser aller Notwendigkeiten konstruieren.
Eben - da ist es einfacher die Hundestreife auf den Weg zu schicken, jegliche
neuen Forschungsergebnisse die den Glanz der selbstgestrickten Heiligenscheine
der "Größen" der Wissenschaften verminderten einfach in der Versenkung von als
"unparadigmatisch" verdammter Forschung verschwinden zu lassen. Wenn nicht bald
sich eine Revolte in den Akademien ereignet, dann sollten diese vom Souverän
zugesperrt werden. Denn - wie gesagt - zu was sind denn >active denial weapons<,
genmanipulierte - besser wohl: genpervertierte - Sorten und Konzepte wie >Kollaterale
Schäden< - eine der Glanzleistungen der Schreiberlinge der >Zeitgeschichte<....
- den wirklich >gut<?
In Erwartung entrüsteter Proteste von geistigen Kastraten / Lilliputanern
verbleibe ich mit herzlichen Grüssen aus Batam,
E. Tischler -
Professor - Ethics & Science
A top American lawyer has
threatened to wage a legal war against British academics who seek to cut links
with Israeli universities. Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard law professor renowned
for his staunch defence of Israel and high-profile legal victories, including
his role in the O.J. Simpson trial, vowed to "devastate and bankrupt"
lecturers who supported such boycotts.
This week's annual conference
of Britain's biggest lecturers' union, the University and College Union,
backed a motion damning the "complicity of Israeli academia in the occupation
[of Palestinian land]". It also obliged the union's executive to encourage
members to "consider the moral implications of existing and proposed links
with Israeli academic institutions".
Prof Dershowitz said he had
started work on legal moves to fight any boycott. He told the Times Higher
Educational Supplement that these would include using a US law - banning
discrimination on the basis of nationality - against UK universities with
research ties to US colleges. US academics might also be urged to accept
honorary posts at Israeli colleges in order to become boycott targets.
"I will obtain legislation
dealing with this issue, imposing sanctions that will devastate and bankrupt
those who seek to impose bankruptcy on Israeli academics," he told the
Sue Blackwell, a UCU activist
and member of the British Committee for Universities of Palestine, said: "This
is the typical response of the Israeli lobby which will do anything to avoid
debating the real issue - the 40-year occupation of Palestine."
Jewish groups have attacked
the UCU vote, which was opposed by Sally Hunt, its general secretary.
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007