Debate: Israel – victim or aggressor?

Cool post. I think we're gonna have a decent fiery debate here finally. Ill PM Klip Klap and see if he wants to join in too.

 

"cool post"?
Are you in Junior High School?
This is the "Debate and contest" section and I cited Numerous sources to which he only responded, WITHOUT Basis/backing to emptily claim CAMERA was "Discredited".

This is supposed to be about Meaty debate, not Emptily contentious "fiery" debate.
And cited not just CAMERA or Dershowitz, but the Simon Wiesenthal Center, NY Times Book Review, and the ADL.

The NY Times Book Review cites yet MORE Sources:
Including the author (Novick) of the Book That inspired Finkelfuhrer's new "Protocols", "the Holocaust Industry'.

In addition to:

So now creation (as well as Third Man) has made NO substantiation of Finkelfuhrer's credentials, NOR any 'discrediting' of my sources.

So in substitute for any Meat whatsoever, he's going to email someone named klipkap!

creation, are you not capable of yourself debating? Citing substantial sources of your own?
We have our answer after 4 empty posts.
No, creation, is going to 'whore' post "cool" to The Third Man, and call for outside help from another poster.
What a knowledgable/impressive poster you are.

 

You cited a load of rubbish websites which have been totally discredited. You did not add one thing from a non laughable source. CAMERA are a joke pro Israeli pressure group,no one takes them serious only the brainless.

Here is a nice piece about CAMERA.

CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America) is not in fact an organization devoted to fairness in journalism. … Its members also mounted a covert and conspiratorial attempt to edit all Wikipedia articles to slant them toward a rightwing Zionist perspective, and they were banned from Wikipedia when the plot was outed. The organization occasionally succeeds in correcting errors, but only in the same way that a fanatical Khomeinist would easily be able to find and correct errors in US journalism about the Islamic Republic of Iran. It isn´t that ideologues want fairness– they want to impose their blindered narrative on everyone else.

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/07/24/propaganda-wikipedia-revisionism-by-israeli-pressure-groups/

Just a bunch of dishonest Israel supporters.

 

Duh, Duh Duh.
Do you know what "debate" is son?
It's NOT you emptily Claiming "CAMERA is discredited".. It's PROVING it, or at least backing it.

Nor did you touch all the Other sources.
Your posts are a Joke.
You are Not qualified to debate or even know what it is.
So unless this 'kiltkap' character shows up we have here TWO people WASTING the boards time saying "cool" and UNSUBSTANTIATED claiming "discedited".
Be glad to respond if you come up with Credible sources backing your claim or disproving mine.
Until then...
LOL

 

Try this

and here is Finkelstein putting Novick in his place.


To Debate or to Defame? A reply to Peter Novick

by Norman G. Finkelstein

A notable feature of British discussion of The Holocaust Industry (hereafter HI) is the strident and shrill denunciations of my book as strident and shrill. Professor Peter Novick of the University of Chicago has now entered the fray. He told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that HI is "trash" (Richard Allen Greene, "Critic of Holocaust groups creates controversy in London," 29 July). In his Jewish Chronicle review ("A charge into darkness that sheds no light," 28 July), Novick is no less hysterical. He maintains that my book is replete with "false accusations," "egregious misrepresentations," "absurd claims," and "repeated mis-statements." To answer these charges, there's no alternative except to juxtapose the respective claims of Novick and myself against the source material I cite in the footnotes. Tedious as this exercise may be, it nonetheless sharply illuminates the intellectual standards of my critics. Before doing so, however, I want to take note of a curiosity in Novick's review.

Nearly the whole of chapter one of HI is devoted to a critical examination of the central thesis in Novick's book, The Holocaust in American Life. In line with mainstream interpretations, Novick argues that the fears American Jews harbored in June 1967 of a "second Holocaust" in Israel first awakened memories of the Nazi holocaust; and Israel's international isolation after the October 1973 war exacerbated those fears, moving the Holocaust center stage. If this were the case, I asked, why didn't American Jews remember the Holocaust after the 1948 war when Israel confronted a much greater threat to its survival, or after the 1956 war when Israel was much more isolated internationally? Nowhere in his review does Novick even attempt to answer these objections. Indeed, rather than enter a debate he opts to defame.

Apart from my alleged misrepresentations of Novick's own book which he never clearly identifies, I count five specific charges of "absurd" misrepresentation against me:

"Absurd" claim #1: During the debate on Hitler's Willing Executioners, Daniel Jonah Goldhagen initiated a libel suit against Canadian historian Ruth Bettina Birn and the Cambridge Historical Journal on account of her critical book review, and ferociously denounced me for situating the success of his book in a political context. Professor Charles Maier of Harvard University posted a lengthy intervention on the H-German website. In HI, I report - falsely, according to Novick - that Maier "ultimately" only found the criticisms of Goldhagen "really distasteful and reprehensible." The last paragraph of Maier's posting reads in full:

Finally, I would like to say that I find two aspects of this unfolding situation really distasteful and reprehensible. First, "The Historical Journal" cited the upcoming Birn review in its advertising with language which suggested that the Birn review would demonstrate (and did not merely argue) that DJG's scholarship was woefully deficient. I do not believe that a scholarly journal should exploit the potentially sensational value of a piece that will discredit an author even for what might be the worthy end of encouraging subscriptions. This action, it seems to me, would give some support to a subsequent finding of malice. Second, and more serious, the explanations being resorted to that DJG's book was to be understood as the work either of an Orthodox Jewish community or a Zionist lobby or in any way related to the political or public goals of American Jews (or a segment thereof), is a fanciful and inflammatory speculation. It makes no sense, but even if it were thought to be true, it is irrelevant to the judgment we make about the work.

Nowhere else does Maier mention anything "distasteful and reprehensible."

*


"Absurd" claim #2: In HI, I report - falsely, according to Novick - that the American Jewish Committee (AJC) "endorsed the death penalty for the Rosenbergs." My footnoted source is Shlomo Shafir, Ambiguous Relations: The American Jewish Community and Germany Since 1945 (1999). Turning to the cited page, we read:

The AJC's cooperation with right-wing anti-Communist groups such as the All-American Conference to Combat Communism was strongly criticized by liberal groups in the Jewish community. In 1952-53 the Committee went as far as actively endorsing the death penalty for Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who had been found guilty of spying for the Soviet Union. (p. 136)

*


"Absurd" claim #3: In HI, I report - falsely according to Novick - that Daniel Goldhagen was the "main academic champion" of Holocaust hoaxer, Binyamin Wilkomirski. Goldhagen's comment for the Wilkomirski book reads in full:

Fragments is a small masterpiece. It conveys in sparse, rhythmic prose, the shattering effects of the Holocaust upon one child's life, human relations, and capacity to use language. Even those conversant with the literature of the Holocaust will be educated by this arresting book. All will be deeply moved.

To judge by the promotional material of Wilkomirski's publisher (Schocken), Goldhagen was the only Holocaust historian to provide a comment for the book, and no other Holocaust historian was excerpted in Book Review Digest 1997 for Fragments.

*


"Absurd" claim #4: In HI, I report - falsely, according to Novick - that Edgar Bronfman recently acknowledged that the World Jewish Congress had amassed no less than "roughly $7 billion" in compensation monies. My footnoted source is "Holocaust-Konferenz in Stockholm," in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (26 January 2000). The relevant passage reads in full:

On Tuesday, the executive committee of the WJC met in Stockholm to discuss the disposition of the accumulated funds for persecuted or murdered Jews. In recent years, the WJC has primarily confronted Swiss banks with claims on relevant accounts that had long been dormant. Part of the deposits also consisted of fortunes resulting from gold looted by the Nazis from occupied territories and Jews, and which had been used for payments abroad, again primarily in Switzerland. The president of the WJC, Bronfman, said that the sum of the funds to repay and compensate survivors and dependents so far amounted to about $7 billion. A large part was supposed to go to living survivors or their heirs, and the rest for educational purposes.

*


"Absurd" claim #5: In HI, I attribute - falsely, according to Novick - "dark motives" to Holocaust compensation organizations like the Jewish Claims Conference. Turning to the relevant page of HI, we read:

According to the Jerusalem Report, the [Claims] conference has "plenty to gain by ensuring that the survivors get nothing." Israeli Knesset member Michael Kleiner (Herut) lambasted the Conference as a "Judenrat, carrying out the Nazis' work in different ways." It's a "dishonest body, conducting itself with professional secrecy, and tainted by ugly public and moral corruption," he charged, "a body of darkness that is maltreating Jewish Holocaust survivors and their heirs, while it sits on a huge pile of money belonging to private individuals, but is doing everything to inherit [the money] while they are still alive." (p. 124)

The cited sources for these quotes are Netty C. Gross, "$5.1-billion Slave Labor Deal Could Yield Little Cash for Jewish Claimants," in Jerusalem Report (31 January 2000), Zvi Lavi, "Kleiner (Herut): Germany Claims Conference Has Become Judenrat, Carrying on Nazi Ways," in Globes, Yair Sheleg, "MK Kleiner; the Claims Conference Does Not Transfer Indemnifications to Shoah Survivors," in Haaretz (24 February 2000).

*


The above items exhaust Novick's specific charges of "false accusations," "egregious misrepresentations," "absurd claims," and "repeated mis-statements." No further comment seems necessary.


http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=3&ar=165

 

If you go back a few posts then you will see my nice article on CAMERA and their attempt to whitewash wikipedia. Consider them discredited. There is plenty more as well. This is too easy.

http://www.politicalforum.com/debat...srael-victim-aggressor-16.html#post1060939254

 

Well first, congratulations junior!
You actually used a source/link.
WOW!
I made you do 3 minues of Googling.
How about that!

Of course, it's Flakenstein himself claiming he's good, against only one of about 6 sources I presented (NY Times, Wiesenthal Center, Novick, Caeasarini, Dershowitz, CAMERA) EACH citing Numerous inaccuracies and Bigotry in his Jew-Baiting Book and an infamous career which includes his being Dumped from his aSSistant profeSSorship at Depaul and rejection from Yale for being the Bigot he is.
He was kinda old to be only an assistant anyway .. doncha think?

so your side is the same place it started. Yourself, Finkelfurher Himself, and creation sending for help.
someone please get this 'kiltkap' here.
it's clearly Over until he arrives.
be back if he shows and says anything (isn't just another clown)
au revoir

 

I have used sources all the way through this debate and they all come from good quality websites or respected scholarly source. You on the other hand have produce link after link to zionist fantasy websites and Israeli propaganda as proven by me. All you have left now that your arguments have been dismissed is to call me names. Here is some more for you on Finkelsteins book the Holocaust Industry.

Raul Hilberg who is considered to have been the preeminent Holocaust scholar with his acclaimed work The Destruction of the European Jews has stated.

I refer now to the part of the book that deals with the claims against the Swiss banks, and the other claims pertaining to forced labor. I would now say in retrospect that he was actually conservative, moderate and that his conclusions are trustworthy. He is a well-trained political scientist, has the ability to do the research, did it carefully, and has come up with the right results. I am by no means the only one who, in the coming months or years, will totally agree with Finkelstein's breakthrough.

So you have a guy from the University of Southampton namely Cesarani and I have the father of Holocaust study. Hmm.

It was one guy reviewing a book in the New York Times,so not the New York Times as you are claiming.

This is the same Dershowitz who has been boycotted by University students all over America because he is a proven lair. Yes very good.

 

Here is Dershowitz caught lying again.

Dershowitz writes “Atzmon has written that Jews are evil and a menace to humanity”. This does leave me a touch bewildered, because, first, it doesn’t represent my views at all. Second, it doesn’t sound even remotely like me or my writing. Third, not one single sentence in my book or in my writing refers to ‘Jews’ as people or an ethnic group but only to Jewish identity politics, Jewish culture or Jewish ideology. Far more significant is the fact that Dershowitz fails to support his bizarre statement with any contextual reference whatsoever. Instead of citing any criticism of ‘Jews’ or the “Jew’ he just provides us with examples of my criticism of Israeli behaviour. “With Fagin and Shylock in mind Israeli barbarism and organ trafficking seem to be just other events in an endless hellish continuum.”

The truth is that, in my original text, the above sentence actually refers to Zionist lawyer Anthony Julius’ latest book. Here is the original quote in full: “It doesn’t take a genius to gather why Julius and others are concerned with Fagin or Shylock. Fagin is the ultimate plunderer, a child exploiter and usurer. Shylock is the bloodthirsty merchant. With Fagin and Shylock in mind, the Israeli treatment of the Palestinians seems to be just a further event in an endless hellish continuum.” (51)

Harsh words indeed, but they refer clearly to Anthony Julius’ Zionist advocacy and his obsession with Jewish stereotypes such as Shylock and Fagin. So what’s Dershowitz up to?

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/dershowitz-lies-and-glitches-by-gilad-atzmon.html

You can read the whole article in the link. It pretty much pulls Dershowitz apart.

 

{{""Which is you telling me in response to my statement that there was an anti jewish pogrom in aden. Aren’t you""}}

Aden is in Yemen and had continued there with a large Jewish community for 2,000 years until your beloved Arabs once again started killing Jews for no other reason than they were Jews, the same way the KKK killed Blacks, just because they were black, no differnce except the Arabs did it on a larger scale that you seem to aprove of;

http://jimenaexperience.org/yemen/2...grom-of-1947-a-component-of-the-jewish-nakba/

{{""Ive responded to that several times now by pointing out that this pogrom was in Aden not Palestine and not Israel. Ive said this again and again. What more do you want""}}

Funny, I never read your responce to the events that took place in Aden in 1947.

{{""On here civility is required in our discourse. You can believe whatever you wish, you just can’t go calling people names.""}}

Will an abbreviation suffice? Cre.?? Because you are FAR from being a creator of creation.

{{""Of course the Jewish, as well as the British of course. Do I really need to list the many examples of jewish terror attacks beenthere? Really? You wouldn’t contend that only arabs attacked jews would you?""}}

When you want to debate a subject you had better. And Cre., don't list attacks that were in retaliation for former attacks mby the Arabs.

{{""I have already responded to you, every time. If ive not specifically addressed a link or quote, its only an addition to a point youve already made or its not relevant to our discussion. Get that?
Any specifics Ill be happy to explain.
But are you really saying that you wont address me respectfully unless I answer in a way you deem fit?""}}

I will address you respectfully, but please refrane from posting nonsense.

{{""Ok lets have it your way....Ill address every point youve made right here;""}}

Please do.

{{""The British. They had invaded the land, occupied it and ruled it against the wishes of the very people who had helped them get rid of the Ottomans.""}}

Rubbish. Let's go through this once more, and Cre., address the points made. The British and the Sherif of Meca (Hussein) made an agreement in 1916

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharif_Hussein
Sayyid Hussein bin Ali, was the Sharif of Mecca, and Emir of Mecca, from 1908 until 1917, when he proclaimed himself King of the Hejaz, which received international recognition. He initiated the Arab Revolt in 1916 against the increasingly nationalistic Ottoman Empire during the course of the First World War.

Please note, "he proclaimed himself King of the Hejaz, which received international recognition". So the world at large recognized his possition as King of the Arabs.

His son, Faisal, was the Arab General leading the Arab army

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Revolt
It is estimated that the Arab forces involved in the revolt numbered around 5,000 soldiers.[3] This number however probably applies to the Arab regulars who fought with Allenby's main army, and not the irregular forces under the direction of Lawrence and Feisal. On a few occasions, particularly during the final campaign into Syria, this number would grow significantly. Many Arabs joined the Revolt sporadically, often as a campaign was in progress or only when the fighting entered their home region.[4] During the Aqaba raid, for instance, while the initial Arab force numbered only a few hundred, over a thousand more from local tribes joined them for the final assault on Aqaba. Estimates of Hussein's effective forces vary, but through most of 1918 at least, they may have numbered as high as 30,000 men.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Kingdom_of_Syria
Faisal was a heroic figure in the Arab Revolt against the Ottoman Empire and is often remembered through the writings of T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) and later as the first King of Iraq.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Arab_Revolt.aspx
The Arab revolt against the Turks ended in October 1919 when Faisal's armies captured Damascus


Now, do ywe have it established that Faisal, King Hussein's son lead the Arab Armies that did the fighting against the Ottomans???

And do we agree that him and his father KNEW what was expected of them concerning the Balfour Declaration??

And do we agree that in 1920 "Palestine" consisted of the land shown on the provided map??

http://www.justicenow4israel.com/mandatemap.html

And REGARDLESS what the British did the Arab Monarchy knew and tried to follow through with their agreement???

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal_I_of_Iraq
British and Arab forces took Damascus in October 1918, which was followed by the Armistice of Mudros. With the end of Turkish rule that October, Faisal helped set up an Arab government, under British protection, in Arab controlled Greater Syria. In May 1919, elections were held for the Syrian National Congress, which met the following year.

On 3 January 1919, Faisal and Dr. Chaim Weizmann, President of the World Zionist Organization signed the Faisal–Weizmann Agreement for Arab-Jewish cooperation, in which Faisal conditionally accepted the Balfour Declaration based on the fulfillment of British wartime promises of development of a Jewish homeland in Palestine and on which subject he made the following statement:

That's as far as we need to go at this point. After the Ottomans fell, The area was under the rule of another monarch.

{{""They denied the political rights of the majority of the inhabitants and therefore caused the violence just as the British caused the violence in America by denying Americans proper representation. Added to that was the influx of jewish people who fully intended to take over the entire land as your own link demonstrates""}}

This is what I have been calling NONSENSE!!! Tell us, Cre., when was the last time subjects had "political rights" in a true Monarch;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarch
This is a form of government in which a state or polity is ruled or controlled by an individual who typically inherits the throne by birth and rules for life or until abdication. Monarchs may be autocrats (absolute monarchy) or ceremonial heads of state who exercise little or no power or only reserve power, with actual authority vested in a parliament or other body

Plus the area had NEVER known anything else other than a Manarch and would have never recongized Democracy if it had crawled up and bite them. So to carry on like the Arabs of that day and age knew our form of government and act like that's what they were after is worse than silly.

And as far as America went and the reason we refused to join the League of Nations is to do so would have violated American's sovereignty.

{{""I’ll prove wiki wrong with just one little fact – Israelis were sitting hundreds of miles inside Egypt. And settling inside its northern frontier.""}}

If you have I have never seen it.

{{""At what point are we talking about? Oh how about the bit where the germans were sitting deep inside Russia trying to create liebensraum. Say at Stalingrad. Is that clear enough for you?""}}

Answer in one word, NO! Why? Because in Sept. of 1942 the Germans were attacking Stalingrad. By Nov 1942 The Russians kicked off their counter-offensive. Now, do we need the definition of counter-offensive??? Do you see what I'm driving at when I want the time, place, who, what, when, where, and why???

{{""As for Soviet offensives, they were still in Russia for much of it. Still an offensive war on their part was it or not? ""}}

After Nov. 1942, yes it was but it's called a counter offensive, not being the offenders, they were countering the offenders, yes, Cre., there is a difference.

{{""Was that a defensive or offensive war that both they and the Egyptians were conducting then when in their own territory? ""}}

The fact that you are driven back to your own territory doesn't now make you the deffender. Since Egypt and Syria were the ones pushiung for and mobilizing their troops, kicking U.N. Peace Keeper out, Closing the Straits of Tiran, they were the offenders.

{{""It was an offensive when they entered Germany. Just as the allies were on the offensive.""}}

Wrong, they wouldn't have been entering Germany if Germany hadn't attacked, it was still Russia's counter offensive in action.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Peters

Joan Peters (born 193 is a former CBS news producer of documentaries, and the author best known for a number of theses on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, put forward in her book From Time Immemorial, published in 1984 in which she claims that the Palestinians are largely not indigenous to the area and therefore do not have claims to territory.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Joan-Peters/133045760063929
http://www.freebase.com/view/en/joan_peters
http://www.freebase.com/view/en/from_time_immemorial

 

Yes we all know who she is thanks. We also know that Finkelstein laid waste to her book as just being a bunch of lies. Everyone knows this. Her book is a well known joke. It has been criticized as full of falsehoods by so many now.

 

{{{""Its just what happens when you examine the evidence from all sides and dont assume that either arabs or jews are per se somehow all deceitful barabarians like most right wing Americans do.""}}

I have examined it and the Arabs have been left wanting. Cre., I was 21 when Nassar was running off at the mouth about the way he was going to wipe Israel off the face of the map. I listened intently. I was 10 when Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran in 1956, again, I listened because my parents told me it was going to be an historic event. I watched as the Arabs attacked Israel in 1973 spewing the same garbage about how they were going to erase Israel. I followed the school bus bombings by the Arab terrorists and the way they blow their bombs up in Israeli market places after the 73' war. You beloved Arabs coundn't beat the Israelis on the battle field so they decided to take it out on Israel's women and children. Now, Cre., ADDRESS the facts that I have brought up. Are they true or not. Point by point, and if they are not true, why not, how not, and where not.

 

Funny, Margot didn't seem to know.. How strange.

 

Third, I have seen enough evadence about you beloved Finkelstein to place him in the same category I place Leary

 

Third, your not worth answering. Your posts are garbage.

 

well actual Margot did know and that is why Margot wrote this and you even quoted it.

Joan Peters? LOLOLOL.. She has been debunked six ways to Sunday.

 

Clearly you have been reading from some very silly websites then. The guy is a scholar who deals in facts and I have yet to see anyone disprove anything he has stated.

 

I guess actual factual information is not your thing then. I suggest you stick with reading the BS that you produce in your not well thought out badly researched lamely put across posts.

 

Hehjeheheheheheheeeeeee, .... well, what ever you think, Third, but the facts you seem to deal in are myths

 

Heheheheheheheheheheheeeeeeeeeeeeeee, and look who's talking about BS, Mr. BS spreader himself...., hahahhhahahahahahahaaaaaa..........

 

Seems you cannot keep to your own words.

Third, your not worth answering.

 

Wow you have produced a lot of letters and some of them are in a straight line. Very good. Tomorrow you can start on real sentences and then we will work on your spelling.

 

Straight lines are good most of the time. I never claimed to be able to spell.

 

It has already been pointed out that there are those that feel your beloved Norman G. Finkelstein is full of you know what. One of those that has already been pointed out is Alan Dershowitz. Now let's take a look at his credentials, shall we;

http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/index.html?id=12
Alan M. Dershowitz
Education
Brooklyn College A.B. 1959
Yale Law School LL.B. 1962

Appointments
Assistant Professor of Law, 1964
Professor of Law, 1967
Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, 1993

And just to be fair

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Dershowitz
He has spent most of his career at Harvard Law School where in 1967, at the age of 28, he became the youngest full professor of law in its history. He has held the Felix Frankfurter professorship there since 1993.[1]




Now, let's take a look at your beloved Norman Finkelstein's credentials;


http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/
Norman G. Finkelstein received his doctorate in 1988 from the Department of Politics at Princeton University


Oh, and I had to go to Wiki to get this next tidbit, because what I have from Finkelstein offical site other than the book advertisements was what I posted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Finkelstein
He has held faculty positions at Brooklyn College, Rutgers University, Hunter College, New York University, and, most recently, DePaul University, where he was an assistant professor from 2001 to 2007.


Oh, wow, it doesn't look like your beloved Finkelstein is even in the same ball park when it comes to education does it. Hey, your the one touting education, not me.

I know, a list of books by both sorces, that should do it, right??


Books by Finkelstein
2011: Goldstone Recants. Richard Goldstone renews Israel’s license to kill, OR Books, New York: 2011.[75], ISBN 978-1-935928-51-5

2010: This Time We Went Too Far: Truth and Consequences of the Gaza Invasion. OR Books, New York: 2010. [3], ISBN 978-1-935928-43-0

2005: Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History. U of California P, ISBN 0-520-24598-9. 2nd updated edition, U of Cal. P.

2000: The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering, Verso, ISBN 1-85984-488-X.

1998: A Nation on Trial: The Goldhagen Thesis and Historical Truth (Co-author with Ruth Bettina Birn) Henry Holt and Co., ISBN 0-8050-5872-9.

1996: The Rise and Fall of Palestine: A Personal Account of the Intifada Years. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, ISBN 0-8166-2859-9.

1995: Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, Verso, ISBN 1-85984-442-1
1987: From the Jewish Question to the Jewish State: An Essay on the Theory of Zionism, thesis, Princeton University.



Books by Dershowitz
Dershowitz, Alan M. Preemption: A Knife that Cuts Both Ways (W.W. Norton & Company 2006).


Dershowitz, Alan M. The Case for Peace (John Wiley & Sons 2005).


Dershowitz, Alan M. America on Trial: Inside the legal battles that transformed our nation -from the Salem witches to the Guantanamo Detainees (Warner Books 2004).


Dershowitz, Alan M. America Declares Independence (John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2003).


Dershowitz, Alan M. The Case for Israel (John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2003).


Dershowitz, Alan M. Shouting Fire: Civil Liberties in a Turbulent Age (Little Brown 2002).


Dershowitz, Alan M. Why Terrorism Works: Understanding the Threat, Responding to the Challenge (Yale University Press 2002).


Dershowitz, Alan M. Letters to a Young Lawyer (Basic Books 2001).


Dershowitz, Alan M. Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000 (Oxford University Press 2001).


Dershowitz, Alan M. The Genesis of Justice: Ten Stories of Biblical Injustice That Led to the Ten Commandments and Modern Law (Warner Books 2000).


And your Finkelstein is described as an activist. Hey, so was Timothy Leary, and he was a psychologist and another writer, and he was known for his activism for psychedelic drugs. The fact that Finkelstein was a "political scientist" means nothing once he had the word, activist" attached to his name. When the word "Activist" comes into play it means BIAS!!!! And the fact that your beloved Finkelstein has never risen above an assistant professor says a lot too. And please tell people why he left DePaul.