Norman Finkelstein is "shaped by his antagonism toward the Jewish establishment and his avowed anti-Zionism."
So says Camera (the Orwellian named "Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America). Truth and justice is on its side:
"It's hardly surprising that Finkelstein's fabrications and attack strategy intimidate. All the more reason that the facts about his reckless charges be widely disseminated. Finally, the grossly flawed writings of the DePaul 'professor' point to yet another example of the failure of the academic world to uphold genuine standards of scholarship–such as accuracy, truthfulness and rigorous sourcing."
A major adversary, Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, is humbled:
"'I could own him and I could own the University of California Press."
Finkelstein's new book, Beyond Chutzpah, is an essential read, by the way.
So says Camera (the Orwellian named "Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America). Truth and justice is on its side:
"It's hardly surprising that Finkelstein's fabrications and attack strategy intimidate. All the more reason that the facts about his reckless charges be widely disseminated. Finally, the grossly flawed writings of the DePaul 'professor' point to yet another example of the failure of the academic world to uphold genuine standards of scholarship–such as accuracy, truthfulness and rigorous sourcing."
A major adversary, Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, is humbled:
"'I could own him and I could own the University of California Press."
Finkelstein's new book, Beyond Chutzpah, is an essential read, by the way.
3 Comments:
I most certainly don't agree with all of Finkelstein's arguments, but the main thrust and rebuttal of his book - calls that 2005 is 1933 Germany - is strong.
Finkelstein's arguments do not hold water, so while on the surface he appears to have bested Alan, below, he is just another sad sack.
Finkelstein has never gotten over the fact that his last book proved he was just anther antisemite wasting his time. It made him a poster child of all sorts of nazi-like entities.
Fink has proven himself to be an antisemite, therefore, his criticism of the subject can rightfully be assumed to stem from his antisemitism. As for certain criticism being not antisemitic... well even a blind pig finds an acorn once in a while.
Funny how the publisher forced Fink to remove passages as there was absolutely no proof of his charges.
Let us change the critique of Fink as to say most of his arguments do not hold water.
Post a Comment
<< Home