Oy Bay!

"My heart is in the east, and I in the uttermost west." — Yehudah Ha-Levi

Dershowitz Bombshell: ‘Carter Scuttled Camp David II’

Posted by Oyster on May 16, 2007

Dershowitz ShiksaLover Oyster

There’s never a dull moment with Alan Dershowitz. And Sunday’s speech by Israel’s most eloquent defender at Stanford University was no different. Here, ShiksaLover and Oyster are pictured with one of the nations “most distinguished defenders of individual rights”. Oyster, of course, is hocking Dershowitz’s book, “The Case for Israel” (yes, he got it signed!).

The Oy Bay-exclusive shocking revelation, pictures from the event, the complete audio of the presentation, and Finkelstein’s disgusting anti-Dershowitz cartoon [warning NSFW!], after the jump!

For those of you who have been living under a rock, Alan Dershowitz is “one of the nation’s most prominent and visible defense attorneys, and he is also an ardent, eloquent, but not always uncritical defender of Israel”. Ever since I listened to “The Vanishing American Jew” on books-on-tape back in high school, I was hooked. This guy was a smart Jewish thinker. A little chutzpadik, but hey: modesty is so goyishe. A little obsessed with quoting Harvard studies, but you can forgive him. He’s the youngest professor ever tenured at Harvard Law School, at the tender age of 25.

You can listen to the entire speech and Q&A session here at the Stanford iTunes site. And here are my pictures from the event, with captions.

I had, in a sense, heard Professor Dershowitz talk before. Back in 2003, he was scheduled to give a talk at UC Berkeley (aka “The Heart of Darkness”). Due to health reasons, he was unable to fly out. But John “I want a cage-match with Michael Krasny” Rothmann of ZOA & KGO fame was there to save the day. He acted as ‘master-of-ceremonies’ for a live satellite discussion, with John moderating questions.

So this was payback time. I wanted to see “the Dershowitz” live, and in person. And the busy beavers of Stanford Hillel were doing everything in their power to sate that desire.

His talk was brilliant, thorough, structured, eloquent, and logical. The best that Dershowitz could dish out. It all sounded fairly familiar, especially after reading “The Case for Israel”. He departed from his standard defenses of Israel at numerous points.

Developments since last I heard him speak included last summer’s Israel-Hezbollah War, his crusade against self-hating Jew Norman Finkelstein, and his plublishing of a follow up to “The Case for Israel”, “The Case for Peace” (just look at the jacket layout similarities).

Here Dershowitz was showing that he wasn’t what his detractors try to make him out to be: a one-sided right-wing Israel apologist. Nothing could be further from the truth. Dershowitz’s thinking is very iconoclastic, and bows to no political ideology. He is fastidious in his pursuit of the law and logic, even when applying it to international relations. Thus, you will find it hard to pigeon-hole him. He proudly declares “I am pro-Palestinian, and I am pro-Israel”, placing him very much in the center.

On the Finkelstein-Dershowitz duel, he revealed the full extent of the shameless and disgusting mud-slinging that his opponenets are willing to resort to in order to try to disparage his character. Eliciting revulsion from the audience, Professor Dershowitz revealed the following nasty graphic (drawn by his neo-Nazi chum, Latuff), published next to an article by Finkelstein, suggesting that Dershowitz be assassinated:

Dershowitz cartoon

In case there was any remaining presumption that a Holocaust-denying piece-of-shit like Finkelstein was a serious academic, let his juvenile and perverted libel of Dershowitz shatter it.

But of everything that Professor Dershowitz said, one thing was so shocking that it elicited an audible gasp from the audience, no lewd pictures necessary. In his analysis of Jimmy Carter’s Israel bashing, Professor Dershowitz revealed a series of circumstantial evidence that points to Carter’s direct meddling in the abortive 2000 Camp David peace summit between then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, PLO Chairman Yassir “May my own name be erased” Arafat, and former President Clinton. Dershowitz, who has tangled with Carter recently, pointed to Carter’s provocative book which indicates that Carter’s Saudi-funded institute was consulting the Palestinian delegation on US politics, and later Carter specifically says that, I paraphrase, “no Palestinian leader could have survived accepting that offer”. That’s funny, because Saudi Prince Bandar was even quoted saying, “If Arafat does not accept what is available now, it won’t be a tragedy, it will be a crime [against the Palestinian people].”

Some other views on the speech:


12 Responses to “Dershowitz Bombshell: ‘Carter Scuttled Camp David II’”

  1. minsky said

    Oy-vey! I have serious doubts about the accuracy of characterizing Finkelstein as a “piece-of-shit holocaust denier”. Not even Dershowitz goes that low, preferring the no-less accurate, but more ambiguous terms of “Holocaust Justice Denier” or “Holocaust Minimizer”.

    I personally dislike Laluff’s caricatures, but strangely enough, the one posted by Oyster, is nowhere to be found on Finkelstein’s extensive blog.

    Let’s remember a basic fact about Finkelstein, before getting carried away with slurs. Finkelstein’s mother had gone through Majdanek, his father through Auschwitz. His mother couldn’t stop talking about it, his father refused to ever do so. For most of her life, Finkelstein’s mother fought hard for what little possible Holocaust restitution was available for her and her husband’s family. Her experience was very frustrating, a lot of which carried over to her son, who — contrary to your very accusations — is doing more than most people any of us have ever met, to make sure Holocaust victims’ money goes to Holocaust victims, and not Holocaust memorials!

    Before we get carried away with mudslinging and character-assassinations, I’d like to put a few questions to Finkelstein’s critics (Dershowitz among them):

    * Finkelstein criticizes Israeli policy.

    -Is criticizing Israeli policy anti-Semitic?

    * In his book, ” The Holocaust Industry” Finkelstein accuses the World Jewish Congress (an organization I bet most of you have never dealt with, may know more about through fiction, or even considered plain fiction!) of lies and extortion in the name of Holocaust victims. More precisely of having inflated and even invented the numbers of Holocaust survivors in order to hackle billions of dollars from Swiss banks. Having obtained the money, the WJC gave a pittance to actual Holocaust survivors, and instead pumped the money into pet projects and programs which had no impact whatsoever on survivors’ lives (banquets, hotels, real-estate). To make matters worse, Holocaust survivors whose voices and letters mandated WJC’s Swiss campaign, remain as needy, and penniless, as before; which can’t be said for the WJC.

    -Does this amount to Anti-Semitism or to proof of Finkelstein’s Holocaust denial?

    * On the basis of research of the renowned Holocaust scholar Raul Hilberg, Finkelstein speaks of the 5.4 million Jewish lives claimed by the Holocaust, not the proverbial 6 million.

    – Is this proof of Finkelstein’s anti-Semitism or Holocaust minimalisation?

    *The main thesis of Finkelstein’s work, is that the memory of the Holocaust is being abused as a political tool in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, by organizations such as the WJC.

    -Is this anti-Semitic? Is it Holocaust denial?

    *Finkelstein’s statements and works are commonly misused by real anti-Semites, neo-Nazis, Islamists, and Holocaust deniers, in keeping with their bigoted and paranoid agendas. Such abuse of Jewish elocution has occurred with public statements and works of David Ben Gurion, Theodor Herzel, the Talmud, Freud, Marx, you Chose-the-Jew.

    – Does this make any of them, Finkelstein included, a Nazi, a Holocaust denier, an anti-Semite?

    As run-of-the-mill proof of Finkelstein’s anti-Semitism (or self-hate), we often read of an interview Finkelstein gave to the Lebanese TV channel “New TV”. I invite anyone to see the interview before passing judgment on Finklestein, i.e. pass your judgment after carefully watching it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49u5GehpTa4). You will quickly conclude, that the only tarty part in this exchange, is the Arabic introduction, provided by the “New TV” editorial team, of which Finkelstein couldn’t have been in the slightest aware.
    This Arabic commentary begins by claiming that nothing is as controversial as Holocaust numbers. As proof, the chronology of Holocaust figures. In the fifties, a French intellectual put the number of victims at nine million, the Soviets at Nuremberg put it at four, presently, David Irving puts it at 100 000, and Raul Hilberg “The Jew”, at no more than 50 000.
    Just in case you missed it, three of these references are misrepresented. The French intellectual in question spoke of both Jewish and non-Jewish Holocaust victims, the Soviets put the number at 16 million, not four, Raul Hilberg, considered the foremost academic authority on Holocaust numbers, boasts the most thoroughly documented number ever produced by Holocaust scholarship, i.e. 5.4 million. As for David Irving; he sat in jail for his statement, because it WAS holocaust denial. Some introduction, eh?
    After this brief, mendacious foreword to the interview, we are presented Norman Finkelstein. Don’t let me spoil the plot, watch the ten minutes, and then tell me what is your basis for accusing Finkelstein of anti-Semitism, Holocaust denial, or Holocaust minimalisation?

    I personally regret that for some of you, this will be the only ten minutes you have ever granted to the man, who irks your ire so easily; conversely, I hope that some of you will regret at least a little bit, this easiness.

    I find it sad, how easy it is to manipulate Finkelstein’s take on the Holocaust. To take what is its honorable defense, and transform it into spineless betrayal. This is precisely what Dershowitz does, apparently to the best of his abilities. Frankly, I don’t see why any of you would want to follow his example.

    The kind of effort it takes, is all too one-sided: shutting down the ears, and reaching for the mud and stones.

  2. Oyster said


    I’ll concede the point regarding the use of the term “Holocaust
    denier”, on the grounds that there really is no adequate term for
    anti-Holocaust hate (which, then, might help imply a spectrum of
    beliefs, from minimization to out-right denial). While Finkelstein
    does acknowledge that some sort of anti-Jewish badness occured, he
    blames it on the “Zionists” and then turns around and says that the
    Jews have turned it into a big money-making “Holocaust Industry”. If
    that’s not anti-Jewish hate, I’m not sure what is. It’s the ultimate
    in mean-spiritedness to say that the victims brought it on themselves,
    or that they profited from their suffering.

    Latuff posted his cartoon along-side Finkelsteins’ “article”:

    Many of the valid points that you raise were raised and addressed in
    the course of Dershowitz’s lecture. In case you haven’t listened to
    the audio recording provided by Stanford, I recommend that you do
    so. I will relay some of them.

    First off, your use of the expression “character-assassination” is
    ironic, because while Dershowitz has staked out the high ground in
    this dispute, it is Finkelstein, Latuff, and their ilk who have gone
    to the point of suggesting that Dershowitz should be assassinated.

    Asking “is criticizing Israeli policy anti-Semitic” is a
    non-sequitor. No one claimed that here, and Dershowitz clearly and flatly
    stated that “specific and contextual criticism of Israel is fair”,
    and went on to state several policies of Israel that he disagrees
    with, including the “civilian occupation” of the disputed territories
    (though he defends a legal right for Israel to occupy the disputed
    territories in a purely military fashion).

    Anatoliy Scharansky, the famous Jewish Russian refusenik, who was
    freed in part to years of pro-bono work by Alan Dershowitz, clearly
    stated (as related in the book “The Case for Israel”, and elsewhere),
    that criticism of Israel spills over into Antisemitism when you
    violate one of the “Three D’s”: Delegitimization, Demonization, and

    I won’t delve into arguing the minutiae of Finkelstein’s “work”,
    because the academic rigor of his writing has been called into
    question by many, including prominent left-of-center academics like
    Benny Morris. The up-shot is that Finkelstein claims that the
    Holocaust was a Jewish invention, and was exploited later on by Jews.
    Any justification of such a thesis as not hateful is putting lipstick
    on a pig.

    But don’t take my word for it, take Finkelstein’s:

    “Elie Wiesel [is] resident clown of the Holocaust circus.”

    (Irish Times, “‘I Won’t Lie Down and Take the Insults.’”)

    Yes, the Holocaust is just a circus to poor misunderstood
    Finkelstein. And because of his deep appreciation of circuses, his
    calling Nobel-prize winning author Elie Wiesel a “clown” is really a
    term of endearment. I mean, how else could one parse such a statement?

    I don’t see the point that you raise regarding the works of many Jews
    being manipulated by Antisemites as being vindication of his
    work. It’s a logical fallacy. Just because Jew-haters cite Jewish
    sources, does not imply that all Jewish sources are free of
    Antisemitic content or ideas.

    Minsky, it’s not merely the numbers. I fully agree that civil minds
    can disagree on the exact number of the Jewish victims of the
    Holocaust. Six million is just a round figure that became the
    consensus of how people refer to the number of victims. Considering
    the amount of Jews killed on their shtetls in SS “actions” that were
    never tabulated in the totals kept at the Umshlagplatz, Jewish
    Ghettos, and concentration/death camps, it is certainly unknown the
    exact numerical figure.

    But Finkelstein tries to drive a wedge in that numerical uncertainty,
    trying to uncover some conspiracy. “Aha! The numbers don’t add up to
    exactly six-million! Conspiracy! Conspiracy!” Well, no serious person
    would think that the Nazis killed Jews in exact multiples of 10, or
    100, or 1,000, or 100,000. So its a non-issue.

    But what really is the final nail in the coffin with Finkelstein is
    his single-minded and obsessive drive to show that the Holocaust was a
    “Holocaust Industry”, invented by “Zionists” and exploited by world
    Jewry for money. Disputing numbers won’t get one the dubious moniker
    of “Holocaust denier”. The latter will.

  3. minsky said

    I am sorry to say Oyster, that you appear not to have firsthand knowledge of Finkelstein’s work, and that you didn’t watch the ten minute interview in question. You tow Dershowitz’s line, without much critical reading. In his scrap with Finkelstein, he doesn’t earn my respect, because as you mention, Sharansky’s Three D’s.

    Just a small example revealing a broader pattern:

    The case of Dershowitz calling Finkelstein a Nazi.

    You posted two articles in your original post,
    -the one in which Dershowitz accuses Finkelstein called him a Nazi:
    – and the one in which Finkelstein committed the supposed act:

    Well, the case of Dershowitz calling Finkelstein a Nazi is plainly untrue.

    Here’s why.

    In his Counterpounch article, Finklestein juxtaposes Dershowitz’s legal defence of assassination (quoting from Dershowitz’s Preemption: A Knife that Cuts Both Ways) “the laws of war and the rules of morality must adapt to these [new terrorist] realities,” with a similar claim made by the Nazi’s about the need to adapt modern morality to the reality of fighting Communists and Jews.

    This clearly does not amount to Finkelstein calling Dershowitz a Nazi, but simply to Dershowitz’s rather poor taste in formulating his legal theories. I fear, that towing the Dershowitz line on Finkelstein, is a bit, well, the Dershowitz way of doing things: straw-men, canards, red herrings, and Sharansky’s demonising, delegitimising, and invidious double-standards full throttle.

    Knowing Oyster, I don’t want to make outlandish or personal attacks and accusations, but… I’d personally refrain from the Dershowitz cagy-lawyer-way, such as when you say:

    “But what really is the final nail in the coffin with Finkelstein is his single-minded and obsessive drive to show that the Holocaust was a “Holocaust Industry”, invented by “Zionists” and exploited by world Jewry for money.”

    No I am sorry Oyster, as for you and for me, the Holocaust for Finkelstein, is the extermination of millions of Jews by Nazis.

    Please, watch this short but clear interview with Finkelstein you referred to in your original blog, and I would love to hear some criticism of what He actually said, and not what is being attributed to him.

  4. Oyster said

    Apparently, Dershowitz slept at the Stanford Park Hotel, and ate at “The Duck Club” restaurant. As if y’all care.

  5. Squeedle said

    I’m disappointed that any Jewish rag’s editorial policy is ok with its staff calling someone a “piece-of-shit” anything. Not only does it make you look bad, but any semblance of objective reporting is thrown out the window. I concede it may not be your goal – if not, I guess it’s good that it’s so obvious. *shrug*

    Regardless, you lost respect from me on this, and while you likely don’t care what I think, I’ll bet I’m not alone. I mean, it’s totally up to you what kind of audience you want to attract to your website. I’m not a total goody two-shoes, but when the reporting gets too yellow or vulgar I (and readers like me, which is my point) go elsewhere. I’d like to keep coming back to oybay because you have good and useful information here and it’s obvious a lot of work is going into it.

    By the way, if you’re going to post NSFW stuff, it would be extra nice if you would please not display it in the main article, or if nothing else, say something more specific like, “[warning NSFW cartoon is actually in the article so don’t page down k thx!!!]”

  6. Oyster said

    Hi Squeedle,

    First off, let me say that my use of unsavory language was indeed
    fucked up insensitive. j/k! 🙂

    Seriously though. I never intended Oy Bay to be a source of
    buttoned-up hard-news. It could be that in particular posts, but I
    never had that in mind to be the goal of the blog in general. It’s
    more important to me that we stay an independent Jewish media source
    for the Bay Area, and that we write from the kishkes as well as
    from the kop. 🙂

    But you bring up a very interesting point. I think Oy Bay is long
    overdue to craft a policy on what we post, and what comments are
    acceptible. As I mention elsewhere, we
    are loathe to delete comments
    , even ones that we find
    objectionable in viewpoint. But some may cross the line, both in terms
    of US law and Halakha (‘lashon hara’). It would be good for us to
    define these, as other blogs have.

    I’ve noted that on your blog you use the terms ‘crap’ and
    ‘bullshite’. I’m not trying to be defensive, but I think the line of
    what is vulgar to one is different to that of others. I invite you and
    other readers of Oy Bay to share your opinion of what you think is
    “over the line”, and what is “in bounds”.

    As for the NSFW remark, this is new territory for Oy Bay. I can’t
    recall us posting up a video or visual that “racy” before. I followed
    the lead of JewSchool on this one, putting the warning in the visible
    part of the post from our homepage, and leaving the NSFW material
    “after the jump”. I have limited experience with how the majority of
    blogs do this, so I very much might have erred, and should have just
    linked to it. It was such a jarring and offensive visual that
    Dershowitz included in his presentation, that I kinda wanted to
    reproduce that “shock” to our audience, the majority of which I assume
    wasn’t able to attend.

    Shabbat Shalom, Squeedle. I’ll wish you that in person tomorrow. :-p

  7. Oyster said


    I guess I haven’t yet watched that video of Finkelstein, and I guess
    you haven’t yet listened to Dershowitz’s speech at Stanford. The only
    difference is, this post is about Dershowitz’s speech at Stanford. 🙂

    you appear not to have firsthand knowledge of Finkelstein’s

    You’re right. I haven’t read any of his ‘esteemed’ books. I have read
    some of Alan Dershowitz’s books, though.

    The case of Dershowitz calling Finkelstein a Nazi.

    Enough with the non-sequitors! I didn’t accuse him of this, and in all
    of his pontification, Dershowitz didn’t mention this AT ALL. And trust
    me, he spared no words on his discourse on Finkelstein.

    This clearly does not amount to Finkelstein calling Dershowitz a

    Ah, now I see it. Poor misunderstood Finkelstein. He didn’t call
    Dershowitz a Nazi, just that he thinks like one! A clear distinction,

    Minsky, do you think it’s fair or in good taste for someone to
    critique a Jew by comparing their thoughts or actions, out of the
    entire universe of possible examples, to Nazis? Unless the comparison
    is explicit and unique, I don’t think it is fair, and one is left with
    few possible interpretations as to what motivates such an insult short
    of Antisemitism.

    No I am sorry Oyster, as for you and for me, the Holocaust for
    Finkelstein, is the extermination of millions of Jews by Nazis.

    … and the Holocaust Industry. I mean, he named his friggin’
    book the Holocaust Industry! I don’t understand how you square
    that with him not being guilty of anti-Holocaust hate ™ (yes, I
    just trade-marked that expression, mo-fo’s). He also likes to use the
    phrase, “there’s no business like ‘Shoah’ business”. That’s just
    further evidence of Finkelstein’ss crude and insensitive treatment of
    the Holocaust and Holocaust survivors.

    watch this short but clear interview with Finkelstein you referred
    to in your original blog

    Actually Minsky, I don’t believe that I mentioned any interview with
    Finkelstein in my post. I just linked to his article and a Wikipedia
    page. I tell you what: we’ll continue this discussion of the
    Finkelstein-Dershowitz debacle once you’ve listened to Dershowitz’s
    speech, and once I’ve listened to the Finkelstein interview that you
    linked to above. Fair?

    And a guteh Shabbos to you too. 🙂

  8. […] Get Meshugga this SundaySpicebox: an Israeli couple’s passionBelated post in Honor of Victory Day and Jewish Veterans.CBDYAG Invites You to Bowling NiteDershowitz Bombshell: ‘Carter Scuttled Camp David II’ […]

  9. Archangel said


    That is so awesome that you met Dershowitz and got his autograph. I thoroughly enjoyed his book, which I read in the course of a half dozen sittings at Borders in Santa Cruz while still a student amongst a see of anti-Zionist activists.

    Not to but in on the dialogue between Oyster and Minsky, but can I just add some thoughts of my own? Thank you.

    Just because someone is Jewish does not prevent him (or her) from being anti Semitic in his actions (if not his intent). And the argument that being Jewish or having Jewish parents provides one with some type of immunity is baseless.

    In theory one can be critical of Israel without being a Jew hater. In practice, this rarely happens. This is because the criticism is rarely about specific actions of Israeli government, but rather about Israel itself and Israelis. And though my knowledge of Finkelstein is very limited, I can say that nothing he has said or written has made me want to listen to him anymore.

    And sometimes, vulgar language is not nearly as offensive as vulgar thoughts and intentions. Let’s not quibble about the words used to describe people on Oy-Bay. We are not exactly publishing scholarly articles here. And just becasue someone does publish scholarly articles with lots of fancy language does not make him any less hateful or dangerous.

    I look forward to hearing the rest of your debate.

  10. minsky said

    In theory one can be critical of Israel without being a Jew hater. In practice, this rarely happens. This is because the criticism is rarely about specific actions of Israeli government, but rather about Israel itself and Israelis.

    This looks like a sweeping generalisation. In regards to Finkelstein, it is inaplicable. Nothing in his record suggest any self-hatred or hatred of Jews which brings us back to a topic initiated by FriarYid.

    While an important discussion on self-hatred, it seems we cannot really make heads or tails of it, because some of us have diametrically opposed evaluations of what constitutes self-hate, and I am afraid we’d get into a bit of scrap over it.

    Wont we?

  11. Matt McLaughlin said

    I’m grateful for Finklestein’s view/voice. And We have entered an age where Israel is arrogant enough to throw up an A-bomb in the name of ‘avoiding another Hololcaust’ and if anybody don’t like it they can die too.

    • Matt McLaughlin said


      I can only think that such complete deadication for Israel will make USA just a square of posterior tissue and under her dress shall Israel cling, doing stupid, violent international stuff because the united christains behind Israel are still living Disraeli’s claim that ‘God shall bless those that aid the Jews’ and a cart blanch is the ticket. Living under the mistakes of Palmerstone, who thought Americans as puke all awhile promoting Jew immigration to Palestine. Which eventually pissed off the mufti. Which promoted MORE hatred upon Jews because of this foreign nationalism and where it is.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: