Beyond Chutzpah

Little Prissy Al

by ALAN DERSHOWITZ

Why would a rabbi circulate an article by an anti-Semite suggesting that the assassination of a pro-Israel professor might be justified? Because the “rabbi” is himself an Israel-basher who has gotten into bed with Hizbullah supporters, advocates of divestment from Israel and other Jew-haters.

I’m describing, of course, Rabbi Michael Lerner, whose magazine Tikkun is quickly becoming the most virulently anti-Israel screed ever published under Jewish auspices.

Let’s look at Lerner’s most recent offense against decency and the Jewish people.

Last month, the notorious Norman Finkelstein – a strong supporter of Hizbullah and an opponent of justice for Holocaust survivors – published a call to arms entitled, “Should Alan Dershowitz Target Himself for Assassination?” As the title of the article suggests, Finkelstein puts forward in his article what he believes to be a justification for my assassination as a war criminal, based on my support for Israel.

Nor was this the only obscenity in the article. Not by a long shot. Finkelstein’s piece was accompanied by a cartoon drawn by Latuff, a frequent accomplice of Finkelstein. The cartoon portrayed me as masturbating in rapturous joy while viewing images of dead Lebanese civilians on a TV set labeled “Israel peep show,” with a Jewish Star of David prominently featured.

I FOUND out recently that Michael Lerner, founder and editor of Tikkun magazine, has been circulating the Finkelstein article from his Tikkun e-mail account and under the Tikkun letterhead. Lerner apparently didn’t have the stomach to attach the cartoon, despite the fact that the inspiration for the disgusting cartoon comes directly from what Finkelstein writes in the article circulated by Lerner. The article accuses me of being a “moral pervert” who “missed the climactic scene of his little peep show.”

The obscene cartoon merely illustrated Finkelstein’s obscene verbal image. Finkelstein also claims, quite absurdly, that I “sanction mass murder” and “the extermination of the Lebanese people.” (I’m surprised he hasn’t accused me of kicking of puppy dogs, scowling at little children and parking in handicapped spaces.)

Yet this disgusting article was circulated by a rabbi who purports to devote himself “to peace, justice, non-violence, generosity, caring, love and compassion.”

This is a rabbi who claims to observe the Jewish commandments against evil words (lashon hara) and bearing false witness. This is a man who ardently opposes Israel’s targeted assassination of Hamas terrorists, but apparently has no qualms about the assassination of pro-Israel academics.

That’s a rather peculiar definition of “peace, justice, and non-violence” Lerner is employing.

Nor was the article circulated to demonstrate how far the enemies of Israel and decency will go. It was circulated approvingly by the rabbi, who, in effect, endorsed its despicable content.

This is not the first time that Lerner has served as a megaphone for Finkelstein’s hate speech. He published an article-length version of one of Finkelstein’s screeds in Tikkun, complete with Finkelstein’s hateful thesis: “Alongside Israel [American Jewish elites] are the main fomenters of anti-Semitism in the world today… They need to be stopped.” (Finkelstein had previously called American Jews “parasites.“)

IN THE BOOK from which the article was excerpted, Finkelstein invoked some of the most crass anti-Semitic caricatures found in contemporary America: “Should people like Abraham Foxman, Edgar Bronfman, and Rabbi Israel Singer [who are prominent Jewish leaders] get a free ride because they resemble stereotypes straight out of Der St rmer?

Can you imagine a professor issuing a similar description of a woman, or a Muslim, or describing the pope according to an anti-Catholic stereotype? Can you imagine Tikkun publishing an author who falsely described Lerner as resembling a stereotype “straight out of Der St rmer”? But Lerner publishes an author who used that anti-Semitic image to characterize other rabbis.

Lerner tried to weasel out of what he had done by saying that he forwarded the Finkelstein article because I had called him “an anti-Semitic rabbi” in one of my books. (What I actually wrote is that “even a rabbi can support anti-Semitic actions” – as Lerner did when he supported divestment from Israel and only Israel – which is quite different from calling him “an anti-Semitic rabbi,” but never mind.)

Lerner would be better situated to defend against those charges if he didn’t so eagerly associate with anti-Semites and publish Jew-hating rants.

Through his nefarious association with Norman Finkelstein, who is a genuine Jew-hater, Michael Lerner has forever disqualified himself from being taken seriously on matters of Jewish concern, the Jewish community, or Israel.

Everyone is now on notice that an association with Michael Lerner is tantamount to an association with Norman Finkelstein, and that support for Tikkun is support for the enemies of Israel.

The writer is a professor of law at Harvard. His most recent book is Preemption: A Knife That Cuts Both Ways.


How the ADL Fights Anti-Semitism

Editor’s note: See follow up items up to The Washington Post publishes a retraction.



http://studentorgs.georgetown.edu/israel/ADL-letter.pdf

Contact the ADL at:
E-mail: washington-dc@adl.org
Phone: (202) 452-8320
Fax: (202) 296-2371

Text of ADL letter:

November 22, 2002
Dr. John J. DeGioia
President
Georgetown University
204 Healy Hall
Washington, DC 20057-1789

Dear President DeGioia:

We are shocked and troubled that on November 18, 2002, Georgetown University’s Center for Contemporary Arab Studies Department, Justice and Peace Center, and the Young Arab Leadership Association (YALA) sponsored a lecture by a known Holocaust denier and anti-Israel propagandist, Norman Finkelstein. The Anti- Defamation League is recognized as a champion of the First Amendment and the free exchange of ideas. However, Mr. Finkelstein’s lecture was a one-sided program, intended to promote hatred of Israel and perpetuate classic anti-Semitic stereotypes.

In his highly publicized book, “The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering,” Finkelstein argues that the Holocaust “has become a straight-out extortion racket.” Finkelstein is well known for his anti-Israel rhetoric and his claims that Jews have exploited the Holocaust to make money. He has said that he “truly honored” Hezbollah fighters from Lebanon for “having inflicted an exceptional and deserving defeat on their foreign occupiers,” and that, “I can’t imagine why Israel’s apologists would be offended by a comparison to the Gestapo.” To have Georgetown University provide a platform for a Holocaust denier to spread his hatred for Israel is profoundly disturbing to ADL. Finkelstein’s views about Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are widely known.

Mr. Finkelstein’s appearance at Georgetown occurred simultaneously to troubling reports that another Georgetown University faculty member, Hisham Sharabi, professor of Arab Culture at Georgetown University, told students and faculty at Balamand University that the Arab world is under a “neocolonial attack” but that ” . . . in the long run, neither the Jews nor Americans will be able to subdue us for we are not (Native Americans).” He warned the audience that “Jews are getting ready to take control of us . . .”.

We would be very pleased to meet with you to discuss this matter. We look forward to your response.

Sincerely,
David Friedman
Regional Director
CW/DCF:sfc


Freemasons rally behind Dershowitz

Editor’s note: Reader letters follow the article.

Willaim Donohue on freedom of speech:

One of the most telling moments of Sunday night’s Justice Sunday rally and telecast came right after Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, bellowed, “We will be disobedient altar boys! We won’t be told to shut up and give it over to the secular left! Who are they to say that I don’t have a right to freedom of speech?”

Salon.com, April 25, 2005

Now, in this country, we are civilized. We don’t appreciate it when somebody sticks it to you in the name of freedom of speech, sir. We condemn it. But over there, they [Muslims] take the uncivilized approach. “

– MSNBC’s Scarborough Country, 02.09.2006); video clip, transcript & video

Before Pope John Paul II visited the United States in October 1995, the Catholic League launched a campaign to intimidate the press so as to avoid any critical reporting of the pope…. It is worth noting that the above petition objects to reporting protests by Catholic dissidents and believes that “Catholic tensions” with American culture should be offset by the good work done by those Catholics who themselves are restricted or dominated by the Vatican….The Catholic League claims that any criticism of the pope, the hierarchy, and the Vatican is bigotry. The league says it has attacked CBS’s 60 Minutes for a January 22, 1995, broadcast featuring the progressive Catholic group Call to Action. The league also attacked NBC Nightly News for referring to Catholics for a Free Choice and another Catholic group, Dignity…. The Catholic League has called upon a Los Angeles radio station to fire its talk show host Bill Press, a Roman Catholic, for remarks critical of the pope. It has also criticized FOX TV, Bravo, ABC, Newsday, and numerous others for critical comments about the pope or the Catholic church. Mumford writes that the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel even dropped Ann Landers’ advice column because of the Catholic League.

The Humanist, Jan-Feb, 1998




Catholic League president Bill Donohue issued the following remarks today about an incident involving a DePaul University professor:

“Catholics have every right to expect that Catholic colleges and universities are free from bigotry of any kind. Unfortunately, a recent ugly incident by DePaul professor Norman G. Finkelstein has betrayed that trust. To be specific, an online column he wrote at indybay.org suggesting that Alan Dershowitz be assassinated, coupled with an obscene depiction of the Harvard professor, is cause for alarm.

“Finkelstein has every right to quarrel with Dershowitz’s proud defense of Israel’s right to exist, but when he compares him to a Nazi (this despicable charge is made twice), then elementary standards of civility have been shattered. Similarly, calling Dershowitz a ‘moral pervert’ who ‘missed the climactic scene of his little peep show’ is the language used by street propagandists, not academicians. Make no mistake about it, Finkelstein wrote this to illustrate the vicious cartoon he commissioned: Dershowitz is depicted masturbating in glee over dead Lebanese civilians. It doesn’t get much lower than this.

“There are plenty of arenas in and around Chicago where those who want to rant can go to express themselves, but a university is not such a venue: the university exists so that the truth may be pursued. That is what a liberal arts education is expected to provide, and it is nothing but a travesty when the rights afforded faculty members are abused in the way Finkelstein has done. This is doubly true when it happens on a Catholic campus.

“The time has come for responsible Catholic leaders to hold up a stop sign to this kind of ad hominem assault. Robust free speech should be welcomed on campus, but if it is to have pedagogical value, it must respect logic and standards of evidence. Character assassination of the kind Finkelstein engages in does not meet that test. He has abused his rights as a faculty member and he has defamed Catholic education.”



Reader letters

From: paulowh[at]hotmail.com
To: cl[at]catholicleague.org
CC: normangf[at]hotmail.com
Subject: Bill Donohue
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 06:02:37 +0000

To whom it may concern (hopefully this will find its way to
Donohue),

I am writing concerning Bill Donohue’s article in regards to
Norman Finkelstein. Of course Norman Finkelstein is quite capable of
defending himself, but I write now because I have many
questions.

Mainly why Donohue has not adhered to the principles to which the
Catholic League upholds? If it is true that the Catholic League
advocates human rights, religious freedom and freedom of speech,
why has Donohue taken it upon himself to negatively influence Norman
Finkelstein’s position at DePaul? This seems
hypocritical does it not? If it is Truth that is sought, does not one need a
dissenting voice crying out in the wilderness to prepare the way for Truth?
Through selective quoting and the omission of context, Donohue
vilifies Finkelstein in his portrayal of Alan Dershowitz which is
fine, however if one is trying to be honest about facts then one
should present both sides of the argument, and in this Donohue
fails. Donohue chooses not to inform his audience that Alan
Dershowitz favours the use of torture against Palestinians,
advocates target assassinations, and has continually attacked
Norman Finkelstein’s character to the extent of implying Prof.
Finkelstein’s mother to be a Nazi Collaborator. I can see why
Donohue would side with Dershowitz and his Christ like ability to
Love.

He who is without sin should cast the first stone, and in this
light Donohue should have had his hands tied and tongue
silenced. After all he did take it upon himself to attempt to ruin another man’s
reputation, career, and livelihood. Absolute power corrupts and
it is evident that the actions taken by Donohue have revealed that
he should not be president of the Catholic League. If anything,
he should resign his post and learn more about the material he
teaches or has taught being the “good” Christian that he is.

Paul

* * *

From: info[at]freedombin.com
To: normangf[at]hotmail.com
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 20:42:51 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: RE: Catholic League nonsense

To begin with, the libelous Catholic League press release got the facts wrong in one of its few rational complaints. Donohue states that Finkelstein wrote an online column “at indybay.org suggesting that Alan Dershowitz be assassinated” and ultimately insinuates that Finkelstein doesn’t “respect logic and standards of evidence.” The article he refers to is called “Should Alan Dershowitz Target Himself for Assassination?” It was written on 8 August, 2006, complete with 55 footnotes. The version with footnotes has been online since 12 August, 2006. If the righteous gentleman from the Catholic League really cared about “truth” and “standards of evidence” all he had to do was perform a quick Google search prior to publishing his attack piece on 11 October, 2006, and he would’ve found the 55 source notes to the article that so upset his delicate sensibilities with its alleged lack of “pedagogical value.” These days, isn’t it only logical to Google a subject before making a potentially embarrassing public statement about it?

Speaking of “standards of evidence,” one may refer to sources cited in areas such as paragraph 3, where Alan Dershowitz’ proposals for scrapping international law in dealing with the “war on terrorism” are compared to arguments found in Nazi ideology, specifically in Hitler’s Commissar Order. Finkelstein’s documentation for this comparison includes Germany and the Second World War, vol. iv, The Attack on the Soviet Union (Oxford: 1998) and Anatomy of the SS State (New York: 1965). Dershowitz’s arguments are further compared to those found on the far right of the [US] political spectrum, citing examples such as Supreme Court case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. As for the humorous charge that Finkelstein is “suggesting that Alan Dershowitz be assassinated,” anyone who’s actually read the article would know that Finkelstein states that “the preponderance of humanity, this writer included, does not think this way.”

Donohue certainly doesn’t check his sources before copy/pasting from what reads like a rather humorous hasbara email into official Catholic League press releases.

– Tamudjin


Hate-mongers monitor hate.

CENTRE SIMON WIESENTHAL – SIMON WIESENTHAL CENTRE – CENTRO SIMON WIESENTHAL
64, avenue Marceau – 75008 Paris

Tel. +33 (0) 1 47 23 76 37
Fax: +33 (0) 1 47 20 84 01
E-mail: csweurope@compuserve.com http://www.wiesenthal.com

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Wiesenthal Centre Works with Frankfurt Book Fair to Identify Exhibitors Who Incite to Hate and Violence

Despite efforts by officials of the Frankfurt Book Fair to eliminate the inclusion of antisemitic books in the 2006 Fair, the Simon Wiesenthal Center has identified hate material at some Arab, Turkish and German vendors.

Dr. Shimon Samuels, the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s Director for International Relations, who is in Frankfurt monitoring the world’s largest publishers gathering , reported “a significant decrease in antisemitic hate books compared to the 2004 Frankfurt Bookfair, “in comparison with the 2004, when the Frankfurt Book Fair honoured the Arab World, and 2005′s Iranian display of
antisemitic texts.”

Newly appointed Frankfurt Book Fair Director, Jürgen Boos, met with senior Wiesenthal Centre officials last Spring to cooperate in expelling hate from this year’s Fair.

In a letter of 19 September, Boos had assured Dr. Samuels, that Boos had “coordinated in good time with the Public Prosecutor’s office and the Security Commissioner’s Department(Staatschutzkommissariat) in order to ensure that no works identified as containing incitement to violence, or as defamatory, are exhibited at the Frankfurt Book Fair”.

During his two-day monitoring effort at the opening of the event, Samuels presented photgraphs of offensive publications to the Fair’s Director, including:

  • At Stand 5.0.B908 of the General Egyptian Book Organization of Cairo, a book entitled, ‘Jews in Nineteenth Century English Literature’, 2006, the cover depicting a top hat in a Star of David. This seemingly literary study is replete with antisemitic stereotypes, taken from period authors, with the clear intent to demonize the Jews of today.
  • At Stand 5.1E953, The Association of Press and Publicity of the Ministry of Culture and Tourism of the Republic of Turkey exhibits three antisemitic conspiracy theory editions based upon the notorious Tsarist forgery, ‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,’ which historians have labeled ‘a warrant for genocide.’ These are:
  • ‘Buyuk Israil Stratejisi’ (The Greater Israel Strategy) by Hikmet Erdoglu, published by IQ Kulturçanat Yayicçik, Istanbul 2005. Portraying hostile stereotypes, the text is a saga of Jewish plots against Turkey.
  • ‘Israil in Sifresi’ (The Password of Israel) by Hakan Yilmaz Çebi, published by Pegasus Yayinlari, Istanbul 2006. It is argued that the Torah reveals, through the alphabetic code, how the Mossad is preparing a Third World War. The countries that will supposedly be destroyed by Israel include Turkey.
  • ‘JudaSofya: Hidden Intrigues Behind the Aya Sofya and the Patriarch’ also by Hakan Yilmaz Çebi and published by Pegasus Yayinlari, Istanbul 2006. How the Jews are manipulating the return of the Aya Sofya Mosque of Istanbul to Greek control.

This case is most troubling in that this is a Turkish government-sponsored display, when Turkey has just been selected to be the 2008 Honouree of the Frankfurt Book Fair.

Perhaps more insidious are children’s storybooks ubiquitously depicting Stars of David as the bogey monsters of infant nightmares:

“These are clearly presented on Stand 5.0.D938 of the Palestinian Territories where the Tamar Institute for Community Education, Ramallah,offers a series from 2003 to 2005 of “Stories for Palestinian Children” during the Intifada.

At German book stalls at the Fair’s entrance, there is a semi-hidden array of Nazi memorabilia (books, prints, postcards) and some neo-Nazi pamphlets, such as on the attached photo ‘USA: Traum oder Albtraum?’ (USA: Dream or Nightmare?) by Martin Luther II. It shows President Bush manipulating a terrorist’s puppet in one hand, and an Ariel Sharon wearing a Kippah, waving a Star of David missile.”

Dr. Samuels report to Boos continued, “These publications surely contravene German law on incitement and defamation and, as per your request, we are sharing these findings with the Hessen Public Prosecutor, Jörg Claude.”

Finally, the Wiesenthal Center urged Director Boos “to advise those exhibitors, clearly identified above, that, in view of their abuse of contractual obligations and your good faith, they will be excluded from the 2007 Frankfurt Book Fair.”

“By setting this example, the next Fair may become truly hate-free,” Samuels concluded.

For further information, please contact Shimon Samuels at +33.609.77.01.58.

To view photos, click here…


Amnesty v. Dershowitz

See also: Amnesty: Israel committed war crimes.



By Ian Seiderman

Every civilian killed in conflict is a life wasted. Yet, in the recent fighting between Israel and Hizbullah, both sides have sought to justify the deaths of civilians and the destruction of infrastructure.

Amnesty International will not go down this route. We do not condemn or condone war itself, but we do condemn grave violations of human rights and international humanitarian laws wherever they occur and whoever has committed them. That is our purpose and our mission.

Inherent human dignity and the right to life are our yardsticks. And where we campaign and advocate to change the behavior of states and armed groups, it is when they have violated international law.

What was so disappointing – and indeed astonishing – about Professor Alan Dershowitz’s August 31st Post op-ed paper – was his suggestion that both international humanitarian law and international criminal law were a figment of AI’s imagination.

They are in fact the culmination of a century of effort by nearly all states to develop rules to reduce the scourge of war, especially on civilians.

In his critique of AI’s report Israel/Lebanon: Deliberate destruction or “collateral damage”? Professor Dershowitz rightly points to the World War II bombing of “the center of towns with the express purpose of killing as many civilians as possible”, as a key parallel.

But he draws the wrong conclusions. For once the dust had settled, the extent of the catastrophe exacted on civilian populations of Europe and Japan horrified and shamed the international community. It led directly to the further development of the then fledgling international humanitarian law, with the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols of 1977.

The laws of armed conflict in 1944 were patchy and inadequate. In 2006, Hizbullah and Israel do not have the same excuse.

Beginning with the 1945 Nuremberg statute, and culminating with the statute of the International Criminal Court, the international community developed a body of international criminal law to run in parallel to the Conventions and make sure the most serious violations of these rules would be criminalized.

Nearly all states, including Israel and Lebanon, have accepted these laws.

Professor Dershowitz apparently has not.

A CORNERSTONE of the laws of war is that a distinction be made at all times between civilian persons and objects (infrastructure) and military objectives.

According to the evidence gathered by AI, Israel has engaged in indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks aimed at the destruction of the civilian infrastructure of Lebanon. This conclusion is supported, as noted in our report, by direct statements from high-level Israeli officials themselves.

Our use of the rule of proportionality, which Professor Dershowitz labels as “idiosyncratic,” is the near-universally accepted standard. As described in article 51(5)(b) of Additional Protocol I, a disproportionate attack is that “which may be expected to cause loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.” As the International Committee of the Red Cross says, such attacks can never be proportionate if they cause extensive damage.

Dershowitz also objects to AI’s point about roads used for military transport still being “primarily civilian in nature.” But the law is clear: where there is any doubt, the road is presumed to be civilian. To be a lawful target, military advantage must be concrete and effective, not potential or indeterminate (Protocol I 52 (3)).

If Dershowitz’s interpretation were correct, Hizbullah’s indiscriminate bombardment of Israel would be lawful, since roads in Israel are used both by military and civilians. But Hizbullah’s bombing was not lawful. It was criminal.

He said nothing about our evidence of bombed supermarkets, water treatment plants and pumping stations; minimizing Israeli attacks on civilian infrastructure in Lebanon as “property damage.” But in these and other attacks, more than 1,000 Lebanese were reportedly killed, about one third of whom were children. Disruption to civilian life was immense – including the displacement of a quarter of the population.

Dershowitz also has his facts wrong when he implicitly accuses AI of an anti-Israel bias. We have repeatedly appealed to both parties to protect civilians; condemned the bombing of northern Israel by Hizbullah; asked Israel to end disproportionate attacks; called on states providing weapons to either side to stop doing so; made interventions to both the UN Security Council and the UN Human Rights Council; and appealed for a cease-fire once all other ways to stop violations against civilians seemed ineffective.

We also publicly denounced the one-sided resolution of the UN Human Rights Council which addressed only violations by Israel.

AI delegations have been on the ground in both countries throughout the war, meeting with civilians, government officials and the military. The report that so angered Professor Dershowitz, and our forthcoming one on violations by Hizbullah, are just the tip of the iceberg. But they both set out, starkly and clearly, why an independent and impartial international investigation into violations of international humanitarian law by both sides of this bloody conflict is urgent and necessary.

Ensuring accountability is a key tenet of AI’s work across the globe. AI is not bound by political opinion, race or religion. Human rights are our compass. We urge you to join us in our defense of them.

The writer is senior legal adviser for the International Secretariat of Amnesty International.


The bizarre, weird, nutty, kooky world of Alan Dershowitz

ALAN RUSBRIDGER
Editor, The Guardian, London

Sir, – Alan Dershowitz’s extraordinary attack on the Guardian (“The Guardian at the crossroads,” September 28) was misleading and misinformed.

Half of his piece focussed on a “Guardian op-ed piece” by Henry Porter. In fact, this piece never appeared in the Guardian: it appeared in The Observer. The Observer is also owned by the Scott Trust, but has a a different editor, a separate editorial team and a separate editorial position on many issues, including Israel. This confusion was an elementary mistake which no-one familiar with the British media would have made. It follows, therefore, that Dershowitz’s complaint that the Guardian “refused to publish his letter” was entirely without foundation since it never published the offending article in the first place.

His second complaint concerned a Guardian review, by an outside contributor unconnected with the paper, of his recent book Preemption and what he claimed was a refusal by me, personally, to publish a letter in response. I have never, until yesterday, been contacted directly by Alan Dershowitz, nor have I ever had a telephone conversation with him. It seem likely that he misunderstood the role of the person at the Guardian with whom he dealt. It follows, therefore, that I did not tell him that I refused to publish a letter from him. Until yesterday, I was unaware of such a request. I am more than happy to publish a response and have offered him that opportunity.


Special rules for defenders of the Holy State

Editor’s note: Finkelstein’s comment follows the article.




Harvard Law School professors aren’t strangers to allegations and arguments, even when they find themselves in the crosshairs

By M. AIDAN KELLY, Crimson Staff Writer

The system of regulations that prohibit and condemn plagiarism are full of subtle distinctions and delicate rules, and an unwary writer can easily slip into illegal territory. But if anyone should be able to stick to the rules, it seems, it should be those who deal with complicated codes for a living—like the faculty at the Harvard Law School. Perhaps that was why the outcry over a string of alleged instances of plagiarism involving Harvard Law School professors—including Frankfurter Professor of Law Alan M. Dershowitz, Climenko Professor of Law Charles J. Ogletree Jr. and Loeb University Professor Laurence H. Tribe ’62—caused such a vicious and popular controversy.

In 2003, Dershowitz was accused of inappropriately lifting material from Joan Peters’ 1984 book “From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict Over Palestine” while writing “The Case for Israel.” Especially vocal among Dershowitz’s detractors were his ideological opponents, including Norman G. Finkelstein, a political science professor at DePaul University and a frequent critic of Dershowitz Dershowitz denies any misdeeds, and explained in an e-mail to FM that he was only “finding quotations in secondary sources, checking them against the original and then citing them to original rather than the secondary source.”

“Even on its facts the charge was false” said Dershowitz in an interview with FM. But “even if the facts were to be true [my attribution] would constitute proper citation.” He added that Finkelstein “has similarly accused virtually every prominent pro-Israel writer of plagiarism.” Dershowitz sought a Harvard investigation and was cleared of any wrongdoing.

The committeee determined that Dershowitz did nothing wrong, but accusations of plagiarism at the law school had just begun to fly. Shortly after the April 2004 publication of Ogletree’s “All Deliberate Speed: Reflections on the First Half-Century of Brown v. Board of Education,” an anonymous note was sent to Ogletree’s superiors at Harvard and to Jack M. Balkin, a constitutional law professor at Yale. The note alleged that three complete pages from Balkin’s “What Brown v. Board of Education Should Have Said” appeared in Ogletree’s work.

While a subsequent Harvard’s investigation found “serious scholarly transgression,” the University declared that Ogletree had committed “no deliberate wrongdoing at all.” Ogletree admitted that his research assistants had accidentally taken material from Balkin’s work and Derek C. Bok, the then-former University Harvard who led the investigation, told the Boston Globe in September, 2004 that Ogletree “marshaled his assistants and parceled out the work and in the process some quotation marks got lost.”

But Harvard’s absolution did not silence Ogletree’s critics; indeed, those like Joseph Bottum, the Books and Arts editor at the Weekly Standard, questioned the integrity of Ogletree’s scholarship and methodology.

“Ogletree conceived much of the book as a kind of double plagiarism: He set out to put his name on work done by his assistants, who, he knew, were merely rephrasing work written by other people,” wrote Bottum. Such heavy use of research assistants in the construction of his work, Bottum charged, was academic dishonesty serious enough to have Ogletree’s tenure revoked. Harvard saw things differently and did not dismiss Ogletree; the professor continues to teach at Harvard Law School.

Just a few weeks after Ogletree’s admission, the Weekly Standard lambasted Laurence Tribe—who had vocally defended Ogletree—and pointed out numerous places where his 1985 “God Save This Honorable Court” was strikingly similar to Henry J. Abraham’s 1974 book “Justices and Presidents.”

Once again, Bottum led the charge against an HLS professor, reprinting passages from both works side-by-side to show their similarities while commenting on the disparity between Tribe’s reputation and his apparent transgression. For Bottum and others, Tribe’s status as a giant of the legal world—he had argued nearly three dozen cases before the Supreme Court—made the controversy especially notable. Tribe’s colleagues rushed to his defense, including Dershowitz—who said that the Standard’s charges were political motivated— and Ogletree.

But the professor eventually told The Crimson via e-mail at the time that he recognized his “failure to attribute some of the material The Weekly Standard identified.” Tribe continues to teach at HLS and referred to the incident in a recent e-mail to FM as “one isolated and decades-old instance of carelessly incomplete attribution for which I apologized at the time and which the University concluded involved ‘inadvertence rather than intentionality.’” The embattled academic never lost the support of his fellow professors, and Dershowitz referred to Tribe in an interview with FM as “a phenomenal teacher and scholar” who had clearly made a “totally innocent mistake.”

Though they are often grouped together, these three cases should be recognized as very dissimilar matters. Much of the fire aimed at Dershowitz came from critics that were strongly opposed to his ideological views; he maintains that he committed no plagiarism, but rather made reference to the original rather than secondary sources.

There is no doubt that Ogletree’s book contained appropriated material, but HLS accepted his claim that the pages in question were the result of research assistant error. Still, some critics who accepted that he did not intend to plagiarize still question the integrity of his scholarship and his laxity in policing the work that bears his name.

Tribe’s book contains many passages which seem strikingly similar to passages in another work. But as Dershowitz pointed out at the time, Abraham offered no explanation for why he remained silent for twenty years if he noticed the similarities when the book came out, as he claims.

These three instances of controversy have many more differences than similarities. Still, they are often mentioned in the same breath in indictments or criticisms of the Harvard Law School faculty, especially in primarily conservative publications like the Weekly Standard. For better or worse, their largely superficial similarity—the common thread of a Harvard Law School professor accused of plagiarism—have yoked them together in the public imagination.



Finkelstein comments

To the Editor,

Recalling that three Harvard Law School professors – Dershowitz, Ogletree and Tribe – have been accused of plagiarism, M. Aidan Kelly is at pains to demonstrate that these cases have only “superficial similarity” (Crimson, 27 September). In particular he maintains that Dershowitz doesn’t belong in the same category as the others. His reasoning is unclear. Like Dershowitz, Ogletree and Tribe were ultimately absolved by the HLS administration. Kelly says that Dershowitz was accused by his “ideological opponents.” But so were liberals Ogletree and Tribe in the pages of the conservative Weekly Standard. The only difference I can make out is that Dershowitz alone categorically denied the allegations and Kelly took him at his word. One might have thought a serious journalist would first consult the evidence (easily available in print) before effectively pronouncing Dershowitz innocent.

Norman G. Finkelstein

DePaul University


Does this bore get paid per word?

Editor’s note: for more on Finkelstein v. Dershowitz see:




By Alan M. Dershowitz

Last month I wrote an article called “Norman Finkelstein’s Obscenities,” a response to Finkelstein’s latest screed, “Should Alan Dershowitz Target Himself for Assassination?” As the title of the article suggests, Finkelstein puts forward in his article what he believes to be a justification for my assassination as a war criminal, based on my support for Israel.

Nor was this the only obscenity in the article. Not by a long shot. As I wrote in my article, Finkelstein piece was accompanied by a: cartoon drawn by “Latuff”, a frequent accomplice of Finkelstein. The cartoon portrayed me as masturbating in rapturous joy while viewing images of dead Lebanese civilians on a TV set labeled “Israel peep show,” with a Jewish Star of David prominently featured.

I found out recently that Rabbi Michael Lerner, founder and editor of Tikkun magazine, has been circulating the Finkelstein article from his Tikkun e-mail account and under Tikkun letterhead. Lerner apparently didn’t have the stomach to attach the cartoon, despite the fact that the inspiration for the disgusting cartoon comes directly from what Finkelstein writes in the article circulated by Rabbi Lerner, as I showed in my previous article:

The cartoon aptly represents the content of Finkelstein’s piece, which accuses me of being a “moral pervert” who “missed the climactic scene of his little peep show.” He also claims quite absurdly that I “sanction mass murder” and “the extermination of the Lebanese people.” (I’m surprised he hasn’t accused me of kicking of puppy dogs, scowling at little children, and parking in handicapped spaces.)

This is from a rabbi who modestly purports to devote himself “to peace, justice, non-violence, generosity, caring, love and compassion.” This is a rabbi who purports to observe the Jewish commandments against evil words (“lashon harah”) and bearing false witness. This is a man who ardently opposes Israel’s targeted assassination of Hamas leaders, but who apparently has no qualms about the assassination of pro-Israel academics. That’s a rather peculiar definition of “peace, justice, and non-violence” Rabbi Lerner is employing.

This is not the first time that Lerner has served as a megaphone for Finkelstein’s hate speech. Lerner published an article-length version of one of Finkelstein’s screeds in Tikkun, complete with Finkelstein’s hateful thesis: “Alongside Israel [American Jewish elites] are the main fomenters of anti-Semitism in the world today… They need to be stopped.” (Finkelstein had previously called American Jews “parasites.”) In the same book that Lerner was promoting, Finkelstein invoked some of the most crass anti-Semitic caricatures found in contemporary America, “Should people like Abraham Foxman, Edgar Bronfman, and Rabbi Israel Singer [who are prominent Jewish leaders] get a free ride because they resemble stereotypes straight out of Der Sturmer?” Can you imagine a professor issuing a similar description of a woman or a Muslim, or describing the Pope according to an anti-Catholic stereotype? Can you imagine Tikkun publishing an author who falsely described Rabbi Lerner as resembling a stereotype “straight out of Der Sturmer“?

Lerner tried to weasel out of what he had done by saying the he forwarded the Finkelstein article because I had called him “an anti-Semitic rabbi” in one of my books. (What I actually wrote is that “even a rabbi can support anti-Semitic actions” – as Lerner did when he supported divestment from Israel and only Israel – which is quite different from calling him “an anti-Semitic rabbi,” but never mind.) As a defense lawyer, I would recommend to Lerner that he would be better situated to defend against those charges if he didn’t so eagerly associate with anti-Semites and publish Jew-hating rants.

Through his nefarious association with Norman Finkelstein, who is a genuine Jew-hater, Michael Lerner has forever disqualified himself from being taken seriously on matters of Jewish concern, the Jewish community, or Israel.

Alan Dershowitz is a professor of law at Harvard. His most recent book is Preemption: A Knife that Cuts Both Ways (Norton, 2006).


RNP interview with Finkelstein

by Jill Bolstridge

RNP reporter Jill Bolstridge interviews Professor Norman Finkelstein, author of the controversial book The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering. The son of Holocaust survivors, Finkelstein is a sharp critic of Israel and of US foreign policy.

What compelled you to write The Holocaust Industry?

Basically, there were three reasons. One, I’ve been involved in the Israel/Palestine conflict for a long time. It was obvious to anybody who was involved that the Nazi Holocaust was constantly being evoked and exploited in order to justify Israel’s violations of human rights. And, more currently, from a political point of view, to expose the lies and the misuse and the exploitation of the Nazi Holocaust. That was the political motive; it was the main motive. From a historical point of view, it seemed to me that there were many lessons that could be learned from the Nazi Holocaust, but those lessons were being obscured and distorted by the way that the Nazi Holocaust was being taught and being promoted by the United States. And finally, there was a personal reason. Both my parents survived the Nazi Holocaust, and I felt they deserved better than what it has been reduced to by the Holocaust industry.

Who was responsible for manufacturing this industry, as you put it, and why?

Mainly it’s been the United States and the mainstream Jewish organizations. And there have been individuals and institutions which, for one reason or another, have become apologists for Israel.

It is widely considered that anyone who questions the Holocaust or the actions of Israel in the Middle East is anti-Semitic. Why do you believe this to be the case?

There are separate questions here. Questioning Israel’s policies or actions, it seems to me, has no relationship whatsoever to anti-Semitism, and that is simply an exploitation of the historical suffering of Jews for political purposes. They have been using the anti-Semitism epithet to silence criticism of Israel and to intimidate critics of Israel into silence. The questioning of the Nazi Holocaust is an entirely separate question. To question whether the Nazi Holocaust itself happened is as absurd as to question whether or not in 1492, Columbus sailed the ocean blue. Of course it happened. That is not a subject for serious debate. There is no rational basis for questioning the fact that it actually happened. But once one establishes the fact that it happened, there are all sorts of unresolved questions about the Nazi Holocaust: factual questions. And then there are all sorts of interpretative questions. And those two sets of questions include when the Nazi Holocaust began, what was the motive behind it, those sorts of things.

Have you received any threats because of your opinion?

No.

How are you treated within the Jewish community as a result of your opinions?

I’m not really part of the Jewish community, per se. I’m obviously Jewish, but I have many friends in life. I have faithful friends, loyal friends, people who share my visions and ideals, and those are not particularly Jewish. I’m sure they have Jewish components, but they are not particularly Jewish. These are a set of ideals which are human.

In regards to the current situation in the Middle East, do you believe the capture of two Israeli soldiers was the real provocation of this war, or is there a hidden agenda?

Oh, it’s clear that you don’t turn the whole country into a parking lot because two soldiers were captured. Especially since the records show numerous skirmishes and cross-border raids and so forth since 2000, when Israeli troops were ejected from Lebanon. That clearly serves as a pretext for much bigger plans which were in the making for a long time by Israel.

Why do you believe the world, in particular the UN, has sat by and done nothing as Lebanon has been destroyed by Israel?

You can’t stop the US now. Because it’s run by a bunch of gang members and hoodlums, and they take out the big stick and break it over the skulls of anyone who stands in their way. And the UN has been paralyzed by the people currently occupying the White House. It’s very tough. And basically, Europe’s attitude is, ‘Let the United States do what it wants, and destroy itself in the process.’ So the Europeans, rather than trying to fight the United States, I think have pretty much decided, ‘If that’s what they want to do, let them do it, because they are going to wind up in a huge mess.’ The problem, of course, is that, in the process of the United States ending up in a huge mess, it kills many, as in the case of Iraq. And hundreds of thousands of people will suffer as well; therefore, European acquiesces to a huge criminal, and that’s been their basic attitude.

What do you believe is pushing the Israeli government to such extreme action?

Basically, there are two reasons. There are local reasons and then there are international reasons. The local reasons are pretty straight-forward. Israel’s attitude has always been that the Arabs have to know that what they say goes. And when the Arab State, or in this case, Movement, asserts itself and claims that it has a right to take initiatives on its own part, that it’s not simply a slave to Israel, then Israel comes in and smashes them. That has always been Israel’s style. It will break the back and crack the skull of anyone who gets in its way. And Hezbollah, to Israel, needs to be taught a lesson. That’s the local reason. And the broader reason is that Israel is pretty much now just an agent of US power in the region. And the United States is egging Israel on, urging it on, in the hopes that, by inflicting the defeat on Hezbollah, it may set back the regional aspiration to power, which is in conflict with the US. So the US not only entirely sees these acts of Syria, Iran, Hezbollah; these are all movements that are unwilling to follow completely what the US dictates. And so, the hope is that Hezbollah is the weakest link in the chain. Well, Hamas is actually the weakest link. But they think the second weakest is Hezbollah, with a militia of maybe just a thousand soldiers. And they think if they can inflict a defeat on Hezbollah, they can set back the goals of the regional aspiration to power. And the United States is leading it. Israel has its own agenda, but it is serving the US agenda as well.

What will be the wider repercussions for the Middle East?

It’s really hard to guess that. I really can’t make predictions. Basically, on the Arab side, Hezbollah demonstrates that Arabs have a learning curve and some groups have learned from some of the errors of the past. Hezbollah is well organized and very well-disciplined. It knows the state-of-the-art technology. And, above all else, they are wholly committed to the cause. They are not dissolute, they are not degenerate, they are not corrupt; this is a serious organization. And it may anticipate the beginning of serious organization among the Arabs to finally defeat the colonial imperialist forces which have dominated their part of the world for a century now. And that may not be a positive thing for Israel. It harbours pretty terrible prospects. Ultimately, Israel can not exist in its current form if it is going to be simply a vandal state, a rampaging state, which periodically goes into neighbouring countries and just flattens them, annihilates them, obliterates them, and pulverizes them. If that’s what its existence is going to come down to, then it’s going to be destroyed.

Are Israel’s actions in any way connected to the US military presence in the Middle East?

Yeah, I think there is a connection. The connection basically is that the United States sees all the opposition forces as being joined together in this ‘Axis of Evil,’ and they are hoping that the weaker link in the chain, Hezbollah, if it’s defeated, will then defeat the forces of Iraq and others. So they are hoping that a defeat for one will be defeat for all.

The media has a very clear bias towards Israel; would you agree and, if so, why?

Well, there are two reasons. One, the media has a clear bias toward the United States, and since Israel is a connection to US power, it would be surprising if it weren’t biased toward Israel. So part of the reason is that Israel is as integral to the United States, at this point, as California or Texas. So, if you say the media has a bias toward California up against Papa New Guinea, it’s going to have a bias toward Israel against Papa New Guinea. So that’s one reason. The other reason is that Jews have a huge presence in the media, and the bias comes, in part, from that.

Do you believe “The War on Terror” is real?

There is a problem with groups and how big they are. It’s hard to say, but there are groups who are committed to acts of terrorism against the United States and other powers. That’s a given. The real questions are altogether different. The rational questions are, first of all, how big is the threat? And secondly, much more important, how you deal with the threat? How many allegedly being accused as a threat really present a threat? And that brings us to another question: if they actually do present a threat, are the people in power irrational, or are they using the threat to exploit it for other reasons, which actually have nothing to do with the threat?

Confusions abound as to who is the major player in Israeli/US relations; who do you believe calls the shots?

The United States calls the shots ultimately, that’s for sure. But it’s not true to say that everything Israel does has an American agenda. Broadly, in the Middle East, it is correct to say that the agendas of the United States and Israel overlap. But on local issues, for example, the actual Israel/Palestine conflict, the settlements, have very little to do with the United States. The United States has no stake in the occupation of the territories. It has no stake in the settlements and so forth. Those are Israeli initiatives.

Do you believe the world is going through a new phase of neo-colonialism?

I’m not confident to speak in such global terms. What’s obvious is that there are conflicting forces in the world today, toward freeing the world of US/European domination. As you can see, those tendencies are working themselves out, primarily in regions where the United States is currently unable to act, such as South America. And the other aspect is that, especially since the destruction of the Soviet Union, there has been no formidable power in any way blocking US efforts to impose its agenda on the world. And you have those two tendencies. I think it is accurate to say that there is a new phase, a continuation of long-term trends, and the struggle continues between those trends.

Many feel that demonstrations are quite frustrating in that you march, go home, lobby your friends in action, and then wait for the next demonstration. What sort of action do you believe will best force the politicians into action?

Demonstrations ought to be a culmination of activity, not the be-all-and-end-all. Demonstrations are the climax after organizing, after speaking, after writing, after doing a lot of hard labour of trying to convince people then you have a demonstration. And then, hopefully, in the course of the demonstration, you convince people to become activists. But the demonstrations are clearly not, in and of themselves, the goal. The demonstration registers the kind of support that is needed to mobilize people over time.

What do you believe is the cause of anger and so-called terrorism, particularly from the Muslim world?

I don’t think you need great powers of perception to figure that out. Look at the degradations of the United States and Israel throughout the Arab world. Since the Bush Administration came to power, they have demolished Afghanistan, they have demolished Iraq, they have demolished Palestine, they have demolished Lebanon. These are vandals, straight out of the thirteenth century, like Genghis Khan. And to wonder why, is just a level of blindness, which really is very difficult to comprehend. I was listening to David Grossman yesterday and he said, “We have been here 60 years in the Middle East, and they still don’t accept us.” Well that’s a really big surprise, ya know? It’s like, the United States’ black people. They were slaves from 1619 to 1865, and they still didn’t accept white people! If you keep stomping on people, if you treat them like slaves, if you wreck, destroy, rampage their society, if you flatten them, just like in Lebanon, four times since 1978! Operation Litani in ‘78, the destruction of Lebanon in ‘82, Operation Accountability in ‘93, Operation Grapes of Wrath in ‘96, each time sending hundreds of thousands of Lebanese and Palestinians fleeing from the south, and then you sit there and you wonder why they don’t love us after sixty years? You’re lucky they don’t want to strangle you! Even though most of them do, and rightfully so. The level of self-absorption of these people is just mind-boggling! Why don’t they love us? You know what? Maybe the Arabs should send Valentines to support us.

Do you believe the world is really facing a threat from radical Islamists?

The issue is not whether the world is facing threats of radical Islamists. You have radical militias in the United States. The question is, how big is the threat? And how significant is it? And, most importantly, how do you diminish it? And all the policies which have been implemented to date plainly do not have it as their main goal to diminish the threat. It’s only exacerbating the threat. The same thing with Israel. Israel, in my opinion, is only two wars away from complete destruction. This war, the red line was Haifa. It’s clear that, in the next war, Tel Aviv will be targeted and then, the war after that, it will be destroyed. But who’s causing it? Who’s creating it? Let’s be honest about that.

Why are most of the western world’s conflicts and disputes with Islamic nations?

I don’t think it has anything to do with Islam. They could be Buddhists. It’s oil. They don’t care that they’re Islamic. They don’t care about religion. Once the oil’s been depleted, then they will go to central Africa. They will let everybody starve, steal whatever minerals and wealth they have, and just let them die. They don’t care about democracy anymore. All they’re interested in is democratizing the oil, until they get their fair share of it, or, in their minds, their fair share of it.

Why does the United Nations not take a stronger stance against the United States for its disregard of international law?

The UN can’t do anything against the US. It’s impossible. This is a gang of hoodlums. What are they supposed to do? If they were really, as they say in Yiddish, mensch, then of course they could stop them. But these people are out to protect their own interests, and their own interests would come to serious conflict with the US. And they don’t want to come to serious conflict with the US. The US controls too much: the World Bank, the IMF. It has too much power.

Is the United Nations redundant?

No. The UN does a lot. One shouldn’t kid oneself about that. So many peace-keeping operations, so many health concerns, environmental concerns, refugee concerns. They do a lot. No question about that. It’s a huge organization. There is no doubt of bureaucracy, corruption, no doubt about it. But one shouldn’t gainsay the amount of good they do in the world. So it’s not like it’s become redundant. That’s not true at all.

Do you think many have lost faith in the UN and its founding principles?

No. Not at all. There is no evidence of that at all. The world doesn’t hold the United Nations to blame for the paralysis of the United States. They hold the United States to blame. If you were to take a poll of the world’s population and ask whether people want to strengthen or weaken the UN, my guess is that the result would be that 95%, or even more, would say to strengthen the UN. If they were asked if they want to strengthen or weaken the US presence in the UN, I am most certain the result would be 99.5% percent would say weaken the US presence. So everybody knows who the real problem is.



On what the UN’s actually up to, beyond the rhetoric of John Bolton types:

Gaza is hungry – and not because of Ramadan

09.26.2006 | Ha’aretz
By Avi Issacharoff

“GAZA – It’s Ramadan and everyone’s fasting. Maybe it’s the heat, the hunger and the thirst that generate the feeling that the Gaza Strip is liable to blow up at any minute. It seems that with every passing week, the distress deepens and the poverty becomes more tangible.

…We’ve reached the point where even the dogs of the Jews live better, and since Hamas won, the situation has become still worse. Only UNRWA [United Nations Relief and Works Agency] is helping people now – the PA can’t do anything.

Dawas said he and his family are going hungry, and break their daily Ramadan fast on nothing but rice and vegetables. “I don’t have money anymore for meat and chicken,” he said….”


Is Haaretz anti-Semitic too?

By Haaretz Editorial

During the final days of the war, when it became clear that the Israel Defense Forces had no solution to the ongoing launchings of Katyusha rockets, a decision was made to “flood” the area with cluster bombs, delivered by artillery shells and rockets. This was non-target specific shooting, based on the assumption that the bomblets would cover a large area, possibly destroy Hezbollah rocket launchers and cause as many casualties as possible among its fighters.

A soldier who fired 155mm artillery shells delivering cluster bombs told Haaretz that he was ordered to “flood” the area with these bombs, without having a specific target. A commander of a Multiple Launch Rocket System (MLRS) told Haaretz that his order was to “saturate the area.” These statements were published in stories by Meron Rapoport on September 8 and 12. More than a million cluster bomblets were dropped in southern Lebanon. Each M-26 rocket fired by an MLRS contains 644 cluster bomblets, capable of covering an area the size of a football field.

Firing at undefined targets is a problem in and of itself. The dilemma it entails is reflected in statements by soldiers who fired cluster bombs during training and recognized that this type of weapon should be used only in a war against a regular army, for the purpose of hitting arms supply convoys or missile batteries – not against civilian areas. But beyond this dilemma, the committee investigating the war should find out whether anyone considered what would happen to the thousands of cluster bomblets that failed to explode, and were therefore transformed into mines spread throughout southern Lebanon.

The cluster bomb is not a banned weapon, but it is described as an “indiscriminate” weapon, which should not be used against targets in civilian areas because, inter alia, it continues to kill once the war is over. Since the cease-fire went into effect, 12 Lebanese civilians have been killed by duds that exploded unexpectedly. Since the percentage of unexploded cluster bomblets ranges from 5 to 30 percent, according to various assessments, southern Lebanon is now an area littered by thousands of bomblets that have not yet exploded.

Questions regarding the IDF’s conduct during the war have many implications, both moral and practical. Israel’s ability to rally international support depends in part on the distinction it makes between innocent civilians and the enemy. While Hamas and Hezbollah attack civilians as part of their strategy, Israel declares that it does not do so, and that it makes an effort to avoid harming civilians. The decision to drop cluster bombs on villages, with no specified targets; the decision to use these bombs over a large area, making it impossible to know in advance who will be there; and the well-known fact that a large percentage of these munitions will not explode on impact, and will therefore be transformed into mines in an area to which civilians will return, are all further testimony to the flawed decision-making of those who managed the war.

Now, Israel can do little except accede to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan’s request and assist in marking the areas hit by the cluster bombs, so that there will be no further casualties among Lebanese civilians, who have already been hurt by the war. Significant portions of southern Lebanon have now become minefields. Annan’s condemnation was not without basis.