The manliness of the IDF on display

[HHW]

http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/under-the-iron-heel/

[drahcir]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 15:29:38 -0700 (PDT), HHW
<coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/under-the-iron-heel/

Searching a suspect's or prisoner's home for evidence - wow how
incriminating. Presuming the tape isn't totally fake, the soldiers
thought what they were doing was so terrible....

THEY ALLOWED SOMEONE TO VIDEOTAPE IT.

Sheesh, H, you must have been one helluva lawyer.

[dsharavi]

On Apr 10, 3:29 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:

(Hunter is the one at left)
http://www.israellycool.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Gaza-mall6.jpg

[NEMO]

HHW Pig Fucking - YouTube





www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJv94Q6bew8


Uploaded by 69PlayaPlaya69 on Feb 4, 2009. One of my friends was
fuckin around with a pig at the county fair and i decided to take a
video of it......LOL ...



PIGS FUCKING - YouTube





www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtYYjaYy-DQ


25 Jan 2006 – Watch Later Error JUSTIN U FUCKING PIG DONT CHANGE THE
NAME OF THE VIDEOby fuckrocolvin3188 views. Loading more suggestions.





Two Pigs Fucking Video





www.metrolyrics.com/two-pigs-fucking-video-labrat.html


Labrat Music Videos. All songs or specific song videos.

[Zev]

On Apr 11, 2:32 am, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 15:29:38 -0700 (PDT), HHW
>

> <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/under-the-iron-heel/
>
> Searching a suspect's or prisoner's home for evidence - wow how
> incriminating. Presuming the tape isn't totally fake, the soldiers
> thought what they were doing was so terrible....
>
> THEY ALLOWED SOMEONE TO VIDEOTAPE IT.
>
> Sheesh, H, you must have been one helluva lawyer.

As one of the soldiers says:
" She's putting on a show for the camera".
In short, Pallywood, again.

Only Finkelstein and his followers take an interest in it.

[dsharavi]

Only antisemites and other riff-raff take an interest in Finkelstein.

[HHW]

On Apr 10, 6:32 pm, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 15:29:38 -0700 (PDT), HHW
>

> <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/under-the-iron-heel/
>
> Searching a suspect's or prisoner's home for evidence - wow how
> incriminating.

But for the brutal and obviously illegal occupation of the Palestinian
homeland, this disgusting nocturnal home invasion by heavily armed
enemy infantry would not have taken place. But for that brutal and
obviously illegal occupation this impoverished family would have at
least had a chance to be protected from such humiliating and
intimidating intrusions by some sort of civil process or at least by
civilized custom, but no, they are denied such protection by a
European colonial army equipped with a supremacist ideology custom
designed to falsely justify theft of an Asian people's homeland
because of the crimes of Europeans IN EUROPE without any causal nexus
whatever.

Presuming the tape isn't totally fake, the soldiers
> thought what they were doing was so terrible....
>
> THEY ALLOWED SOMEONE TO VIDEOTAPE IT.

Because the camera was not confiscated that someone was almost
certainly an Israeli soldier. And given the fact that it has surfaced
on the web we'll leave it to you, an expert at justifying ethnic
criminality, to speculate as to the circumstances. As you crunch the
data, Miss Ratner, don't forget that the discourse about playing to
the camera was spoken in English, not Hebrew. Do tell us what you
think was going on. My opinion is that those IDF draftees were deeply
ashamed of what they were doing.

> Sheesh, H, you must have been one helluva lawyer.

Given your show biz background we can only wonder whether you are one
helluva cross-dresser. Keep it up. We need you here. You multiply the
opportunities to delegitimize, yes DELIGITIMIZE the Zionist movement
in its post-1967 incarnation.

By the way, I admire the otherwise helpless Palestinian woman trash-
talking the Israeli military. Hundreds, even thousands of them have
been murdered by Jewish soldiers since 1947 yet she would not be
intimidated. Tell us, will Israeli women behave as well in the same
circumstances?

[HHW]

He is standing room only on college campuses throughout the west. Such
strange places to be inhabited by riff-raff and antisemites.

[HHW]

Zev, I struggle to avoid such language, especially opposite you, but
that's just stupid. Dr. Finkelstein's admirers are politicized
intellectuals. In the US many of them are Jews. On issues of interest
to you they dominate campuses everywhere in the western world. You
tried to denigrate him because you couldn't think of anything else,
just as your neo-fascist, Likudish authorities could think of nothing
more than to ban Finkelstein from Israel for "ten years" in the age of
the internet.

I admire Dr. Finkelstein, but I 'follow' no one.

It's a shame that you, the dreamy champion of religion-based Zionism,
have pretty much withdrawn from the contest. Though far superior
morally to the gutter snipes who represent the post-1967 Zionist
"cause" here, you can't deal with your country's gratuitously bloody
history either. So, stick around. As with drahcir/Ratner and the
homebound sharavi, we Americans benefit from your presence. So do the
Palestinian people.

[dsharavi]

> > On Apr 11, 2:32 am, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
> > > Searching a suspect's or prisoner's home for evidence - wow how
> > > incriminating. Presuming the tape isn't totally fake, the soldiers
> > > thought what they were doing was so terrible....
> > > THEY ALLOWED SOMEONE TO VIDEOTAPE IT.
>
> > > Sheesh, H, you must have been one helluva lawyer.
>

> On Apr 11, 10:50 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > As one of the soldiers says:
> > " She's putting on a show for the camera".
> > In short, Pallywood, again.
>
> > Only Finkelstein and his followers take an interest in it.
>

On Apr 11, 10:13 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Zev, I struggle to avoid such language, especially opposite you,

Twaddle.

>Dr. Finkelstein's admirers are politicized
> intellectuals.

Most of them are dyed in the wool Jew haters.

>On issues of interest
> to you they dominate campuses everywhere in
> the western world.

Finkelstein's followers dominate campuses "everyhere in the western
world"? Prove it.

[wipe drool]

> I admire Dr. Finkelstein, but I 'follow' no one.

Of course Hunter admired Funkenshtein. They're both Jew haters.

[flush the usual crap]

[dsharavi]

On Apr 11, 9:40 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 10, 6:32 pm, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
> > Searching a suspect's or prisoner's home for evidence - wow how
> > incriminating.
>
> But for the brutal and obviously illegal occupation
> of the Palestinian homeland,

Really? Which "Palestinian" homeland is under illegal occupation?
Egypt? Jordan? Iraq? Saudi Arabia? Do tell.

[flush the usual trash talk]

[dsharavi]

Obviously, you haven't been on a campus in decades. I rather doubt
Funkenshtein has "standing room only" for his rants, unless the room
he's ranting in is very small. If Funeknshtein were honest, he would
admit that he himself is one of the exploiters of the Holocaust whom
he regularly denounced.

In any case, he's an antisemite -- an out of work antisemite, since De
Paul denied his bid for tenure, put him on academic "leave", then
fired him. Since then, freed from the boring workday routine, he has
remained, as he describes himself, an "old-fashioned Communist", an
antisemitic Jew, and a gutless hypocrite.

[HHW]

On Apr 11, 3:02 pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 9:40 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 10, 6:32 pm, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
> > > Searching a suspect's or prisoner's home for evidence - wow how
> > > incriminating.
>
> > But for the brutal and obviously illegal occupation
> > of the Palestinian homeland,
>
> Really? Which "Palestinian" homeland is under illegal occupation?

The entirety of Mandatory Palestine. You created that result by
refusing to share it. If you wish a citation I suggest the Balfour
Declaration.

> Egypt? Jordan? Iraq? Saudi Arabia? Do tell.
>
> [flush the usual trash talk]

You've never displayed any intellectual courage.

[mirjam]

On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 11:18:08 PM UTC+3, HHW wrote:
> On Apr 11, 3:02 pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 11, 9:40 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> The entirety of Mandatory Palestine. You created that result by
> refusing to share it. If you wish a citation I suggest the Balfour
> Declaration.

The British Promised us much more than cut of part of it and created Jordan {please note a Biblical name !] than wanted to divide Our promised part again , OUR leaders agreed the Arab Countries Did NOT agree and invaded us ...
mirjam

[HHW]

Readers, the best description of Holocaust exploitation found in Dr.
Finkelstein's many books is in his "Holocaust Industry." It describes
the exploitation of Jewish suffering by right wing American Jewry for
huge sums of money from innocent targets.

> In any case, he's an antisemite -- an out of work antisemite,

Liar. Try to show the readership your basis for these filthy
allegations. Be sure to bring a nice lunch.

since De
> Paul denied his bid for tenure, put him on academic "leave", then
> fired him. Since then, freed from the boring workday routine, he has
> remained, as he describes himself, an "old-fashioned Communist",  an
> antisemitic Jew, and a gutless hypocrite.

De Paul was essentially blackmailed by the Israel Lobby. It's a very
common occurance, its leit motif. Readers, if you wish to see a
reliable account of how that came down go to Dr. Finkelstein's
website. It's easy to find. Sharavi is literally incapable of telling
the truth, much less the whole truth.

[HHW]

There was to be no abuse of the Palestinian people, no
discrimination, no ethnically pure "Jewish state" implemented by
ethnic cleansing. Go back to the record, mirjam.

[dsharavi]

On Apr 11, 1:18 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 3:02 pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 11, 9:40 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 10, 6:32 pm, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
> > > > Searching a suspect's or prisoner's home for evidence - wow how
> > > > incriminating.
>
> > > But for the brutal and obviously illegal occupation
> > > of the Palestinian homeland,
>
> > Really? Which "Palestinian" homeland is under illegal occupation?
>
> The entirety of Mandatory Palestine.

Even Transjordan? Do tell. When you finish ruminating over that
nonsense, you can address yourself to the fact that the most prominent
"Palestinian" clans descend from Egyptians, Syrians, Iraqis, and
Saudis.

But you won't, because you prefer lies to facts.

[snip crap]

> > Egypt? Jordan? Iraq? Saudi Arabia? Do tell.

> > [flush the usual trash talk]

> You've never displayed any intellectual courage.

You've never displayed any penchant for honesty. I have no interest in
unintellectual, drooling trash talk, such as the sort in which you
routinely engage. And in case your always-convenient memory is
failing, the one who always runs from debate is YOU.

[dsharavi]

On Apr 11, 1:57 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 3:51 pm, mirjam <mir...@actcom.co.il> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 11:18:08 PM UTC+3, HHW wrote:
> > > The entirety of Mandatory Palestine. You
> > > created that result by refusing to share it.
> > >If you wish a citation I suggest the Balfour
> > > Declaration.

You suggest Balfour because, beyond your little bits of propaganda,
you're utterly clueless. And factless.

> > The British Promised us much more than cut of part of it and created Jordan {please note a Biblical name !] than wanted to divide Our promised part again , OUR leaders agreed the Arab Countries Did NOT agree and invaded us ...
> > mirjam
>
>  There was to be no abuse of the Palestinian people,

The "Palestinian people" didn't exist until Arabs invented them.
Before 1948, the only "Palestinians" around were Jews.

[dsharavi]

> > > > On Apr 11, 8:50 am, Zev wrote:
> > > > > As one of the soldiers says:
> > > > > " She's putting on a show for the camera".
> > > > > In short, Pallywood, again.
> > > > > Only Finkelstein and his followers take
> > > > >an interest in it.

> > > dsharavi wrote:
> > > > Only antisemites and other riff-raff take an
> > > >interest in Finkelstein.

> > On Apr 11, 10:15 am, HHW wrote:
> > > He is standing room only on college campuses
> > > throughout the west. Such strange places to be
> > > inhabited by riff-raff and antisemites.

> On Apr 11, 2:58 pm, dsharavi wrote:
> > Obviously, you haven't been on a campus in
> > decades. I rather doubt Funkenshtein has
> > "standing room only" for his rants, unless the room
> > he's ranting in is very small. If Funeknshtein
> > were honest, he would admit that he himself
> > is one of the exploiters of the Holocaust whom
> > he regularly denounced.

On Apr 11, 1:52 pm, HHW wrote:
> Readers, the best description of Holocaust

> exploitation found in Dr Finkelstein's many books

Books you haven't read. Quit your childish whining, and address
yourself to your errors.

> > In any case, he's an antisemite -- an out of
> >work antisemite,

> Liar.

Liar yourself.

> Try to show the readership your basis for
> these filthy allegations. Be sure to bring a
> nice lunch.

Show YOUR evidence for YOUR allegations that there's "standing room
only" at Finkelstein rants.

> >  since De
> > Paul denied his bid for tenure, put him on
> >academic "leave", then fired him. Since then,
> > freed from the boring workday routine, he has
> > remained, as he describes himself, an
> >"old-fashioned Communist",  an
> > antisemitic Jew, and a gutless hypocrite.

> De Paul was essentially blackmailed by the Israel Lobby.

Get off it, Hunter. That's your convenient excuse for everything. De
Paul stated it wouldn't grant his bid for tenure for several reasons,
one of them being Finkelstein's baseless trashing of real scholars who
disagree with his sloppy research and findings..

> Readers, if you wish to see a
> reliable account of how that came down go to Dr.
> Finkelstein's website.

Isn't sort of like saying "Go to the interview and see for yourself
where Adolf Eichmann states for a fact that he's not an antisemite.

>It's easy to find. Sharavi is literally incapable of telling
> the truth, much less the whole truth.

Actually, it's YOU, old man, who prefers lies and hogwash and
Pallywood to facts -- to which you obviously haven't found any relief
for your severe allergy thereto.

The facts are:

---De Paul denied Funkensthein's bid for tenure in 2007.
---De Paul then placed Funkenshtein on academic "leave".
---De Paul and Funkenshtein then came to a "mutual decision" that he
"resign" from De Paul.
---Since then, Funkenshtein, freed from the boring workday routine,
hasn't been employed at a major university.
---Funkenshtein has remained as he himself has stated, "old-fashioned
Communist".

And he's an antisemitic Jew, like another antisemitic Jew whose butt
you constantly kiss.

[drahcir]

On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 09:40:38 -0700 (PDT), HHW
<coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Apr 10, 6:32�pm, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 15:29:38 -0700 (PDT), HHW
>>
>> <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/under-the-iron-heel/
>>
>> Searching a suspect's or prisoner's home for evidence - wow how
>> incriminating.
>
>But for the brutal and obviously illegal occupation of the Palestinian

Bur for the fact that you're a jew hater, you'd have retained the
modicum of common sense necessary to observe that this video is
meaningless. Hey, I can' start sentences with "but for", too, and I'm
not even a pretentious ignoramus!

[mirjam]

On Wednesday, April 11, 2012 11:52:17 PM UTC+3, HHW wrote:
> > inhabited by riff-raff and antisemites.
> >
> > Obviously, you haven't been on a campus in decades. I rather doubt
> > Funkenshtein has "standing room only" for his rants, unless the room
> > he's ranting in is very small. If Funeknshtein were honest, he would
> > admit that he himself is one of the exploiters of the Holocaust whom
> > he regularly denounced.

I tottaly agree with Deborah that Finkelstein made and based his a career by misusing his own parents suffering. He is a classical untreated 2nd generation case.

>
> Readers, the best description of Holocaust exploitation found in Dr.
> Finkelstein's many books is in his "Holocaust Industry."

Dr Finkelstein is one of the Greatest Exploiters of Holocaust memory. he never did any serious research he quotes deniers.

mirjam

[Ariadne]

On Apr 11, 12:54 am, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 10, 3:29 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> (Hunter is the one at left)http://www.israellycool.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Gaza-mall6.jpg

He must have given on Hamas since it revealed that
half of the Pals are from Saudi Arabia and the other
half from Egypt.

Truth banishes!

[NefeshBarYochai]

He jacks-off like a horny billy-goat.

[HHW]

You haven't debated anyone here in years. Hit and run defamation is
not debate.

[HHW]

Oh, then who were those people we call Palestinians whom the Israelis
ethnically cleansed in 1947-48 and again in 1967 and whom the Israelis
still occupy and abuse over the protests of nearly every nation state
which votes in the UN General Assembly? How about ticking off Israel's
nation state supporters outside of the US on the Palestinian issue?
Just where are Israel's supporters. While you're at it try not to
confuse trade and diplomatic relations per se with Zionist policies on
the ground.

[HHW]

Here's one I haven't read. It's not available until June:

Knowing Too Much
Why the American Jewish Romance with Israel Is Coming to an End

NORMAN G. FINKELSTEIN

“[Finkelstein’s] place in the whole history of writing history is
assured.” —Raul Hilberg, author, The Destruction of the European Jews

“A very impressive, learned and careful scholar.” —Avi Shlaim,
professor, International Relations, Oxford University


BUY THIS BOOK


PRE-ORDER NOW AND GET 15% OFF. BOOK SHIPS LATE APRIL.

paperback: $18/£12 ebook: $10/£7 print + ebook: $23/£15

FAQs and shipping information

ABOUT THE BOOK

Traditionally, American Jews have been broadly liberal in their
political outlook; indeed African-Americans are the only ethnic group
more likely to vote Democratic in US elections. Over the past half
century, however, attitudes on one topic have stood in sharp contrast
to this group’s generally progressive stance: support for Israel.

Despite Israel’s record of militarism, illegal settlements and human
rights violations, American Jews have, stretching back to the 1960s,
remained largely steadfast supporters of the Jewish “homeland.” But,
as Norman Finkelstein explains in an elegantly-argued and richly-
textured new book, this is now beginning to change.

Reports by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and the United
Nations, and books by commentators as prominent as President Jimmy
Carter and as well-respected in the scholarly community as Stephen
Walt, John Mearsheimer and Peter Beinart, have increasingly pinpointed
the fundamental illiberalism of the Israeli state. In the light of
these exposes, the support of America Jews for Israel has begun to
fray. This erosion has been particularly marked among younger members
of the community. A 2010 Brandeis University poll found that only
about one quarter of Jews aged under 40 today feel “very much”
connected to Israel.

In successive chapters that combine Finkelstein’s customary meticulous
research with polemical brio, Knowing Too Much sets the work of
defenders of Israel such as Jeffrey Goldberg, Michael Oren, Dennis
Ross and Benny Morris against the historical record, showing their
claims to be increasingly tendentious. As growing numbers of American
Jews come to see the speciousness of the arguments behind such
apologias and recognize Israel’s record as simply indefensible,
Finkelstein points to the opening of new possibilities for political
advancement in a region that for decades has been stuck fast in a
gridlock of injustice and suffering.

Publication June 2012 • 470 pages

>
> > > In any case, he's an antisemite -- an out of
> > >work antisemite,

> > Liar.
>
> Liar yourself.

The readers know you, bitch.

> > Try to show the readership your basis for
> > these filthy allegations. Be sure to bring a
> > nice lunch.

> Show YOUR evidence for YOUR allegations that there's "standing room
> only" at Finkelstein rants.

He is on the speaking circuit constantly. I watch the videos. I
suggest that the readers do just that. One can find them on youtube
and on Dr. Finkelstein's web site.

> > >  since De
> > > Paul denied his bid for tenure, put him on
> > >academic "leave", then fired him. Since then,
> > > freed from the boring workday routine, he has
> > > remained, as he describes himself, an
> > >"old-fashioned Communist",  an
> > > antisemitic Jew, and a gutless hypocrite.

> > De Paul was essentially blackmailed by the Israel Lobby.
>
> Get off it, Hunter.

It's the truth.

That's your convenient excuse for everything.

As it is the truth the fact that it is convenient is not in the least
negative. I followed that controversy carefully almost every day as it
came down.

De
> Paul stated it wouldn't grant his bid for tenure for several reasons,
> one of them being Finkelstein's baseless trashing of real scholars who
> disagree with his sloppy research and findings..

There was not a single allegation of "sloppy research and findings".
It was quite the opposite. He was supported by his colleagues
regarding the quality of his work. What the administration used as
excuses were matters of tone in his books, not their underlying
scholarship. Behind the scenes threats of financial retribution
against the University were being marshalled. De Paul is a poorly
endowed private school. Its leadership gave in.

> > Readers, if you wish to see a
> > reliable account of how that came down go to Dr.
> > Finkelstein's website.
>
> Isn't sort of like saying "Go to the interview and see for yourself
> where Adolf Eichmann states for a fact that he's not an antisemite.

So now Dr. Finkelstein is the equivalent of Eichmann? He is an
Eichmann because he is anti-Zionist? He is an Eichmann because he
supports the two-state solution and displays sympathy for the
Palestinian people.

> >It's easy to find. Sharavi is literally incapable of telling
> > the truth, much less the whole truth.
>
> Actually, it's YOU, old man, who prefers lies and hogwash and
> Pallywood to facts -- to which you obviously haven't found any relief
> for your severe allergy thereto.

Adduce one "fact" which support Israel's claim to ownership of the
West Bank.

>
> The facts are:
>
> ---De Paul denied Funkensthein's bid for tenure in 2007.
> ---De Paul then placed Funkenshtein on academic "leave".
> ---De Paul and Funkenshtein then came to a "mutual decision" that he
> "resign" from De Paul.

That's right. You said he was "fired". The University settled with
him. It knew better than to dismiss him outright.

> ---Since then, Funkenshtein, freed from the boring workday routine,
> hasn't been employed at a major university.

What does that mean to you?

> ---Funkenshtein has remained as he himself has stated, "old-fashioned
> Communist".

Hell, academia was fascinated by Marxian "economics" from the 1930s
into the 80s at least. the "Lew left", a large faction of the
professoriat, were soft on Soviet totalitarianism. You don't faintly
resemble an academic but what's amusing is that you're soft on
Israel's totalitarian methods in the occupation. Would you like to
discuss them?

> And he's an antisemitic Jew, like another antisemitic Jew whose butt
> you constantly kiss.

This is politics. That's a *political* conclusion, bitch, designed to
defame him. Have you the guts to attempt to support it? Well, no, you
don't. That's obvious. So the purpose of using it has nothing to do
with antisemitism, a commodity you purposefully manufacture yourself.
Commodities have value in the marketplace. Antisemitism is rated as
precious by you. You couldn't do without it. I'll explain that to you
too once you decide to face me.

[HHW]

On Apr 11, 9:37 pm, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 09:40:38 -0700 (PDT), HHW
>

> <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 10, 6:32 pm, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 15:29:38 -0700 (PDT), HHW
>
> >> <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/under-the-iron-heel/
>
> >> Searching a suspect's or prisoner's home for evidence - wow how
> >> incriminating.
>
> >But for the brutal and obviously illegal occupation of the Palestinian
>
> Bur for the fact that you're a jew hater, you'd have retained the
> modicum of common sense necessary to observe that this video is
> meaningless. Hey, I can' start sentences with "but for", too, and I'm
> not even a pretentious ignoramus!

Meaningless?! It's a well-washed window on the daily operations of the
IDF in the West Bank. Your fury is the accurate indication of whether
you believe the video to be "meaningless". It stung you far too much.

Guess what, Missey, I do detest you but the fact that you are Jewish
is coincidental. It's what you write here, what you do, not what you
are ethnically, which makes you disgusting. Remember, Woody Allen is a
classy guy. He simply would not sink to the gutter where you live. I'm
his fan for life. You've earned what you get from me.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >homeland, this disgusting nocturnal home invasion by heavily armed
> >enemy infantry would not have taken place. But for that brutal and
> >obviously illegal occupation this impoverished family would have at
> >least had a chance to be protected from such humiliating and
> >intimidating intrusions by some sort of civil process or at least by
> >civilized custom, but no, they are denied such protection by a
> >European colonial army equipped with a supremacist ideology custom
> >designed to falsely justify theft of an Asian people's homeland
> >because of the crimes of Europeans IN EUROPE without any causal nexus
> >whatever.
>
> > Presuming the tape isn't totally fake, the soldiers
> >> thought what they were doing was so terrible....
>
> >> THEY ALLOWED SOMEONE TO VIDEOTAPE IT.
>
> >Because the camera was not confiscated that someone was almost
> >certainly an Israeli soldier. And given the fact that it has surfaced
> >on the web we'll leave it to you, an expert at justifying ethnic
> >criminality, to speculate as to the circumstances. As you crunch the
> >data, Miss Ratner, don't forget that the discourse about playing to
> >the camera was spoken in English, not Hebrew. Do tell us what you
> >think was going on. My opinion is that those IDF draftees were deeply
> >ashamed of what they were doing.
>
> >> Sheesh, H, you must have been one helluva lawyer.

Do you want some lessons on moving from premises to conclusions with
clarity, not to say honesty? The first of them will be that premises
may be neither suppressed nor imagined. They must be defensible. Not
even Zionists get a pass on that.

[drahcir]

On Thu, 12 Apr 2012 14:22:31 -0700 (PDT), HHW
<coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Apr 11, 9:37 pm, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 09:40:38 -0700 (PDT), HHW
>>
>> <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On Apr 10, 6:32 pm, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 15:29:38 -0700 (PDT), HHW
>>
>> >> <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/under-the-iron-heel/
>>
>> >> Searching a suspect's or prisoner's home for evidence - wow how
>> >> incriminating.
>>
>> >But for the brutal and obviously illegal occupation of the Palestinian
>>
>> Bur for the fact that you're a jew hater, you'd have retained the
>> modicum of common sense necessary to observe that this video is
>> meaningless. Hey, I can' start sentences with "but for", too, and I'm
>> not even a pretentious ignoramus!
>
>Meaningless?!

Translation: H wants to make sure there is no one who doubts he's a
jew hater. Excellent.

It's a well-washed window on the daily operations of the
>IDF in the West Bank.

Of course everyone sees that you are incapable of addressing the
simple fact that this tape, which shows nothing that doesn't happen in
the south bronx 25 timers per day, is meaningless. The fact that they
allowed it to be filmed speaks for itself.

Your fury

AAAAAAHAHAHAHA!! My FURY?? Do you think i need to be FURIOUS to make
sure it's clear you're a jew hating idiot who is so stupids and
blinded by his hatred that he can't realize that his posts are
meaningless? FURIOUS??? H, in addition to that on your sanity, your
grip on reality is non-existent.

is the accurate indication of whether
>you believe the video to be "meaningless". It stung you far too much.

You are a shameless masturbator, H. You sit in front of your computer
screen because you've got nothing in life except fantasizing about
your "readers" and when discussions make you out to be the fool you
are, you masturbate your way into your opponent's fury or sting or
whatever other masturbatory fantasy you invent to make you feel just a
wee bit better about yourself. Listen up, fool, it's clear to everyone
except you that I am here for one reason - to have fun playing with
you. The beauty is, if you could for a second catch a glimpse of
reality, my fun would be over, but it appears there's no danger of
that.

>
>Guess what, Missey, I do detest you but the fact that you are Jewish
>is coincidental. It's what you write here, what you do, not what you
>are ethnically, which makes you disgusting. Remember, Woody Allen is a
>classy guy. He simply would not sink to the gutter where you live. I'm
>his fan for life. You've earned what you get from me.

I do believe this jackass actually thinks I care.

[drahcir]

Oy, H, yet more masturbation in front of everyone here. We are all
ashamed for you. EVeryone knows all Deb has to do is hit you with her
kjnowledge for the amount of time it takes Kirk to hit an alien with a
phaser, and you're gone from the thread. Your shameless masturbating
can't change that.

[drahcir]

LOL! Please tell fink that all the latest polls show american support
for israel to be at or near all time highs.

[dsharavi]

On Apr 12, 1:56 pm, HHW wrote:

> On Apr 11, 4:24 pm, dsharavi wrote:
> > Books you haven't read. Quit your childish whining, and address
> > yourself to your errors.
>
> Here's one I haven't read. It's not available until June:

Stop sidedodging the issue.

> Knowing Too Much

That's not your problem. Please go bore some of your fellow
antisemites with your dreck.

> > > > In any case, he's an antisemite -- an out of
> > > >work antisemite,

> > > Liar.
>
> > Liar yourself.
>
> The readers know you, bitch.

Those "readers" are your thousands upon thousands of readers, right?

> > > Try to show the readership your basis for
> > > these filthy allegations. Be sure to bring a
> > > nice lunch.

> > Show YOUR evidence for YOUR allegations that there's "standing room
> > only" at Finkelstein rants.
>
> He is on the speaking circuit constantly. I watch the videos. I

Prove there is standing room only at Finkelstein rants, as you claim.

> > > De Paul was essentially blackmailed by the Israel Lobby.
>
> > Get off it, Hunter.
>
> It's the truth.

It's bullshit.

> > That's your convenient excuse for everything.

> As it is the truth the fact that it is convenient is not in the least
> negative.

What? Are you drunk?

> > De
> > Paul stated it wouldn't grant his bid for tenure for several reasons,
> > one of them being Finkelstein's baseless trashing of real scholars who
> > disagree with his sloppy research and findings..

> There was not a single allegation of "sloppy research and findings".
> It was quite the opposite.

In your wet dreams, maybe.

> Behind the scenes threats of financial retribution
> against the University were being marshalled.
> De Paul is a poorly endowed private school.
>Its leadership gave in.

Prove it.

> > Isn't sort of like saying "Go to the interview and see for yourself
> > where Adolf Eichmann states for a fact that he's not an antisemite.
>
> So now Dr. Finkelstein is the equivalent of Eichmann?

Of course not, you silly ass.

> > Actually, it's YOU, old man, who prefers lies and hogwash and
> > Pallywood to facts -- to which you obviously haven't found any relief
> > for your severe allergy thereto.
>
> Adduce one "fact" which support Israel's claim to ownership of the
> West Bank.

Wipe your chin and read, pendejo:

Resolved: are the settlements legal? Israeli West Bank policies
By Eugene V. Rostow
The New Republic

Assuming the Middle East conference actually does take place, its
official task will be to achieve peace between Israel and its
Levantine neighbors in accordance with Security Council Resolutions
242 and 338. Resolution 242, adopted after the Six-Day War in 1967,
sets out criteria for peace-making by the parties; Resolution 338,
passed after the Yom Kippur War in 1973, makes resolution 242 legally
binding and orders the parties to carry out its terms forthwith.
Unfortunately, confusion reigns, even in high places, about what those
resolutions require.

For twenty-four years Arab states have pretended that the two
resolutions are "ambiguous" and can be interpreted to suit their
desires. And some European, Soviet and even American officials have
cynically allowed Arab spokesman to delude themselves and their
people--to say nothing of Western public opinion--about what the
resolutions mean. It is common even for American journalists to write
that Resolution 242 is "deliberately ambiguous," as though the parties
are equally free to rely on their own reading of its key provisions.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Resolution 242, which as
undersecretary of state for political affairs between 1966 and 1969 I
helped produce, calls on the parties to make peace and allows Israel
to administer the territories it occupied in 1967 until "a just and
lasting peace in the Middle East" is achieved. When such a peace is
made, Israel is required to withdraw its armed forces "from
territories" it occupied during the Six-Day War--not from "the"
territories nor from "all" the territories, but from some of the
territories, which included the Sinai Desert, the West Bank, the Golan
Heights, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip.

Five-and-a-half months of vehement public diplomacy in 1967 made it
perfectly clear what the missing definite article in Resolution 242
means. Ingeniously drafted resolutions calling for withdrawals from
"all" the territories were defeated in the Security Council and the
General Assembly. Speaker after speaker made it explicit that Israel
was not to be forced back to the "fragile" and "vulnerable" Armistice
Demarcation Lines, but should retire once peace was made to what
Resolution 242 called "secure and recognized" boundaries, agreed to by
the parties. In negotiating such agreements, the parties should take
into account, among other factors, security considerations, access to
the international waterways of the region, and, of course, their
respective legal claims.

Resolution 242 built on the text of the Armistice Agreements of 1949,
which provided (except in th case of Lebanon) that the Armistice
Demarcation Lines separating the military forces were "not to be
construed in any sense" as political or territorial boundaries, and
that "no provision" of the Armistice Agreements "Shall in any way
prejudice the right, claims, and positions" of the parties "in the
ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine problem." In making
peace with Egypt in 1979, Israel withdrew from the entire Sinai, which
had never been part of the British Mandate.

For security it depended on patrolled demilitarization and the huge
area of the desert rather than on territorial change. As a result,
more than 90 percent of the territories Israel occupied in 1967 are
now under Arab sovereignty. It is hardly surprising that some Israelis
take the view that such a transfer fulfills the territorial
requirements of Resolution 242, no matter how narrowly they are
construed.

Resolution 242 leaves the issue of dividing the occupied areas between
Israel and its neighbors entirely to the agreement of the parties in
accordance with the principles it sets out. It was, however,
negotiated with full realization that the problem of establishing "a
secure and recognized" boundary between Israel and Jordan would be the
thorniest issue of the peace-making process. The United States has
remained firmly opposed to the creation of a third Palestinian state
on the territory of the Palestine Mandate. An independent Jordan or a
Jordan linked in an economic union with Israel is desirable from the
point of view of everybody's security and prosperity. And a
predominantly Jewish Israel is one of the fundamental goals of Israeli
policy. It should be possible to reconcile these goals by negotiation,
especially if the idea of an economic union is accepted.

The Arabs of the West Bank could constitute the population of an
autonomous province of Jordan or of Israel, depending on the course of
the negotations. Provisions for a shift of populations or, better
still, for individual self-determination are a possible solution for
those West Bank Arabs who would prefer to live elsewhere. All these
approaches were explored in 1967 and 1968. One should note, however,
that Syria cannot be allowed to take over Jordan and the West Bank, as
it tried to do in 1970.

The heated question of Israel's settlements in the West Bank during
the occupation period should be viewed in this perspective. The
British Mandate recognized the right of the Jewish people to "close
settlement" in the whole of the Mandated territory. It was provided
that local conditions might require Great Britain to "postpone" or
"withhold" Jewish settlement in what is now Jordan. This was done in
1922. But the Jewish right of settlement in Palestine west of the
Jordan river, that is, in Israel, the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the
Gaza Strip, was made unassailable. That right has never been
terminated and cannot be terminated except by a recognized peace
between Israel and its neighbors. And perhaps not even then, in view
of Article 80 of the U.N. Charter, "the Palestine article," which
provides that "nothing in the Charter shall be construed ... to alter
in any manner the rights whatsoever of any states or any peoples or
the terms of existing international instruments...."

Some governments have taken the view that under the Geneva Convention
of 1949, which deals with the rights of civilians under military
occupation, Jewish settlements in the West Bank are illegal, on the
ground that the Convention prohibits an occupying power from flooding
the occupied territory with its own citizens. President Carter
supported this view, but President Reagan reversed him, specifically
saying that the settlements are legal but that further settlements
should be deferred since they pose a psychological obstacle to the
peace process.

In any case, the issue of the legality of the settlements should not
come up in the proposed conference, the purpose of which is to end the
military occupation by making peace. When the occupation ends, the
Geneva Convention becomes irrelevant. If there is to be any division
of the West Bank between Israel and Jordan, the Jewish right of
settlement recognized by the Mandate will have to be taken into
account in the process of making peace.

This reading of Resolution 242 has always been the keystone of
American policy. In launching a major peace initiative on September 1,
1982, President Reagan said, "I have personally followed and supported
Israel's heroic struggle for survival since the founding of the state
of Israel thirty-four years ago: in the pre-1967 borders, Israel was
barely ten miles wide at its narrowest point. The bulk of Israel's
population lived within artillery range of hostile Arab armies. I am
not about to ask Israel to live that way again."

Yet some Bush administration statements and actions on the Arab-
Israeli question, and especially Secretary of State James Baker's
disastrous speech of May 22, 1989, betray a strong impulse to escape
from the resolutions as they were negotiated, debated, and adopted,
and award to the Arabs all the territories between the 1967 lines and
the Jordan river, including East Jerusalem. The Bush administration
seems to consider the West Bank and the Gaza Strip to be "foreign"
territory to which Israel has no claim. Yet the Jews have the same
right to settle there as they have to settle in Haifa. The West Bank
and the Gaza Strip were never parts of Jordan, and Jordan's attempt to
annex the West Bank was not generally recognized and has now been
abandoned. The two parcels of land are parts of the Mandate that have
not yet been allocated to Jordan, to Israel, or to any other state,
and are a legitimate subject for discussion.

The American position in the coming negotiations should return to the
fundamentals of policy and principle that have shaped American policy
towards the Middle East for three-quarters of a century. Above all,
rising above irritation and pique, it should stand as firmly for
fidelity to law in dealing with the Arab-Israeli dispute as President
Bush did during the Gulf war. Fidelity to law is the essence of peace,
and the only practical rule for making a just and lasting peace.

EUGENE V. ROSTOW is a Distinguished Fellow at the United States
Institute of Peace.

[dsharavi]

I've read that. Thanks for bringing it to the fore -- however useless
that may be in the case of Hunter, who perfers fantasies to facts.

[dsharavi]

On Apr 12, 1:13 pm, HHW wrote:
> On Apr 11, 4:37 pm, dsharavi wrote:

> > On Apr 11, 1:57 pm, HHW wrote:
> > The "Palestinian people" didn't exist until Arabs invented them.
> > Before 1948, the only "Palestinians" around were Jews.
>
> Oh, then who were those people we call Palestinians

Southern Syrians. Prior to the 60s/70s, they rejected being called
"Palestinians" because that meant Jews.

[dsharavi]

The leadership, perhaps. In any case, the "palestinians" leading clans
hail from Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, and Saudia. Indigenous? Twaddle.

[mirjam]

On Friday, April 13, 2012 9:22:37 PM UTC+3, dsharavi wrote:
>
> > Dr Finkelstein is one of the Greatest Exploiters of Holocaust memory. he never did any serious research he quotes deniers.
> >
> > mirjam
>
> I've read that. Thanks for bringing it to the fore -- however useless
> that may be in the case of Hunter, who perfers fantasies to facts.

You are Welcome Deborah,
it is so strange to read all this letters that try to call or make Finkelstein into some sort of Expert. He is just a person who found a way to sell books.
mirjam

[Zev]

On Apr 11, 8:13 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 10:50 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > On Apr 11, 2:32 am, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 15:29:38 -0700 (PDT), HHW
> > > <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/under-the-iron-heel/
>

> > > Searching a suspect's or prisoner's home for evidence - wow how

> > > incriminating. Presuming the tape isn't totally fake, the soldiers

> > > thought what they were doing was so terrible....
>
> > > THEY ALLOWED SOMEONE TO VIDEOTAPE IT.
>

> > > Sheesh, H, you must have been one helluva lawyer.
>

> > As one of the soldiers says:
> > " She's putting on a show for the camera".
> > In short, Pallywood, again.
>
> > Only Finkelstein and his followers take an interest in it.
>

> Zev, I struggle to avoid such language, especially opposite you, but
> that's just stupid. Dr. Finkelstein's admirers are politicized
> intellectuals. In the US many of them are Jews. On issues of interest
> to you they dominate campuses everywhere in the western world. You
> tried to denigrate him because you couldn't think of anything else,
> just as your neo-fascist, Likudish authorities could think of nothing
> more than to ban Finkelstein from Israel for "ten years" in the age of
> the internet.

The fact that Finkelstein may be more popular
on campus than Dershowitz says more about
today's educational standards than
about their relative merits.

Or, if you prefer a more positive view,
remember the Weathermen, the SDS, and other such groups?
Before my time, Communists and pacifists
were popular on campuses too.
These things come and go.
Did you ever swallow a live goldfish,
to get into a fraternity?
See what I mean?

> I admire Dr. Finkelstein, but I 'follow' no one.

Compare his resume, his life's work, with Dershowitz's.

> It's a shame that you, the dreamy champion of religion-based Zionism,
> have pretty much withdrawn from the contest. Though far superior
> morally to the gutter snipes who represent the post-1967 Zionist
> "cause" here, you can't deal with your country's gratuitously bloody
> history either. So, stick around. As with drahcir/Ratner and the
> homebound sharavi, we Americans benefit from your presence. So do the
> Palestinian people.

[dsharavi]

Funkenshtein is part of the Holocaust Industry of which he castigates
others for being. He's a hypocrit of the first order.

[dsharavi]

> > > On Apr 11, 2:32 am, drahcir wrote:
> > > > Searching a suspect's or prisoner's home for evidence - wow how
> > > > incriminating. Presuming the tape isn't totally fake, the soldiers
> > > > thought what they were doing was so terrible....
> > > > THEY ALLOWED SOMEONE TO VIDEOTAPE IT.
> > > > Sheesh, H, you must have been one helluva lawyer.

He's fortunate to have practiced in a one-hearse town; any place on
the west coast, he couldn't have gotten in the door except as an
errand boy.

> > On Apr 11, 10:50 am, Zev wrote:
> > > As one of the soldiers says:
> > > " She's putting on a show for the camera".
> > > In short, Pallywood, again.
> > > Only Finkelstein and his followers take an interest in it.

> On Apr 11, 8:13 pm, HHW wrote:
> > Zev, I struggle to avoid such language, especially opposite you, but
> > that's just stupid. Dr. Finkelstein's admirers are politicized
> > intellectuals. In the US many of them are Jews. On issues of interest
> > to you they dominate campuses everywhere in the western world.

On Apr 15, 6:49 am, Zev wrote:
> The fact that Finkelstein may be more popular
> on campus than Dershowitz says more about
> today's educational standards than
> about their relative merits.

Does their admiration for Funkenshtein have anything to do with the
fact that the majority of them can't read or write correctly?

> Or, if you prefer a more positive view,
> remember the Weathermen, the SDS, and other such groups?
> Before my time, Communists and pacifists
> were popular on campuses too.
> These things come and go.
> Did you ever swallow a live goldfish,
> to get into a fraternity?
> See what I mean?

I was a communist on campus.

> > I admire Dr. Finkelstein, but I 'follow' no one.

> Compare his resume, his life's work, with Dershowitz's.

As if.

> > So, stick around. As with drahcir/Ratner and the
> > homebound sharavi,

Homebound? I don't understand what this Watsonesque notion of an
insult entails.

[Count 1]

On 4/12/2012 3:22 PM, HHW wrote:
> On Apr 11, 9:37 pm, drahcir<s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Apr 2012 09:40:38 -0700 (PDT), HHW
>>
>> <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Apr 10, 6:32 pm, drahcir<s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 10 Apr 2012 15:29:38 -0700 (PDT), HHW
>>
>>>> <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/under-the-iron-heel/
>>
>>>> Searching a suspect's or prisoner's home for evidence - wow how
>>>> incriminating.
>>
>>> But for the brutal and obviously illegal occupation of the Palestinian
>>
>> Bur for the fact that you're a jew hater, you'd have retained the
>> modicum of common sense necessary to observe that this video is
>> meaningless. Hey, I can' start sentences with "but for", too, and I'm
>> not even a pretentious ignoramus!
>
> Meaningless?! It's a well-washed window on the daily operations of the
> IDF in the West Bank. Your fury is the accurate indication of whether
> you believe the video to be "meaningless". It stung you far too much.
>
> Guess what, Missey, I do detest you but the fact that you are Jewish
> is coincidental. It's what you write here, what you do, not what you
> are ethnically, which makes you disgusting. Remember, Woody Allen is a
> classy guy. He simply would not sink to the gutter where you live. I'm
> his fan for life. You've earned what you get from me.

What he gets is name calling, and the name you choose is 'missey',
pretty bizarre from a man who has posted using the name 'Patricia'.

That's ok Hunter, we all know you've never argued a case before a judge
before. Calling your adversary 'bitch' and 'missey' wouldn't hold up
very long in a real court of law.

[Count 1]

Interesting how - once again - the exact opposite of what you write is
accurate. You are well known for running from any thread that possesses
facts you find inconvenient and prefer not to know about, and it is you
who regularly engages in hit and run defamation.

[dsharavi]

> >>>>> But for the brutal and obviously illegal occupation
> >>>>> of the Palestinian homeland,
>

> >>> On Apr 11, 3:02 pm, dsharavi wrote:
> >>>> Really? Which "Palestinian" homeland is under illegal occupation?
>

> >> On Apr 11, 1:18 pm, HHW wrote:
> >>> The entirety of Mandatory Palestine.
>

> > On Apr 11, 4:33 pm, dsharavi wrote:
> >> Even Transjordan? Do tell. When you finish ruminating over that
> >> nonsense, you can address yourself to the fact that the most prominent
> >> "Palestinian" clans descend from Egyptians, Syrians, Iraqis, and
> >> Saudis.
>
> >> But you won't, because you prefer lies to facts.
>
> >> [snip crap]
>
> >>>> Egypt? Jordan? Iraq? Saudi Arabia? Do tell.
> >>>> [flush the usual trash talk]

> >>> You've never displayed any intellectual courage.
>
> >> You've never displayed any penchant for honesty. I have no interest in
> >> unintellectual, drooling trash talk, such as the sort in which you
> >> routinely engage. And in case your always-convenient memory is
> >> failing, the one who always runs from debate is YOU.
>

> On 4/12/2012 1:56 PM, HHW wrote:
> > You haven't debated anyone here in years.

Au contraire, I have attempted to debate, particularly with you. But
you cut and run at the first whiff of facts.

> >Hit and run defamation is not debate.

That, too, is part of your shtick.

On Apr 22, 1:56 pm, Count 1 wrote:
> Interesting how - once again - the exact opposite of what you write is
> accurate. You are well known for running from any thread that possesses
> facts you find inconvenient and prefer not to know about, and it is you
> who regularly engages in hit and run defamation.

There's a psychological term for accusing others of you yourself do,
but I'm damned if I can remember more than projectionism in
narcissistic personalities..

[drahcir]

<snip for focus>

>
> Presuming the tape isn't totally fake, the soldiers
>> thought what they were doing was so terrible....
>>
>> THEY ALLOWED SOMEONE TO VIDEOTAPE IT.
>
>Because the camera was not confiscated that someone was almost
>certainly an Israeli soldier.

The IDIOT HHW posts this silly video and is apparently not bright
enough to read subtitles. At 1:17 NT clearly says he's videotaping for
B'Tselem. Now H, let's see if you're bright enough to determine just
who NT is. I'll give you a hint - it's not an Israeli soldier.

YOU ARE A FRIGGIN IMBECILE, SCARCELY WORTHY OF MY TIME. Consider
yourself lucky I'm so easily entertained.

And given the fact that it has surfaced
>on the web we'll leave it to you, an expert at justifying ethnic
>criminality, to speculate as to the circumstances. As you crunch the
>data, Miss Ratner, don't forget that the discourse about playing to
>the camera was spoken in English, not Hebrew. Do tell us what you
>think was going on. My opinion is that those IDF draftees were deeply
>ashamed of what they were doing.
>
>> Sheesh, H, you must have been one helluva lawyer.
>

[HHW]

On Apr 15, 8:49 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 8:13 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> > I admire Dr. Finkelstein, but I 'follow' no one.
>
> Compare his resume, his life's work, with Dershowitz's.

That's easy. You shouldn't make such suggestions without knowing the
outcome in advance. I've already described the contents of
Dershowitz's CV here a couple of times. It's pathetic. Let me know if
you decide to insist that I "rise to this bait" which you don't
understand.

[HHW]

On Apr 23, 10:18 pm, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
> <snip for focus>
>
>
>
> > Presuming the tape isn't totally fake, the soldiers
> >> thought what they were doing was so terrible....
>
> >> THEY ALLOWED SOMEONE TO VIDEOTAPE IT.
>
> >Because the camera was not confiscated that someone was almost
> >certainly an Israeli soldier.
>
> The IDIOT HHW posts this silly video and is apparently not bright
> enough to read subtitles. At 1:17 NT clearly says he's videotaping for
> B'Tselem. Now H, let's see if you're bright enough to determine just
> who NT is. I'll give you a hint - it's not an Israeli soldier.

You prove my point. If someone from the pro-Palestinian B'tselem was
permitted to film the home invasion it proves again that the soldiers
themselves were deeply ashamed of what they were being forced to do.
They made a symbolic *contribution* to the Resistance.

[HHW]

On Apr 23, 3:46 pm, dsharavi <deshar...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> > On 4/12/2012 1:56 PM, HHW wrote:

> > > You haven't debated anyone here in years.
>
> Au contraire, I have attempted to debate, particularly with you. But
> you cut and run at the first whiff of facts.

As in the present instance you lie at the first whiff of facts.

[dsharavi]

On Apr 23, 8:52 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 15, 8:49 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 11, 8:13 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > I admire Dr. Finkelstein, but I 'follow' no one.
>
> > Compare his resume, his life's work, with Dershowitz's.
>
> That's easy. You shouldn't make such suggestions without knowing the
> outcome in advance. I've already described the contents of
> Dershowitz's CV here a couple of times. It's pathetic.

So is your ongoing fantazia, dinobrain.

[dsharavi]

> > > On 4/12/2012 1:56 PM, HHW wrote:
> > > > You haven't debated anyone here in years.
>
> On Apr 23, 3:46 pm, dsharavi <deshar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Au contraire, I have attempted to debate, particularly with you. But
> > you cut and run at the first whiff of facts.

On Apr 23, 9:05 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> As in the present instance you lie at the first whiff of facts.

You're projecting again, you senile shyster.

And you never did produce any evidence for your claim that I made some
racist remark about Al Sharpton.

[Zev]

It proves no more than that the army
doesn't think it has anything to hide,
unless you think the officer would allow filming,
even though it was prohibited.
Remember, the video itself gives him away.

BTW, I wonder how authorities anywhere else in the world
would have responded to her arrogant remarks.

[HHW]

Dershowitz' CV appears in his faculty entry on the Harvard University
Law School website. I haven't been there for a while but as I recall
it contained only one serious scholarly work, a hornbook on some
subject or other written decades ago. Virtually all the rest, by
volume anyway, is journalistic and appeared in the popular press and
magazines, places not by serious scholars for their serious scholarly
work. How he on such a record was appointed to a chaired position at
the law school is a mystery. He does teach and apparently is good at
that, but If you look at the CVs of other scholars at Harvard Law,
especially of those of long tenure, the profound difference is
immediately apparent. He is simply not a serious academic scholar. He
is simply a highly politicized public intellectual with a very fancy
title.

[HHW]

On Apr 23, 11:43 pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Sure I did. You made those racist remarks and my memory of the event
is clear enough. If that doesn't suit you, so what? If you don't like
proving a negative, so what? Separate from that that event, you're an
obvious racist. You're constantly displaying it here on usenet.
You've also repeatedly made disparaging racist remarks about people of
Mexican heritage. I remember that too. In fact you are a serial
defamation artist wherever you go on usenet. Your primary goal, as is
the case with most of the Israel lobby, is to use that technique to
silence legitimate critics of Israel, to dominate the discussion of
the Palestinian problem in the United States. That's unacceptable to
most Americans who understand it, especially to those of us who
understand how it works out both politically and in terms of wounds,
deaths and disability among our military people. There are now eight
suicides a day among our veterans. Our VA medical system is on the
verge of collapsing. We are deeply in debt because of unnecessary wars
at the behest of Israel. In essence you represent a criminal regime
which is not actually our ally and which has interests which are
severely contrary to ours. You prevent us from accomplishing a
settlement in the Middle East which as a nation we badly need. You
even defame your own people the moment they make any sympathetic
remarks about the suffering of the Palestinian people.

[Zev]

Professor Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law
at Harvard Law School.
Dershowitz, a graduate of Brooklyn College and Yale Law School,
joined the Harvard Law School faculty at age 25 after clerking for
Judge David Bazelon and Justice Arthur Goldberg.

He has also published more than 100 articles in magazines and journals
such as The New York Times Magazine, The Washington Post,
The Wall Street Journal, The New Republic, The Nation, Commentary,
Saturday Review, The Harvard Law Review and the Yale Law Journal,
and more than 300 of his articles have appeared
in syndication in 50 national daily newspapers.
Professor Dershowitz is the author of 27 fiction
and non-fiction works with a worldwide audience.
His most recent titles include Rights From Wrong,
The Case For Israel, The Case For Peace,
Blasphemy: How the Religious Right is Hijacking
the Declaration of Independence,
Preemption: A Knife that Cuts Both Ways,
Finding Jefferson - A Lost Letter, A Remarkable Discovery, and
The First Amendment In An Age of Terrorism, and
The Case For Moral Clarity: Israel, Hamas and Gaza.

In addition to his numerous law review articles and books
about criminal and constitutional law, he has written, taught
and lectured about history, philosophy, psychology, literature,
mathematics, theology, music, sports - and even delicatessens.

(Edited slightly from his own blog,
http://www.alandershowitz.com/biography.php)

Finkelstein's credentials don't come close.

Dershowitz wrote a book, "The Case for Israel"
which Finkelstein criticized.
Finkelstein's claims appear to be mostly correct,
but he's just looking for anything he can find
to embarrass Dershowitz.
Imagine reading a book several times, saying to oneself each time,
"maybe this is wrong", "maybe that's a mistake".
And in the end, all he comes up with is cheap nitpicking.

The contribution of the book is the treatment of collateral damage,
of the continuum from combatant to civilian.
These are legal issues.
Presumably, there are people who disagree with Dershowitz,
and out of the discussions could come new understandings,
in line with the new challenges we are facing today.
How Finkelstein read the book twice and ignored its real content
is beyond me.

[drahcir]

On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 21:03:08 -0700 (PDT), HHW
<coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Apr 23, 10:18 pm, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
>> <snip for focus>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Presuming the tape isn't totally fake, the soldiers
>> >> thought what they were doing was so terrible....
>>
>> >> THEY ALLOWED SOMEONE TO VIDEOTAPE IT.
>>
>> >Because the camera was not confiscated that someone was almost
>> >certainly an Israeli soldier.
>>
>> The IDIOT HHW posts this silly video and is apparently not bright
>> enough to read subtitles. At 1:17 NT clearly says he's videotaping for
>> B'Tselem. Now H, let's see if you're bright enough to determine just
>> who NT is. I'll give you a hint - it's not an Israeli soldier.
>
>You prove my point.

Your point was that the video was made by an israeli soldier. You
claim that my post in which I clearly state that it was made by NT
proves that point. Scary. Anyway, what THAT proves is that I was
correct - you are not bright enough to determine who NT is. Big
surprise.

If someone from the pro-Palestinian B'tselem was
>permitted to film the home invasion

IT WASN'T SOMEONE FROM B'TSELEM, YOU FRIGGIN IMBECILE. FROM is not the
same thing as FOR.

it proves again that the soldiers
>themselves were deeply ashamed of what they were being forced to do.

Ah, your are claiming that the fact that the soldiers allowed the
videotape to be made proves they were deeply ashamed of what they were
doing. uh-huh.... So tell me, when you try to get your dick hard
sitting in front of your computer imagining your "readers", something
that you are or should be ashamed of, do you make sure Patricia is
videotaping it so that it can later be put up on the net? Because that
is the completely absurd claim you are making - that the videotaping
of the incident proves it was shameful to the soldiers. What is it, H?
Are you just of an increidbly low IQ, or do you get so caught up in
your lies that you befuddle yourself?

[HHW]

On Apr 24, 4:02 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 24, 9:15 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > > > > > I admire Dr. Finkelstein, but I 'follow' no one.
>
> > > > > Compare his resume, his life's work, with Dershowitz's.

> > > > That's easy. You shouldn't make such suggestions without knowing the
> > > > outcome in advance. I've already described the contents of
> > > > Dershowitz's CV here a couple of times. It's pathetic.

I know what law professors at great institutions do for a living.
Again, his CV is pathetic.

> > > So is your ongoing fantazia, dinobrain.

> > Dershowitz' CV appears in his faculty entry on the Harvard University
> > Law School website. I haven't been there for a while but as I recall
> > it contained only one serious scholarly work, a hornbook on some
> > subject or other written decades ago. Virtually all the rest, by
> > volume anyway, is journalistic and appeared in the popular press and

> > magazines, venues not used by serious scholars for their serious scholarly
> > work.

I know this because I have read lots of serious scholarly work by law
professors and know where it is found. It is never found in the New
York Times or Penthouse Magazine.

How he on such a record was appointed to a chaired position at
> > the law school is a mystery. He does teach and apparently is good at
> > that, but If you look at the CVs of other scholars at Harvard Law,
> > especially of those of long tenure, the profound difference is
> > immediately apparent. He is simply not a serious academic scholar. He
> > is simply a highly politicized public intellectual with a very fancy
> > title.
>
> Professor Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law
> at Harvard Law School.

Yes, and such chairs at Harvard are given unto excellent academic
scholars who are expected to publish serious work of interest *to the
profession*. This work by its nature is not any more comprehensible to
most laymen than are articles in medical journals about the discipline
of advanced vascular surgery or the complications associated with
troubled pregnancies.

> Dershowitz, a graduate of Brooklyn College and Yale Law School,
> joined the Harvard Law School faculty at age 25 after clerking for
> Judge David Bazelon and Justice Arthur Goldberg.

Yes he did. And in his early years there he did publish a serious
hornbook on a legal subject designed to be of interest to the
profession. It was published by a legal publishing house, not in a
popular newspaper or magazine. This is all a very appropriate
beginning for a legal scholar. But there was little more.

> He has also published more than 100 articles in magazines and journals
> such as The New York Times Magazine, The Washington Post,
> The Wall Street Journal, The New Republic, The Nation, Commentary,
> Saturday Review, The Harvard Law Review and the Yale Law Journal,
> and more than 300 of his articles have appeared
> in syndication in 50 national daily newspapers.

Yes, in his career as a public intellectual he has actually published
something over 600 such articles. I don't know if they are still on
his faculty web site or not but they certainly were when I looked into
the matter. Virtually all them were addressed to the general public
and many are political and polemical in nature with a strong tendency
toward the defense of Israeli interests in the context of U.S.
politics. Virtually none of this is of assistance to legal scholars
doing research for placement in serious legal publications. His
colleagues at Harvard have to know this.

> Professor Dershowitz is the author of 27 fiction
> and non-fiction works with a worldwide audience.

Fiction gets no one to the Frankfurter chair at Harvard Law. Neither
does non-fiction which is not of use to hard working American legal
scholars. That he has a world-wide audience as a public intellectual
did not and does not make him famous as a law professor.

> His most recent titles include Rights From Wrong,
> The Case For Israel, The Case For Peace,
> Blasphemy: How the Religious Right is Hijacking
> the Declaration of Independence,
> Preemption: A Knife that Cuts Both Ways,
> Finding Jefferson - A Lost Letter, A Remarkable Discovery, and
> The First Amendment In An Age of Terrorism, and
> The Case For Moral Clarity: Israel, Hamas and Gaza.

I believe that none of this was published by a legal publishing house.
Check it out. In my opinion little of this can be said to have been
written in his scholarly capacity as the Frankfurter Professor of Law
at Harvard for use by serious legal scholars whose business it is to
inform the profession about the ever changing state of the law. They
don't even look to popular magazines for legal materials. They look at
statutes, case law, regulations, cutting edge litigation, legal
journals and law reviews et al. They are serious scholars, not
gadflies.

> In addition to his numerous law review articles

He has not written numerous law review articles! If I recall correctly
there were a couple of obituaries in law reviews attributable to him.
He is primarily a journalist and polemicist. But then perhaps he has
written "numerous law review articles" in the last year or two---for
the first time.

and books
> about criminal and constitutional law,

There was a two book series written in the sixties. That's all on
serious legal matters for the profession. Look to the presses which
publish him.

he has written, taught
> and lectured about history, philosophy, psychology, literature,
> mathematics, theology, music, sports - and even delicatessens.

You don't become a chaired professor of LAW at any great American law
school this way. Sports, delicatessens? This entire list is composed
of subjects which are in other disciplines. They do not represent the
systematic study of law which takes place in law schools. That body of
material is published by the legal press.

> (Edited slightly from his own blog,http://www.alandershowitz.com/biography.php)

>
> Finkelstein's credentials don't come close.

His Yale or Princeton PhD is in political science and he is a
disciplined and respected historian known for meticulous research.
Apparently Dershowits' terminal degree was simply a JD. They are
churned out by the tens of thousands. Hell, I have one.

> Dershowitz wrote a book, "The Case for Israel"
> which Finkelstein criticized.
> Finkelstein's claims appear to be mostly correct,

Mostly, indeed. He devastated "The Case for Israel" through use of the
standards which apply to all professional scholars.

> but he's just looking for anything he can find
> to embarrass Dershowitz.

Dershowitz is his adversary regarding the oppression of the
Palestinian people and the future of Israel. They are not old friends.
You can learn about Dershowitz's war against him on Finkelstein's web
site.

> Imagine reading a book several times, saying to oneself each time,
> "maybe this is wrong", "maybe that's a mistake".
> And in the end, all he comes up with is cheap nitpicking.

You don't know what you are speaking of. Try systematic and
unattributed appropriation of another's work as your own. There was no
nitpicking. Dershowitz was playing fast and loose to the galleries and
got caught. That and his failed scholarly record probably would have
cost anyone else his position. He represents lots of power. By the
way, his book was pure politics aimed at the American audience in his
capacity as a prominent member of the Israel Lobby. It badly needed to
be set to rights. Doing it was a great public service to the American
people.

> The  contribution of the book is the treatment of collateral damage,
> of the continuum from combatant to civilian.
> These are legal issues.

These were the white washing of Israeli criminality aimed primarily at
American opinion which the Lobby struggles mightily day after day to
influence decisively. If they lose their influence in the face of
reality Israel will be forced to settle with the Palestinians. That
would be in the interest of every stakeholder world-wide, even Israel,
but the regime and the lobby are blinded by hubris and ideological
doctrine. There were many examples of this in the 20th Century. They
made our era a bloody catastrophe. The *nature* of our relationship
with Israel has become our bloody 21st Century catastrophe.

> Presumably, there are people who disagree with Dershowitz,
> and out of the discussions could come new understandings,
> in line with the new challenges we are facing today.
> How Finkelstein read the book twice and ignored its real content
> is beyond me.

Hahahahaha! Finkelstein didn't ignore anything. Dershowitz is a rabid
partisan sporting a hollow scholarly title on the side. It puffs up
his persona. His reputation as a legal scholar among his colleagues
behind closed doors is what's of interest. In the meantime he is
something of a loudmouth public intellectual who loses debates to
Norman Finkelstein decisively. You should watch them. Everyone should.

[HHW]

On Apr 23, 11:43 pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On 4/12/2012 1:56 PM,HHWwrote:

> > > > > You haven't debated anyone here in years.
>

> > On Apr 23, 3:46 pm,dsharavi<deshar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Au contraire, I have attempted to debate, particularly with you. But
> > > you cut and run at the first whiff of facts.
>

> On Apr 23, 9:05 pm,HHW<coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > As in the present instance you lie at the first whiff of facts.
>
> You're projecting again, you senile shyster.
>
> And you never did produce any evidence for your claim that I made some
> racist remark about Al Sharpton.

Here's some long overdue evidence for you:

Fighting Jews– then and now
by Bruce Wolman on April 24, 2012 52

The author's late father, Bernard Wolman, in uniform, WWII

Last Thursday was Holocaust Remembrance Day. For the Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Shimon Peres, it was an
opportunity to compare the Nazi genocide of the Jews with their
perception of Iranian intentions. The Israeli Ambassador to the United
States, Michael Oren, went to Capitol Hill to deliver an opportunistic
propaganda speech with that very theme.

While warning against trivialization of the Holocaust, Oren proceeded
to do just that:

Comparing the conditions of pre-war Germany with the situation in Iran
today, Oren described both as “economies in crisis, following a war,”
and likened the “supreme leaders” of each regime to one another.
Mentioning Iran directly, Oren said, “It denies the murder of six
million Jews by the Nazis while pledging to murder another six million—
in Israel.”

Oren should know better. Iranian President Ahmadinejad has certainly
danced around Holocaust denial, winked to the Germans that they have
been maligned, and has eagerly sponsored several conferences which
attracted an auditorium full of the world's most dedicated deniers.
But Iran has never officially denied the Holocaust. In a week when Dan
Meridor, Israel's Deputy Prime Minister, admitted that Iran's leaders
never said as often claimed, "we'll wipe it out," Oren went even
farther than the usual Israeli hasbara, proclaiming Iran's leaders
were pledged to murdering another 6 million Jews.

But then Oren did something else in his speech: the US-born ambassador
touchingly addressed the American military veterans of World War II in
attendance:

“My father was one of those GIs. He battled from Normandy to the Bulge
to the final victory, winning two bronze stars for valor.”

Oren thanked the veterans by saying “Not only as your son, but as
Israel’s ambassador to this great nation, I want to say thank you,
Dad, and thank you to all the brave Americans who fought alongside
you.”

My father was another of those brave Americans, fighting from North
Africa to Germany itself.

And here is where I ask the question: if "Ahmadinejad = Hitler", "Iran
= Nazi Germany" and "Iran's Nuclear Program = The Holocaust," where
are today's Jewish GIs?

My father and his older brother eagerly joined the Army to fight
against the Nazis. They didn't wait to be drafted. Their younger
brother ran away from home and disobeyed his parents to enlist in the
Navy. Failing the physical, he entered the Merchant Marines. My step-
father enrolled to be an officer in the Navy. Like Oren's father, they
and the great majority of Jewish boys of that generation saw the war
as a necessity and participation as their duty.

The facts back this up:

During World War II, American Jews comprised approximately 3.3% of the
population, while 4.23% of the U.S. Military service members were of
Jewish faith, showing clear overrepresentation of Jews in the
military.

Today, the situation is quite different:

According to Department of Defense statistics, Jews, who make up about
2 percent of the overall population of this country, make up less than
a third of a percent of the total number of those serving in the armed
forces. There are many reasons commonly given for this, including the
fact that Jews, with a median age of 41, tend to be older than
Americans as a whole, who have a median age of 35.

Age differences alone cannot explain this phenomenon.

[Rear Admiral Harold L. Robinson, a Reform rabbi and longtime chaplain
in the Navy] believes that the true number of Jews in the military is
more than 10,000, which is twice the number published by the Defense
Department.

That would still have Jews making up only two-thirds of a percent of
the military. So: more Jews attended the last AIPAC convention than
serve in the US armed forces.

If Oren and Israeli leaders are correct, that Islamic extremists and
the Iranian government are committed to a new Holocaust of the Jews,
that Ahmadinejad is another Hitler, why are young American Jews not
following in the footsteps of their grandfathers and enlisting in the
military to be part of the actions that the organized American Jewish
community and Israel are demanding?

Is it expected that the current US military -- exhausted from a decade
of war in the Middle East -- should be called upon to fight on yet
another major front while the rest of the America population goes on
with their lives as usual?

When I ask Jewish relatives and acquaintances who support the military
option against Iran, “Are your children and grandchildren going to
fight?” They stare at me incredulously.

When I press further, “are you planning to see Joe [pseudonym for a
gentile relative of mine by marriage who is in the Special Forces] go
back to the Mideast for another tour? Didn't Joe suffer enough
injuries the last time around?” There is only silence.

If the main American Jewish organizations -- such as AIPAC, the
American Jewish Committee, CoP, JFNA, JCPA, ADL, etc., etc. -- all
support military action against the Iranian nuclear program, then they
should be recruiting for the US military within the Jewish community.

Standing besides the "We Support Israel" banners outside the
synagogues should be an even larger banner, "We Support Our Troops.
Join Today."


About Bruce Wolman
Bruce Wolman is a citizen journalist who has lived in Norway and the
Washington area.
View all posts by Bruce Wolman →

[HHW]

On Apr 24, 6:25 pm, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 21:03:08 -0700 (PDT),HHW

>

> Your point was that the video was made by an israeli soldier.

Here's something about Jewish soldiers for you:

Fighting Jews– then and now
by Bruce Wolman on April 24, 2012 52

14Facebook3Twitter0StumbleUpon0Reddit0
Google

[NefeshBarYocahi]

HHW smells like a negro woman's dirty kotex

[HHW]

On Apr 13, 1:27 pm, dsharavi <deshar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 12, 6:15 am, Ariadne <ariadne....@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> > On Apr 11, 12:54 am,dsharavi<dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> > > On Apr 10, 3:29 pm,HHW<coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > (Hunter is the one at left)http://www.israellycool.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Gaza-mall6.jpg
>
> > He must have given on Hamas since it revealed that
> > half of the Pals are from Saudi Arabia and the other
> > half from Egypt.
>
> > Truth banishes!
>
> The leadership, perhaps. In any case, the "palestinians" leading clans
> hail from Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, and Saudia. Indigenous? Twaddle.

There's a big mess over there and Israel is at the center of it. Guess
who is shedding the blood?

[HHW]

On Apr 24, 6:25 pm, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:

Here's a claim about soldiers:

[Zev]

[dsharavi]

On Apr 24, 11:41 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 11:43 pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On 4/12/2012 1:56 PM, HHW wrote:
> > > > > > You haven't debated anyone here in years.
>
> > > On Apr 23, 3:46 pm, dsharavi <deshar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Au contraire, I have attempted to debate, particularly with you. But
> > > > you cut and run at the first whiff of facts.
>
> > On Apr 23, 9:05 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > As in the present instance you lie at the first whiff of facts.
>
> > You're projecting again, you senile shyster.
> > And you never did produce any evidence for your claim that

> >I made some racistremark about Al Sharpton.
>
> Sure I did. You made thoseracistremarks and my memory of

> the event is clear enough. If that doesn't suit you, so what?

Either your memory is faulty to the point of senility, or you're lying
again.

Now, try to be a manly man, and address the following facts regarding
your phony libelous claim:

Here's the May 2007 thread in which you first posted your libel:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/browse_frm/thread/1d6b82036916f4d7?scoring=d&

Your first post, (and typically long-winded, bouncing
around left field, until you reach your antisemitic
hobby horse), #8 in the thread, is here:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/ec57d98f6687813e

Cutting to the chase, it reads:

>When Sharpton had an opportunity to
> respond, he said, "As for the Mormon
> running for office, those who really believe
> in God will defeat him anyways, so don't
> worry about that; that's a temporary situation."

HHW (posting in 2007 as "Cazador", i.e. "Hunter"):

"What an arrogant and self-serving act. Hypocritical.
I'll explain below."

> "Rev. Al Sharpton says he has been preaching
> for 48 of his 52 years and that he was ordained
> a minister at the ripe old age of nine. Therefore,
> he should know better than to insult people of
> faith, independent of religious affiliation. What
> he said about Gov. Romney is reprehensible.
> "Applying the same standard of justice
> Sharpton invoked against Imus for his racist
> quip, this should finish Sharpton's career.
[...]

HHW/Cazador:

"The same standard, indeed. Racism is a real
problem. Deborah is the poster girl for that.
But soapbox rivalry among superstitions is not,
at least not in secular states which protect civil
liberties. Imus/Sharpton are apples/oranges. If
I believe in the Man in the Moon I should be able
to proclaim it even if it offends Mormons. If I
believe Mormonism is crackpot I will say it--
and I do, here and now. Crackpot.

"Hyper-sensitive demands for political correctness
are a large part of America's present crisis.

"There is no end to what we're not supposed
to talk about. Joseph Smith was an obvious
snake oil salesman but Sharpton, equally so,
isn't supposed to mention it. People aren't
supposed to speak their minds on myriad
subjects. I'ts become a bit complex. Let the
religionists do their second century BC mumbo
jumbo and and ignore it. Utah is going to go
Republican in any event. Sharpton knows he
has no constituents there. Why should he give
a damn? And anyway, if Romney is nominated
I don't care why people vote against him in
the privacy of the booth.

"Politics is rough and tumble and that apparently
can't be avoided--except in the relative sense.
We stumble across a Lincoln once in a while
just as a blind pig occasionaly finds an acorn.
Right now that pig is in extremis."

> "Sharpton is more than a man of the cloth.
> He is a former presidential contender who
> is integrally tied to the Democratic party.
> Therefore, it is incumbent that he be held
> accountable for his bigoted outburst

HHW/Cazador:

"This Catholic poseur *agrees* with Sharpton
about Mormonism! Therefore by definition
his "outburst" was not bigoted. I'm sure the
Pope would have to agree.

"Finish his career. Haha, that's hilarious. Sharpton
thrives on this stuff. And in any event he is a
civil rights activist and was exercising his civil
rights. Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty,
etc., etc.

"Now, as to Father Abraham and Moses. They
were not historical personages any more than
were Adam and Eve. And Bishop Usher was
a credulous fool when he used the Bible to
calculate that age of the earth, created by God
he thought in 4004 B.C. The men who wrote
those parts of the Old Testament/Torah were
Joseph Smith types. Snake oil specialists. The
ethical systems emerging from it are another
matter. And all of them, Christian, Buddhist,
whatever, are of human origin, obviously.

"Hitchens is a trip."

End HHW first post in thread.

============================
HHW/Cazador 2nd post in thread - #26th
in thread - is where you post your lie -- comes
long before I posted anything to the thread. It's
at
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/c2a258738270138e

> > On May 10, 8:56 pm, flav...@verizon.net wrote:
> > > There is a huge difference in these 2 comments.

HHW/Cazador:

"Indeed, I've already explained that to you."

[NB: Lie]

> > >What they both said was insulting, of
> > >course, but Sharpton's comment was
> > >doctrinal in nature. He HAS to believe
> > >this about Mormons: FWIU, MOST
> > >XIans insist that Mormons aren't really
> > >Xians, or even monotheists (something
> > >about every single Mormon man becoming
> > >a god of his own with his own planet...?).

HHW/Cazador (the self-described agnostic)

"The use of "Xian" is a calculated insult
designed to humiliate and degrade the "goyim,"
the use of which latter term is also an insult.
If you don't stop using them I'm going to report
you to the National Council of Churches and
they will turn it over to their lobby's organ
in Washington. They will see to it you lose
your job and are blacklisted forever, like Don
Imus."

[...]
> What people are complaining about is that
> Sharpton spoke openly about the doctrinal
> differences between most Xians and Mormons.
> Unlike racial bigotry (such as you refer to
> below), there is almost no way of "proving
> him wrong/right" so as to referee, here.
> Imus' remarks were disgusting because they
> were purely subjective and deliberately inuslting.

HHW/Cazador:

"You don't get it either. Deliberation prior to the
delivery of insults is in fact a literary specialty
much valued in our culture. We can't live
without it. H. L. Mencken and Ambrose
Bierce are famous examples and Shakespeare
cultivated the art as all Jews know. Wilde was
wickedly good at it: see "The Wicked Wit of
Oscar Wild". If insults are inevitable in democratic
societies, and let's hope they remain so, we can
only hope the quality of them goes up.

"Imus' comments were objectionable not
because they were designed to insult but
because they were racist. Racism is something
America has a national interest in suppressing.
Insults in the generic sense? Give me a break.
It's an art form.

"That said, Deborah's "filthy little big pig"
comment about Sharpton is hard to interpret
as anything but racist. She is invited to try. She
should not have said it. It was very coarse and
reflects poorly on the quality of her upbringing.
Her mother would be horrified. Mind you
though I believe in her *right* to say it and to
continue useing myriad racial slurs against
Palestinians. From her I would expect nothing
else. If we're to remain free we just gotta have
the right to be wrong."

> Sharpton - tho' we all know he's a filthy little
>(okay, big) pig - could soldily claim to have
>been giving a religious opinion.
> Susan

> > What it means is that they will stand behind,
> >defend, and spread their hatred, insisting it
> > has a rational basis.

"That's what's done on a daily basis in the
continuing effort to demonize the Palestinians.
Those poor folks have been completely out
maneuvered in the propaganda war. That can't
be outlawed now can it?

"No, of course not, it's anti-Semitic to even
mention such an abomination."
[...]

"You should have no right or power to silence
what you personally think adds up to bigotry
directly or indirectly. If the state wants to get
into the business it's even more dangerous.
Some things we just have to live with as the
price of a free society."

End HHW/Cazador post
================

HHW/Cazador 3rd post, # 28 in the thread, -- again,
made before I posted anything --
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/71c0044127a36a96

"I defended him [Sharpton] against Deborah's racist
slur, but not otherwise."

End HHW/Cazador post
================

HHW/Cazador 4th post, #30 in the thread -- yet
again,made before I'd posted anything thereto--
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/9f04c98770378dbc

HHW/Cazador:

>>The same standard, indeed. Racism is a real
>>problem. Deborah is the poster girl for that.

Hillel:

>Says Cazador the antisemite.

HHW/Cazador:

"Yeah, yeah, the same old Israel Lobby nonsense
described so well by Mearsheimer & Walt. If
I were to describe Jews qua Jews as she
describes the Palestinians you'd have a case.
I don't do it and you know it. It doesn't occur
to me to do it and I know it. I've never done
it in my entire life. Generic anti-Semitism is a
profoundly stupid intellectual vice; it's indefensible.

"Deborah demonizes all Palestinians and you
border on it in more subtle ways which make me
wonder what's in your soul. But I'll settle now for
what's in your head.

> I don't think anyone here is defending Sharpton.

"I defended him against Deborah's racist slur,
but not otherwise."
================

My first post to thread, #33 in thread, in response to
HHW libel:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/eb2c09dd47817a1a

"You're invited to point to where, exactly, I made
any such comment about Sharpton."

End my post
================

HHW/Cazdor FINALLY responds, in his fifth post,
#48 in the thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/msg/68d2ef6a40f35046

"Damn, Liz, I would have thought that after all
your whining about my not citing famous Israeli
scholars you'd be in a better mood now. I'm
finally knuckling under and getting you some
good stuff and what do you do? You revert to
little hit and run operations like this. Anyhow,
I think you ought to get serious yourself and
dig out the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
I've given you my analysis. Now it's your turn.

"BTW, DoD is offended not that he understands
what the word weak meant in context. He needs
a little more mothering. Can you help?"

End HHW/Cazador post

================

HHW/Cazador's final two posts in the thread, at #55
#74, were two inane and childish sentences. Then, of
course, he ran. Of course, he failed to produce a shred
of the evidence which he claimed he had produced for his
libel. Typical.

[dsharavi]

> > > > > On 4/12/2012 1:56 PM,HHWwrote:
> > > > > > You haven't debated anyone here in years.
>
> > > On Apr 23, 3:46 pm,dsharavi<deshar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Au contraire, I have attempted to debate, particularly with you. But
> > > > you cut and run at the first whiff of facts.
>
> > On Apr 23, 9:05 pm,HHW<coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > As in the present instance you lie at the first whiff of facts.
>
> On Apr 23, 11:43 pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > You're projecting again, you senile shyster.
> > And you never did produce any evidence for your claim that
> >I made some racist remark about Al Sharpton.

On Apr 24, 7:59 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Here's some long overdue evidence for you:
> Fighting Jews– then and now
> by Bruce Wolman on April 24, 2012 52
> The author's late father, Bernard Wolman, in uniform, WWII

Evidence.... of what? This article has absolutely NOTHING to do with
your disgusting libel. But the following has everything to do it.
Refute the facts -- if you can:

[dsharavi]

On Apr 12, 2:22 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 9:37 pm, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:

> > >> Sheesh, H, you must have been one helluva lawyer.
>

> Do you want some lessons on moving from premises to conclusions with
> clarity, not to say honesty?

If he did, you'd be the last person qualified to give him -- or anyone
else -- "lessons" on clarity. And honesty.

[dsharavi]

On Apr 24, 8:15 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 13, 1:27 pm, dsharavi <deshar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 12, 6:15 am, Ariadne <ariadne....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Apr 11, 12:54 am,dsharavi<dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > (Hunter is the one at left)http://www.israellycool.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/Gaza-mall6.jpg
>
> > > He must have given on Hamas since it revealed that
> > > half of the Pals are from Saudi Arabia and the other
> > > half from Egypt.
> > > Truth banishes!
>
> > The leadership, perhaps. In any case, the "palestinians" leading clans
> > hail from Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, and Saudia. Indigenous? Twaddle.
>
> There's a big mess over there and Israel is at the center of it. Guess
> who is shedding the blood?

Arabs.

[snip irrelevant article about American GIs in WWII]

[dsharavi]

On Apr 24, 8:04 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 24, 6:25 pm, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 21:03:08 -0700 (PDT),HHW
> > Your point was that the video was made by an israeli soldier.
>
> Here's something about Jewish soldiers for you:

Which is totally irrelevant. Here are some FACTS for you. Do try to
address them with the "clarity" and "honesty" you claim to possess.

[dsharavi]

On Apr 24, 8:20 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 24, 6:25 pm, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
> > Ah, your are claiming that the fact that the soldiers allowed the
> > videotape to be made proves they were deeply ashamed of what they were
> > doing. uh-huh.... So tell me, when you try to get your dick hard
> > sitting in front of your computer imagining your "readers", something
> > that you are or should be ashamed of, do you make sure Patricia is
> > videotaping it so that it can later be put up on the net? Because that
> > is the completely absurd claim you are making - that the videotaping
> > of the incident proves it was shameful to the soldiers. What is it, H?
> > Are you just of an increidbly low IQ, or do you get so caught up in
> > your lies that you befuddle yourself?
>
> > >They made a symbolic *contribution* to the Resistance.
>
> Here's a claim about soldiers:
>

Here are facts in opposition to Hunter's lies. Anyone think he'll be a
manly man, and address the following facts regarding his phony libel?

[dsharavi]

On Apr 24, 8:15 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Apr 13, 1:27 pm, dsharavi <deshar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The leadership, perhaps. In any case, the "palestinians" leading clans
> > hail from Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, and Saudia. Indigenous? Twaddle.
>
> There's a big mess over there and Israel is at the center of it. Guess
> who is shedding the blood?

Arabs.

Guess who;s the biggest liar on these boards?

[dsharavi]

On Apr 24, 8:04 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Apr 24, 6:25 pm, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
> > Your point was that the video was made by an israeli soldier.
>
> Here's something about Jewish soldiers for you:

You've posted this article about WWII Gis .... how many times? No
matter. Here's something to prove you're an idiot, as well as a liar:

[drahcir]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 20:04:26 -0700 (PDT), HHW
<coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Apr 24, 6:25 pm, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2012 21:03:08 -0700 (PDT),HHW
>
>>
>> Your point was that the video was made by an israeli soldier.
>
>Here's something about Jewish soldiers for you:

Poo wittoo Aitchy can't find a way to stand up like a man in debate,
so gives up and tries to switch topics. Poo, poo wittoo Aitchy!

>View all posts by Bruce Wolman ?

[drahcir]

Poo wittoo H or Patricia or whatever the little idiot's name is these
days sees himself lost in debate and "thinks" he can change topics to
try to save face.

>View all posts by Bruce Wolman ?

[dsharavi]

On Apr 24, 7:59 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Apr 23, 11:43 pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On 4/12/2012 1:56 PM,HHWwrote:
> > > > > > You haven't debated anyone here in years.
>
> > > On Apr 23, 3:46 pm,dsharavi<deshar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Au contraire, I have attempted to debate, particularly with you. But
> > > > you cut and run at the first whiff of facts.
>
> > On Apr 23, 9:05 pm,HHW<coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > As in the present instance you lie at the first whiff of facts.
>
> > You're projecting again, you senile shyster.
> > And you never did produce any evidence for your claim that I made some

> >racistremark about Al Sharpton.

>
> Here's some long overdue evidence for you:

An article about American GIs in WWII isn't relevant. The following
is:

[HHW]

You forgot to respond?

[NefeshBarYocahi]

HHW is a stinky sort of Anti-Semite. He smells bad and beats-off and
obviously has no conscious. He needs to be put down like a rabid dog.

[HHW]

> athttp://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/ms

> made before I posted anything --http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/ms

>
> g/71c0044127a36a96
>
> "I defended him [Sharpton] against Deborah's racist
> slur, but not otherwise."
>
> End HHW/Cazador post
> ================
>
> HHW/Cazador 4th post, #30 in the thread -- yet

> again,made before I'd posted anything thereto--http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.jewish/ms

What was my libel?

[NefeshBarYocahi]

Because HHW smells like bird shit he has been allowing small birds to
sodomize him in the afternoon.

[Zev]

Where was Finkelstein at age 25?

> > He has also published more than 100 articles in magazines and journals
> > such as The New York Times Magazine, The Washington Post,
> > The Wall Street Journal, The New Republic, The Nation, Commentary,
> > Saturday Review, The Harvard Law Review and the Yale Law Journal,
> > and more than 300 of his articles have appeared
> > in syndication in 50 national daily newspapers.
>
> Yes, in his career as a public intellectual he has actually published
> something over 600 such articles. I don't know if they are still on
> his faculty web site or not but they certainly were when I looked into
> the matter. Virtually all them were addressed to the general public
> and many are political and polemical in nature with a strong tendency
> toward the defense of Israeli interests in the context of U.S.
> politics. Virtually none of this is of assistance to legal scholars
> doing research for placement in serious legal publications. His
> colleagues at Harvard have to know this.

Sounds like "conspicuous silence".

> > Professor Dershowitz is the author of 27 fiction
> > and non-fiction works with a worldwide audience.
>
> Fiction gets no one to the Frankfurter chair at Harvard Law. Neither
> does non-fiction which is not of use to hard working American legal
> scholars. That he has a world-wide audience as a public intellectual
> did not and does not make him famous as a law professor.
>
> > His most recent titles include Rights From Wrong,
> > The Case For Israel, The Case For Peace,
> > Blasphemy: How the Religious Right is Hijacking
> > the Declaration of Independence,
> > Preemption: A Knife that Cuts Both Ways,
> > Finding Jefferson - A Lost Letter, A Remarkable Discovery, and
> > The First Amendment In An Age of Terrorism, and
> > The Case For Moral Clarity: Israel, Hamas and Gaza.
>
> I believe that none of this was published by a legal publishing house.
> Check it out. In my opinion little of this can be said to have been
> written in his scholarly capacity as the Frankfurter Professor of Law
> at Harvard for use by serious legal scholars whose business it is to
> inform the profession about the ever changing state of the law. They
> don't even look to popular magazines for legal materials. They look at
> statutes, case law, regulations, cutting edge litigation, legal
> journals and law reviews et al. They are serious scholars, not
> gadflies.

Don't bother telling me that judges and juries
aren't influenced by public opinion.
It gets to them, somehow.
And you won't understand "the ever changing state of the law"
unless you get into the changing world.
Works by Dershowitz and Colonel Richard Kemp help on that,
from different areas of expertize.
If that's not serious, I don't know what is.

> > In addition to his numerous law review articles
>
> He has not written numerous law review articles! If I recall correctly
> there were a couple of obituaries in law reviews attributable to him.
> He is primarily a journalist and polemicist. But then perhaps he has
> written "numerous law review articles" in the last year or two---for
> the first time.
>
> and books
>
> > about criminal and constitutional law,
>
> There was a two book series written in the sixties. That's all on
> serious legal matters for the profession. Look to the presses which
> publish him.
>
> he has written, taught
>
> > and lectured about history, philosophy, psychology, literature,
> > mathematics, theology, music, sports - and even delicatessens.
>
> You don't become a chaired professor of LAW at any great American law
> school this way. Sports, delicatessens? This entire list is composed
> of subjects which are in other disciplines. They do not represent the
> systematic study of law which takes place in law schools. That body of
> material is published by the legal press.

Dershowitz teaches at Harvard, since age 25.
I assume he does that "systematically".
He's one of the best known trial lawyers in America.
He takes tough cases, and wins.
He is knowledgeable, and lectures about,
the above mentioned subjects.
Where do you want to go with this
"Sports, delicatessens?" derision?

> > (Edited slightly from his own
> > blog,http://www.alandershowitz.com/biography.php)
>
> > Finkelstein's credentials don't come close.
>
> His Yale or Princeton PhD is in political science and he is a
> disciplined and respected historian known for meticulous research.

"Meticulous research"?
How long did it take him to get his PhD?

> Apparently Dershowits' terminal degree was simply a JD. They are
> churned out by the tens of thousands. Hell, I have one.
>
> > Dershowitz wrote a book, "The Case for Israel"
> > which Finkelstein criticized.
> > Finkelstein's claims appear to be mostly correct,
>
> Mostly, indeed. He devastated "The Case for Israel" through use of the
> standards which apply to all professional scholars.

Can you remind me where he proves Dershowitz wrong?
If you can't, "devastated" is a poor description of what he did.

> > but he's just looking for anything he can find
> > to embarrass Dershowitz.
>
> Dershowitz is his adversary regarding the oppression of the
> Palestinian people and the future of Israel. They are not old friends.
> You can learn about Dershowitz's war against him on Finkelstein's web
> site.
>
> > Imagine reading a book several times, saying to oneself each time,
> > "maybe this is wrong", "maybe that's a mistake".
> > And in the end, all he comes up with is cheap nitpicking.
>
> You don't know what you are speaking of. Try systematic and
> unattributed appropriation of another's work as your own. There was no
> nitpicking. Dershowitz was playing fast and loose to the galleries and
> got caught.

He should have mentioned the source in footnotes,
but the book is Dershowitz's.
It's nitpicking because the content of the book
is far more important and Finkelstein ignored it.

> That and his failed scholarly record probably would have
> cost anyone else his position. He represents lots of power. By the
> way, his book was pure politics aimed at the American audience in his
> capacity as a prominent member of the Israel Lobby. It badly needed to
> be set to rights. Doing it was a great public service to the American
> people.
>
> > The contribution of the book is the treatment of collateral damage,
> > of the continuum from combatant to civilian.
> > These are legal issues.
>
> These were the white washing of Israeli criminality

A claim like this, with a powerful argument to support it,
might have made a meaningful debate.
Your comment here shows you know what I'm talking about,
and essentially, agree with me.

> aimed primarily at
> American opinion which the Lobby struggles mightily day after day to
> influence decisively. If they lose their influence in the face of
> reality Israel will be forced to settle with the Palestinians. That
> would be in the interest of every stakeholder world-wide, even Israel,
> but the regime and the lobby are blinded by hubris and ideological
> doctrine. There were many examples of this in the 20th Century. They
> made our era a bloody catastrophe. The *nature* of our relationship
> with Israel has become our bloody 21st Century catastrophe.
>
> > Presumably, there are people who disagree with Dershowitz,
> > and out of the discussions could come new understandings,
> > in line with the new challenges we are facing today.
> > How Finkelstein read the book twice and ignored its real content
> > is beyond me.
>
> Hahahahaha! Finkelstein didn't ignore anything. Dershowitz is a rabid
> partisan sporting a hollow scholarly title on the side. It puffs up
> his persona. His reputation as a legal scholar among his colleagues
> behind closed doors is what's of interest. In the meantime he is
> something of a loudmouth public intellectual who loses debates to
> Norman Finkelstein decisively. You should watch them. Everyone should.

Finkelstein wasted his time with nitpicking
instead of challenging his opponent in a discussion
out of which could have come new understandings,
in line with the new challenges we face today.

Your challenge was to compare the backgrounds
of Dershowitz and Finkelstein.
So far, all you've done is nitpick what I quoted,
and shout the epithets of your last paragraph here.
Is this what you meant when you said
you could "rise to this bait"?

[HHW]

On Apr 26, 12:54 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 25, 4:48 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 24, 4:02 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Apr 24, 9:15 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > I admire Dr. Finkelstein, but I 'follow' no one.
>
> > > > > > > Compare his resume, his life's work, with Dershowitz's.

> > > > > > That's easy. You shouldn't make such suggestions without knowing
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > outcome in advance. I've already described the contents of
> > > > > > Dershowitz's CV here a couple of times. It's pathetic.
>
> > I know what law professors at great institutions do for a living.
> > Again, his CV is pathetic.

Tell us why it matters? The issue you've raised has to do with what
for both of them is pretty much their life's work so far.

> > > He has also published more than 100 articles in magazines and journals
> > > such as The New York Times Magazine, The Washington Post,
> > > The Wall Street Journal, The New Republic, The Nation, Commentary,
> > > Saturday Review, The Harvard Law Review and the Yale Law Journal,
> > > and more than 300 of his articles have appeared
> > > in syndication in 50 national daily newspapers.
>
> > Yes, in his career as a public intellectual he has actually published
> > something over 600 such articles. I don't know if they are still on
> > his faculty web site or not but they certainly were when I looked into
> > the matter. Virtually all them were addressed to the general public
> > and many are political and polemical in nature with a strong tendency
> > toward the defense of Israeli interests in the context of U.S.
> > politics. Virtually none of this is of assistance to legal scholars
> > doing research for placement in serious legal publications. His
> > colleagues at Harvard have to know this.
>
> Sounds like "conspicuous silence".

Rather, yes. How do you account for it? And how do you account for his
acquisition of the coveted Frankfurter Chair at Harvard based on such
a paucity of serious research of interest to American legal scholars
and practicing attorneys? I've been interested in the law since the
1960s. I've never heard of such a thing, a chaired professor in one of
the very finest schools of law in the nation, occupying a chair named
after a very great Justice; yet he does not publish for the
profession? Why does he hold this "prestigious" chaired position
despite doing little of interest to the profession ever since the
appointment? I can assure you that chaired law professors are not
simply objects of adoration of whom nothing is expected but a little
teaching here and there?

> > > Professor Dershowitz is the author of 27 fiction
> > > and non-fiction works with a worldwide audience.
>
> > Fiction gets no one to the Frankfurter chair at Harvard Law. Neither
> > does non-fiction which is not of use to hard working American legal
> > scholars. That he has a world-wide audience as a public intellectual
> > did not and does not make him famous as a law professor.

Yet those who introduce his public lectures usually include the
Frankfurter Chair title even though it appears to have been hollow for
decades.

> > > His most recent titles include Rights From Wrong,
> > > The Case For Israel, The Case For Peace,
> > > Blasphemy: How the Religious Right is Hijacking
> > > the Declaration of Independence,
> > > Preemption: A Knife that Cuts Both Ways,
> > > Finding Jefferson - A Lost Letter, A Remarkable Discovery, and
> > > The First Amendment In An Age of Terrorism, and
> > > The Case For Moral Clarity: Israel, Hamas and Gaza.
>
> > I believe that none of this was published by a legal publishing house.
> > Check it out. In my opinion little of this can be said to have been
> > written in his scholarly capacity as the Frankfurter Professor of Law
> > at Harvard for use by serious legal scholars whose business it is to
> > inform the profession about the ever changing state of the law. They
> > don't even look to popular magazines for legal materials. They look at
> > statutes, case law, regulations, cutting edge litigation, legal
> > journals and law reviews et al. They are serious scholars, not
> > gadflies.
>
> Don't bother telling me that judges and juries
> aren't influenced by public opinion.

They are ethically required to resist it manfully, or as gender
requires. Ask any principled conservative.

> It gets to them, somehow.

And........

> And you won't understand "the ever changing state of the law"
> unless you get into the changing world.

It is required to come through the briefs of counsel and consistent
with the law of evidence, not the back door. That's not to say there
have been no exceptions. We're in such an era now. It happens from
both left and right.

> Works by Dershowitz and Colonel Richard Kemp help on that,
> from different areas of expertize.
> If that's not serious, I don't know what is.

You are suggesting that Dershowitz is hoping to have an ex-parte
effect on the judicial process. I doubt that. It's borderline
unethical. I think he aims at the political process, primarily on
behalf of of a foreign country. That's perfectly okay if you aren't
lobbying in the meaning of the statute without registration and he
isn't so far as I know. He is a professional public personality. His
credentials, history and public life are open to criticism and he has
dished it out to others in savage fashion.

>
> > > In addition to his numerous law review articles
>
> > He has not written numerous law review articles! If I recall correctly
> > there were a couple of obituaries in law reviews attributable to him.
> > He is primarily a journalist and polemicist. But then perhaps he has
> > written "numerous law review articles" in the last year or two---for
> > the first time.

As I said in my last post he hasn't written law review articles unless
the item in an Israeli Law Journal about "collateral damages" is an
exception. It' seems to be on an appropriate subject.

> > and books
>
> > > about criminal and constitutional law,
>
> > There was a two book series written in the sixties. That's all on
> > serious legal matters for the profession. Look to the presses which
> > publish him.
>
> >  he has written, taught
>
> > > and lectured about history, philosophy, psychology, literature,
> > > mathematics, theology, music, sports - and even delicatessens.
>
> > You don't become a chaired professor of LAW at any great American law
> > school this way. Sports, delicatessens? This entire list is composed
> > of subjects which are in other disciplines. They do not represent the
> > systematic study of law which takes place in law schools. That body of
> > material is published by the legal press.
>
> Dershowitz teaches at Harvard, since age 25.
> I assume he does that "systematically".

You don't become a chaired professor of Law at Harvard without
publishing. You just DON'T.

> He's one of the best known trial lawyers in America.
> He takes tough cases, and wins.

Does he do it from the office of Harvard's Frankfurter Chair? How does
he find the time to do these things? Just a question on subjects you
raise, mind you.

> He is knowledgeable, and lectures about,
> the above mentioned subjects.
> Where do you want to go with this
> "Sports, delicatessens?" derision?

I've already been there specifically unless you've deleted it.

>
> > > (Edited slightly from his own
> > > blog,http://www.alandershowitz.com/biography.php)
>
> > > Finkelstein's credentials don't come close.
>
> > His Yale or Princeton PhD is in political science and he is a
> > disciplined and respected historian known for meticulous research.
>
> "Meticulous research"?
> How long did it take him to get his PhD?

Aren't you trying to compare the seriousness and quality of their
published work? I'll respond to what you say.

> > Apparently Dershowits' terminal degree was simply a JD. They are
> > churned out by the tens of thousands. Hell, I have one.
>
> > > Dershowitz wrote a book, "The Case for Israel"
> > > which Finkelstein criticized.
> > > Finkelstein's claims appear to be mostly correct,
>
> > Mostly, indeed. He devastated "The Case for Israel" through use of the
> > standards which apply to all professional scholars.
>
> Can you remind me where he proves Dershowitz wrong?
> If you can't, "devastated" is a poor description of what he did.

If you need reminding, read it again. What do you say that we go
through Finkelstein's rejoinder to The Case for Israel line by line?
My copy is up north. I can bring it back in the fall.

> > > but he's just looking for anything he can find
> > > to embarrass Dershowitz.
>
> > Dershowitz is his adversary regarding the oppression of the
> > Palestinian people and the future of Israel. They are not old friends.
> > You can learn about Dershowitz's war against him on Finkelstein's web
> > site.
>
> > > Imagine reading a book several times, saying to oneself each time,
> > > "maybe this is wrong", "maybe that's a mistake".
> > > And in the end, all he comes up with is cheap nitpicking.
>
> > You don't know what you are speaking of. Try systematic and
> > unattributed appropriation of another's work as your own. There was no
> > nitpicking. Dershowitz was playing fast and loose to the galleries and
> > got caught.
>
> He should have mentioned the source in footnotes,
> but the book is Dershowitz's.

It was the behavior of delinquent college sophomore.

> It's nitpicking because the content of the book
> is far more important and Finkelstein ignored it.

Present here what you like in it.

> > That and his failed scholarly record probably would have
> > cost anyone else his position. He represents lots of power. By the
> > way, his book was pure politics aimed at the American audience in his
> > capacity as a prominent member of the Israel Lobby. It badly needed to
> > be set to rights. Doing it was a great public service to the American
> > people.
>
> > > The  contribution of the book is the treatment of collateral damage,
> > > of the continuum from combatant to civilian.
> > > These are legal issues.
>
> > These were the white washing of Israeli criminality
>
> A claim like this, with a powerful argument to support it,
> might have made a meaningful debate.
> Your comment here shows you know what I'm talking about,
> and essentially, agree with me.

Actually articulate what your are "talking about". I'm not going to
respond based on guesses.

You can't challenge me to handle both sides of the argument. My brief
is on Dershowitz. If you can't handle Dr. Finkelstein then you've
simply defaulted and everyone reading this will know it.

> So far, all you've done is nitpick what I quoted,
> and shout the epithets of your last paragraph here.
> Is this what you meant when you said
> you could "rise to this bait"?

I'm not going to handle your side of the debate for you. Do your own
work or slink back to occupied Jerusalem.

What happened to that phrase? Was it clipped.

[NefeshBarYocahi]

HHW is again licking chowdah for fun.

[NEMO]

HHW is a

\\\\\Y//////
^
( )
I I
I I
OI IO


& a big one!

[NEMO]

HHW sucks

[Zev]

If it's in his resume, it's on the table.
Tell us why you agreed to compare the two
if you think it doesn't matter.

I was referring to his colleagues who,
as you say, "have to know this".

Discussing the legal challenges
of asymmetrical conflict with the general public,
in print or by word, is not lobbying,
and it's "on behalf of" any country
which finds itself in such conflict.
Do you know what lobbying is?

You said you admire Dr. Finkelstein.
Since then I've been wondering why.
As it appears, Dershowitz is smarter than Finkelstein,
but I don't call him a genius.
You can disagree with me,
but why throw around words like "meticulous"?

> > > Apparently Dershowits' terminal degree was simply a JD. They are
> > > churned out by the tens of thousands. Hell, I have one.
>
> > > > Dershowitz wrote a book, "The Case for Israel"
> > > > which Finkelstein criticized.
> > > > Finkelstein's claims appear to be mostly correct,
>
> > > Mostly, indeed. He devastated "The Case for Israel" through use of the
> > > standards which apply to all professional scholars.
>
> > Can you remind me where he proves Dershowitz wrong?
> > If you can't, "devastated" is a poor description of what he did.
>
> If you need reminding, read it again. What do you say that we go
> through Finkelstein's rejoinder to The Case for Israel line by line?
> My copy is up north. I can bring it back in the fall.

So, for the time being, "devastated" is just a bluff.

> > > > but he's just looking for anything he can find
> > > > to embarrass Dershowitz.
>
> > > Dershowitz is his adversary regarding the oppression of the
> > > Palestinian people and the future of Israel. They are not old friends.
> > > You can learn about Dershowitz's war against him on Finkelstein's web
> > > site.
>
> > > > Imagine reading a book several times, saying to oneself each time,
> > > > "maybe this is wrong", "maybe that's a mistake".
> > > > And in the end, all he comes up with is cheap nitpicking.
>
> > > You don't know what you are speaking of. Try systematic and
> > > unattributed appropriation of another's work as your own. There was no
> > > nitpicking. Dershowitz was playing fast and loose to the galleries and
> > > got caught.
>
> > He should have mentioned the source in footnotes,
> > but the book is Dershowitz's.
>
> It was the behavior of delinquent college sophomore.

Whatever.

> > It's nitpicking because the content of the book
> > is far more important and Finkelstein ignored it.
>
> Present here what you like in it.
>
> > > That and his failed scholarly record probably would have
> > > cost anyone else his position. He represents lots of power. By the
> > > way, his book was pure politics aimed at the American audience in his
> > > capacity as a prominent member of the Israel Lobby. It badly needed to
> > > be set to rights. Doing it was a great public service to the American
> > > people.
>
> > > > The contribution of the book is the treatment of collateral damage,
> > > > of the continuum from combatant to civilian.
> > > > These are legal issues.
>
> > > These were the white washing of Israeli criminality
>
> > A claim like this, with a powerful argument to support it,
> > might have made a meaningful debate.
> > Your comment here shows you know what I'm talking about,
> > and essentially, agree with me.
>
> Actually articulate what your are "talking about". I'm not going to
> respond based on guesses.

It's right up there Hunter.
And you just responded to it.
Here, I'll help you:
I said what the contribution of the book is.
You said it's a whitewash of Israeli criminality.
I said an argument to support that claim
would have made a meaningful debate.
If you think an attempt to "whitewash Israeli criminality"
is not far more meaningful than the issues Finkelstein raised,
I can only wonder why.

After your bravado, that's pretty weak.
Is it just a way of running away without appearing to do so,
in your own eyes at least?

[dsharavi]

> > > On Apr 23, 11:43 pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On 4/12/2012 1:56 PM,HHWwrote:
> > > > > > > > You haven't debated anyone here in years.
>
> > > > > On Apr 23, 3:46 pm,dsharavi<deshar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Au contraire, I have attempted to debate, particularly with you. But
> > > > > > you cut and run at the first whiff of facts.
>
> > > > On Apr 23, 9:05 pm,HHW<coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > As in the present instance you lie at the first whiff of facts.
>
> > > > You're projecting again, you senile shyster.
> > > > And you never did produce any evidence for your claim that I made some
> > > >racistremark about Al Sharpton.
>
> > On Apr 24, 7:59 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Here's some long overdue evidence for you:
>

You are joking, aren't you? If not, your MH peer review of mediocre
was very generous.

"The same standard, indeed. Racism is a real
problem. Deborah is the poster girl for that."

As an aside, this is just too funny to pass up:

"The use of "Xian" is a calculated insult
designed to humiliate and degrade the "goyim,"
the use of which latter term is also an insult.
If you don't stop using them I'm going to report
you to the National Council of Churches and
they will turn it over to their lobby's organ
in Washington. They will see to it you lose
your job and are blacklisted forever, like Don
Imus."

Ooooh, scary!

Here it is:

"Deborah's "filthy little big pig" comment about
Sharpton is hard to interpret as anything but racist.
She is invited to try. She should not have said it.
It was very coarse and reflects poorly on the quality
of her upbringing. Her mother would be horrified."

It's hard to interpret Hunter's comment as anything but libel, since I
never posted the comment he claimed I posted. Hunter goes further when
he posts:

"I defended him [Sharpton] against Deborah's racist slur, but not
otherwise."

Hunter's mama, and maybe Patricia, would be horrified at his lies.

[dsharavi]

On Apr 25, 12:49 pm, NefeshBarYocahi <lbitf...@gmail.com> wrote:
> HHW is a stinky sort of Anti-Semite.  He smells bad and beats-off and
> obviously has no conscious.  He needs to be put down like a rabid dog.

But why did Hunter jack off then fart at the TV? What was he watching?
Celebrity Apprentice, and drooling at the porn star? Walking Dead, and
imaging dead walkers are Jews? Revenge, and imagining himself Emily
and her enemies are all Jews? Bugs Bunny, where Elmer is a Jew and
Bugs is not? GalaxyQuest, and Sarris is a Jew? Any? All? None?

[dsharavi]

Yasher koach, Wolf.

[NefeshBarYocahi]

All I know is one day not so long ago he was walking down the street.
He spied a small bluish gray poodle bitch and molested the poor animal
and now he has limes disease and the asshole is still trying to build
a sex life. I REPEAT HE SHOULD BE PUT DOWN LIKE A RABID DOG.

[HHW]

On Apr 27, 2:11 pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 27, 2:15 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:

The resumes are not literally on the table here on usenet. Don't try
to waste my time. So far you haven't seriously defended against what
I've said about Dershowitz's scholarly history. The last thing you're
going to do is make me chase around at your command on trivialities.
Nor are you going to make me argue the Finkelstein case in chief.
That's your job. There I will indulge the pleasures of the counter-
attack.

> Tell us why you agreed to compare the two
> if you think it doesn't matter.

Get used to it, I won't ever "agree" to do anything on your terms .
This is debate. It requires civility and logic. Nothing else. You're
not serious because you know it will continue to get worse for
Dershowitz. You're trying to find a distracting exit. As to my
attitude here, remember that Dershowitz was largely responsible for
driving Dr. Finkelstein out of his profession. He is now a very
productive independent scholar, but no longer a university professor.
Dershowitz's interferences with Finkelstein's book publication process
and with his tenure situation was inexcusable.

Before I forget to mention it you might ask yourself which "scholarly"
publications written by the Frankfurter Professor at Harvard Law have
been peer reviewed since the middle sixties? The ones which appeared
in "Penthouse" perhaps?

Explain to us how they could not know it. They are his colleagues. Do
you presume they have not looked at the resume which Professsor
Dershowitz himself published on the Harvard Law site?

> > > > > Professor Dershowitz is the author of 27 fiction
> > > > > and non-fiction works with a worldwide audience.
>
> > > > Fiction gets no one to the Frankfurter chair at Harvard Law. Neither
> > > > does non-fiction which is not of use to hard working American legal
> > > > scholars. That he has a world-wide audience as a public intellectual
> > > > did not and does not make him famous as a law professor.
>
> > Yet those who introduce his public lectures usually include the
> > Frankfurter Chair title even though it appears to have been hollow for
> > decades.
>
> > > > > His most recent titles include Rights From Wrong,
> > > > > The Case For Israel, The Case For Peace,
> > > > > Blasphemy: How the Religious Right is Hijacking
> > > > > the Declaration of Independence,
> > > > > Preemption: A Knife that Cuts Both Ways,
> > > > > Finding Jefferson - A Lost Letter, A Remarkable Discovery, and
> > > > > The First Amendment In An Age of Terrorism, and
> > > > > The Case For Moral Clarity: Israel, Hamas and Gaza.
>
> > > > I believe that none of this was published by a legal publishing house.

I also don't see how any of it could have been peer reviewed within
the legal profession. On both of those matters I stand ready to be
corrected.

> > > > Check it out. In my opinion little of this can be said to have been
> > > > written in his scholarly capacity as the Frankfurter Professor of Law
> > > > at Harvard for use by serious legal scholars whose business it is to
> > > > inform the profession about the ever changing state of the law. They
> > > > don't even look to popular magazines for legal materials. They look at
> > > > statutes, case law, regulations, cutting edge litigation, legal
> > > > journals and law reviews et al. They are serious scholars, not
> > > > gadflies.
>
> > > Don't bother telling me that judges and juries
> > > aren't influenced by public opinion.
>
> > They are ethically required to resist it manfully, or as gender
> > requires. Ask any principled conservative.
>
> > > It gets to them, somehow.
>
> > And........
>
> > > And you won't understand "the ever changing state of the law"
> > > unless you get into the changing world.
>

> > It is required to come through the briefs of counsel and be consistent

> > with the law of evidence, not the back door. That's not to say there
> > have been no exceptions. We're in such an era now. It happens from
> > both left and right.
>
> > > Works by Dershowitz and Colonel Richard Kemp help on that,
> > > from different areas of expertize.
> > > If that's not serious, I don't know what is.
>
> > You are suggesting that Dershowitz is hoping to have an ex-parte
> > effect on the judicial process. I doubt that. It's borderline
> > unethical. I think he aims at the political process, primarily on
> > behalf of of a foreign country. That's perfectly okay if you aren't
> > lobbying in the meaning of the statute without registration and he
> > isn't so far as I know. He is a professional public personality. His
> > credentials, history and public life are open to criticism and he has
> > dished it out to others in savage fashion.

And as to Dr. Finkelstein he's done worse. What he's done there was in
my opinion actionable. I have a right to an opinion as to what
Professor Dershowitz has done to others on the altar of Israel just as
I do on his publicly televised opinion that that the Zimmerman case in
Florida lacks probable cause even to be remanded for trial.

> Discussing the legal challenges
> of asymmetrical conflict with the general public,
> in print or by word, is not lobbying,
> and it's "on behalf of" any country
> which finds itself in such conflict.
> Do you know what lobbying is?

Yes, it's what AIPAC does, self-professedly, on behalf of the Asian
State of Israel. You're a fool to go there with hundreds of people
reading this and many circulating it privately. If you wish to learn
more give IRMEP a long look on the web.

> > > > > In addition to his numerous law review articles
>
> > > > He has not written numerous law review articles! If I recall correctly
> > > > there were a couple of obituaries in law reviews attributable to him.
> > > > He is primarily a journalist and polemicist. But then perhaps he has
> > > > written "numerous law review articles" in the last year or two---for
> > > > the first time.
>
> > As I said in my last post he hasn't written law review articles unless
> > the item in an Israeli Law Journal about "collateral damages" is an
> > exception. It' seems to be on an appropriate subject.

The subject might be appropriate but I'd not pre-judge the quality of
the article. I do wonder whether it was peer reviewed for publication
in an American Law Review.

> > > > and books
>
> > > > > about criminal and constitutional law,
>
> > > > There was a two book series written in the sixties. That's all on
> > > > serious legal matters for the profession. Look to the presses which
> > > > publish him.
>
> > > >  he has written, taught
>
> > > > > and lectured about history, philosophy, psychology, literature,
> > > > > mathematics, theology, music, sports - and even delicatessens.

> > > > You don't become a chaired professor of LAW at any great American law
> > > > school this way. Sports, delicatessens? This entire list is composed
> > > > of subjects which are in other disciplines. They do not represent the
> > > > systematic study of law which takes place in law schools. That body of
> > > > material is published by the legal press.

> > > Dershowitz teaches at Harvard, since age 25.
> > > I assume he does that "systematically".
>
> > You don't become a chaired professor of Law at Harvard without
> > publishing. You just DON'T.

As a matter of fact I don't think that one can remain a chaired
professor of law without publishing. Traditionally the honorific comes
as the result of it.

> > > He's one of the best known trial lawyers in America.
> > > He takes tough cases, and wins.

> > Does he do it from the office of Harvard's Frankfurter Chair? How does
> > he find the time to do these things? Just a question on subjects you
> > raise, mind you.
>
> > > He is knowledgeable, and lectures about,
> > > the above mentioned subjects.

Of course he is. All law professors are. My impression is that most of
his lectures are given to laymen, but I might be wrong. Help us out.

> > > Where do you want to go with this
> > > "Sports, delicatessens?" derision?

You published it. Where did you want to go?

> > I've already been there specifically unless you've deleted it.

> > > > > (Edited slightly from his own
> > > > > blog,http://www.alandershowitz.com/biography.php)
>
> > > > > Finkelstein's credentials don't come close.
>
> > > > His Yale or Princeton PhD is in political science and he is a
> > > > disciplined and respected historian known for meticulous research.
>
> > > "Meticulous research"?
> > > How long did it take him to get his PhD?
>
> > Aren't you trying to compare the seriousness and quality of their
> > published work? I'll respond to what you say.
>
> You said you admire Dr. Finkelstein.

Indeed I do. I admire his courage, his brilliant lectures, his
debating skills but most of all the clarity of his books which have
been translated into something over twenty-six languages if I recall
correctly.

> Since then I've been wondering why.
> As it appears, Dershowitz is smarter than Finkelstein,
> but I don't call him a genius.

You are entitled even to this baseless opinion, but it was not very
smart for Professor Dershowitz to write "The Case for Israel" knowing
that a "Beyond Chutzpah" could follow it up. Neither was it smart for
him to debate Dr. Finkelstein who is infinitely superior there.

> You can disagree with me,
> but why throw around words like "meticulous"?

Because in my opinion it describes the nature of both his research and
writing. One or two of Dr. Finkelstein's older publications has
appeared to some to be a bit argumentative, but none has has suffered
credible, objective rebuttal on the facts. And as time goes on Dr.
Finkelstein's work becomes better and better. Go to Amazon. Read his
books. Don't just attack him for political purposes.

> > > > Apparently Dershowits' terminal degree was simply a JD. They are
> > > > churned out by the tens of thousands. Hell, I have one.

> > > > > Dershowitz wrote a book, "The Case for Israel"
> > > > > which Finkelstein criticized.
> > > > > Finkelstein's claims appear to be mostly correct,
>
> > > > Mostly, indeed. He devastated "The Case for Israel" through use of the
> > > > standards which apply to all professional scholars.
>
> > > Can you remind me where he proves Dershowitz wrong?
> > > If you can't, "devastated" is a poor description of what he did.
>
> > If you need reminding, read it again. What do you say that we go
> > through Finkelstein's rejoinder to The Case for Israel line by line?
> > My copy is up north. I can bring it back in the fall.
>
> So, for the time being, "devastated" is just a bluff.

I don't bluff. It's not even tempting given the side of these debates
I inhabit. Israel's record is also "devastating". I've read both of
the books. That is my conclusion based upon that experience. 95% of my
large private library is not available to me here.

> > > > > but he's just looking for anything he can find
> > > > > to embarrass Dershowitz.

> > > > Dershowitz is his adversary regarding the oppression of the
> > > > Palestinian people and the future of Israel. They are not old friends.
> > > > You can learn about Dershowitz's war against him on Finkelstein's web
> > > > site.

> > > > > Imagine reading a book several times, saying to oneself each time,
> > > > > "maybe this is wrong", "maybe that's a mistake".
> > > > > And in the end, all he comes up with is cheap nitpicking.

> > > > You don't know what you are speaking of. Try systematic and
> > > > unattributed appropriation of another's work as your own. There was no
> > > > nitpicking. Dershowitz was playing fast and loose to the galleries and
> > > > got caught.


> > > He should have mentioned the source in footnotes,
> > > but the book is Dershowitz's.

> > It was the behavior of a delinquent college sophomore.

It was definitely not "the contribution" of the book. It contained
many such contributions. I wrote a review of it once and sent it to a
friend on your side of the fence, Prof. Werner Cohn. I'll look for it.

> I said an argument to support that claim
> would have made a meaningful debate.
> If you think an attempt to "whitewash Israeli criminality"
> is not far more meaningful than the issues Finkelstein raised,
> I can only wonder why.

It's because of Finkelstein's superior intellectual and acacemic
standards----and intellectual honesty.

It's honest.

> Is it just a way of running away without appearing to do so,
> in your own eyes at least?>

Running away?! I will be happy to see this continue indefinitely.
You're preparing your own exit here, Zev.

[HHW]

I don't want to perpetrate anti-Semitic speech, but please tell us
Yochai. Is this sort of talk characteristic of Jews or are you just an
exception?

[PaxPerPoten]

Yochai is not a Jew. He is merely one of their idiot pets. His highest
achievement is to suck on controlled substances and Jew rectums.

[HHW]

The resumes are not literally on the table here on usenet. Don't try
to waste my time. So far you haven't seriously defended against what
I've said about Dershowitz's scholarly history. The last thing you're
going to do is make me chase around at your command on trivialities.
Nor are you going to make me argue the Finkelstein case in chief.
That's your job. There I will indulge the pleasures of the counter-
attack.

> Tell us why you agreed to compare the two
> if you think it doesn't matter.

Get used to it, I won't ever "agree" to do anything on your terms .
This is debate. It requires civility and logic. Nothing else. You're
not serious because you know it will continue to get worse for
Dershowitz. You're trying to find a distracting exit. As to my
attitude here, remember that Dershowitz was largely responsible for
driving Dr. Finkelstein out of his profession. He is now a very
productive independent scholar, but no longer a university professor.
Dershowitz's interferences with Finkelstein's book publication process
and with his tenure situation was inexcusable.

Before I forget to mention it you might ask yourself which "scholarly"
publications written by the Frankfurter Professor at Harvard Law have
been peer reviewed since the middle sixties? The ones which appeared
in "Penthouse" perhaps?

Explain to us how they could not know it. They are his colleagues. Do
you presume they have not looked at the resume which Professsor
Dershowitz himself published on the Harvard Law site?

> > > > > Professor Dershowitz is the author of 27 fiction
> > > > > and non-fiction works with a worldwide audience.
>
> > > > Fiction gets no one to the Frankfurter chair at Harvard Law. Neither
> > > > does non-fiction which is not of use to hard working American legal
> > > > scholars. That he has a world-wide audience as a public intellectual
> > > > did not and does not make him famous as a law professor.
>
> > Yet those who introduce his public lectures usually include the
> > Frankfurter Chair title even though it appears to have been hollow for
> > decades.
>
> > > > > His most recent titles include Rights From Wrong,
> > > > > The Case For Israel, The Case For Peace,
> > > > > Blasphemy: How the Religious Right is Hijacking
> > > > > the Declaration of Independence,
> > > > > Preemption: A Knife that Cuts Both Ways,
> > > > > Finding Jefferson - A Lost Letter, A Remarkable Discovery, and
> > > > > The First Amendment In An Age of Terrorism, and
> > > > > The Case For Moral Clarity: Israel, Hamas and Gaza.
>
> > > > I believe that none of this was published by a legal publishing house.

I also don't see how any of it could have been peer reviewed within
the legal profession. On both of those matters I stand ready to be
corrected.

> > > > Check it out. In my opinion little of this can be said to have been
> > > > written in his scholarly capacity as the Frankfurter Professor of Law
> > > > at Harvard for use by serious legal scholars whose business it is to
> > > > inform the profession about the ever changing state of the law. They
> > > > don't even look to popular magazines for legal materials. They look at
> > > > statutes, case law, regulations, cutting edge litigation, legal
> > > > journals and law reviews et al. They are serious scholars, not
> > > > gadflies.
>
> > > Don't bother telling me that judges and juries
> > > aren't influenced by public opinion.
>
> > They are ethically required to resist it manfully, or as gender
> > requires. Ask any principled conservative.
>
> > > It gets to them, somehow.
>
> > And........
>
> > > And you won't understand "the ever changing state of the law"
> > > unless you get into the changing world.
>

> > It is required to come through the briefs of counsel and be consistent

> > with the law of evidence, not the back door. That's not to say there
> > have been no exceptions. We're in such an era now. It happens from
> > both left and right.
>
> > > Works by Dershowitz and Colonel Richard Kemp help on that,
> > > from different areas of expertize.
> > > If that's not serious, I don't know what is.
>
> > You are suggesting that Dershowitz is hoping to have an ex-parte
> > effect on the judicial process. I doubt that. It's borderline
> > unethical. I think he aims at the political process, primarily on
> > behalf of of a foreign country. That's perfectly okay if you aren't
> > lobbying in the meaning of the statute without registration and he
> > isn't so far as I know. He is a professional public personality. His
> > credentials, history and public life are open to criticism and he has
> > dished it out to others in savage fashion.

And as to Dr. Finkelstein he's done worse. What he's done there was in
my opinion actionable. I have a right to an opinion as to what
Professor Dershowitz has done to others on the altar of Israel just as
I do on his publicly televised opinion that that the Zimmerman case in
Florida lacks probable cause even to be remanded for trial.

> Discussing the legal challenges
> of asymmetrical conflict with the general public,
> in print or by word, is not lobbying,
> and it's "on behalf of" any country
> which finds itself in such conflict.
> Do you know what lobbying is?

Yes, it's what AIPAC does, self-professedly, on behalf of the Asian
State of Israel. You're a fool to go there with hundreds of people
reading this and many circulating it privately. If you wish to learn
more give IRMEP a long look on the web.

> > > > > In addition to his numerous law review articles
>
> > > > He has not written numerous law review articles! If I recall correctly
> > > > there were a couple of obituaries in law reviews attributable to him.
> > > > He is primarily a journalist and polemicist. But then perhaps he has
> > > > written "numerous law review articles" in the last year or two---for
> > > > the first time.
>
> > As I said in my last post he hasn't written law review articles unless
> > the item in an Israeli Law Journal about "collateral damages" is an
> > exception. It' seems to be on an appropriate subject.

The subject might be appropriate but I'd not pre-judge the quality of
the article. I do wonder whether it was peer reviewed for publication
in an American Law Review.

> > > > and books
>
> > > > > about criminal and constitutional law,
>
> > > > There was a two book series written in the sixties. That's all on
> > > > serious legal matters for the profession. Look to the presses which
> > > > publish him.
>
> > > >  he has written, taught
>
> > > > > and lectured about history, philosophy, psychology, literature,
> > > > > mathematics, theology, music, sports - and even delicatessens.

> > > > You don't become a chaired professor of LAW at any great American law
> > > > school this way. Sports, delicatessens? This entire list is composed
> > > > of subjects which are in other disciplines. They do not represent the
> > > > systematic study of law which takes place in law schools. That body of
> > > > material is published by the legal press.

> > > Dershowitz teaches at Harvard, since age 25.
> > > I assume he does that "systematically".
>
> > You don't become a chaired professor of Law at Harvard without
> > publishing. You just DON'T.

As a matter of fact I don't think that one can remain a chaired
professor of law without publishing. Traditionally the honorific comes
as the result of it.

> > > He's one of the best known trial lawyers in America.
> > > He takes tough cases, and wins.

> > Does he do it from the office of Harvard's Frankfurter Chair? How does
> > he find the time to do these things? Just a question on subjects you
> > raise, mind you.
>
> > > He is knowledgeable, and lectures about,
> > > the above mentioned subjects.

Of course he is. All law professors are. My impression is that most of
his lectures are given to laymen, but I might be wrong. Help us out.

> > > Where do you want to go with this
> > > "Sports, delicatessens?" derision?

You published it. Where did you want to go?

> > I've already been there specifically unless you've deleted it.

> > > > > (Edited slightly from his own
> > > > > blog,http://www.alandershowitz.com/biography.php)
>
> > > > > Finkelstein's credentials don't come close.
>
> > > > His Yale or Princeton PhD is in political science and he is a
> > > > disciplined and respected historian known for meticulous research.
>
> > > "Meticulous research"?
> > > How long did it take him to get his PhD?
>
> > Aren't you trying to compare the seriousness and quality of their
> > published work? I'll respond to what you say.
>
> You said you admire Dr. Finkelstein.

Indeed I do. I admire his courage, his brilliant lectures, his
debating skills but most of all the clarity of his books which have
been translated into something over twenty-six languages if I recall
correctly.

> Since then I've been wondering why.
> As it appears, Dershowitz is smarter than Finkelstein,
> but I don't call him a genius.

You are entitled even to this baseless opinion, but it was not very
smart for Professor Dershowitz to write "The Case for Israel" knowing
that a "Beyond Chutzpah" could follow it up. Neither was it smart for
him to debate Dr. Finkelstein who is infinitely superior there.

> You can disagree with me,
> but why throw around words like "meticulous"?

Because in my opinion it describes the nature of both his research and
writing. One or two of Dr. Finkelstein's older publications has
appeared to some to be a bit argumentative, but none has has suffered
credible, objective rebuttal on the facts. And as time goes on Dr.
Finkelstein's work becomes better and better. Go to Amazon. Read his
books. Don't just attack him for political purposes.

> > > > Apparently Dershowits' terminal degree was simply a JD. They are
> > > > churned out by the tens of thousands. Hell, I have one.

> > > > > Dershowitz wrote a book, "The Case for Israel"
> > > > > which Finkelstein criticized.
> > > > > Finkelstein's claims appear to be mostly correct,
>
> > > > Mostly, indeed. He devastated "The Case for Israel" through use of the
> > > > standards which apply to all professional scholars.
>
> > > Can you remind me where he proves Dershowitz wrong?
> > > If you can't, "devastated" is a poor description of what he did.
>
> > If you need reminding, read it again. What do you say that we go
> > through Finkelstein's rejoinder to The Case for Israel line by line?
> > My copy is up north. I can bring it back in the fall.
>
> So, for the time being, "devastated" is just a bluff.

I don't bluff. It's not even tempting given the side of these debates
I inhabit. Israel's record is also "devastating". I've read both of
the books. That is my conclusion based upon that experience. 95% of my
large private library is not available to me here.

> > > > > but he's just looking for anything he can find
> > > > > to embarrass Dershowitz.

> > > > Dershowitz is his adversary regarding the oppression of the
> > > > Palestinian people and the future of Israel. They are not old friends.
> > > > You can learn about Dershowitz's war against him on Finkelstein's web
> > > > site.

> > > > > Imagine reading a book several times, saying to oneself each time,
> > > > > "maybe this is wrong", "maybe that's a mistake".
> > > > > And in the end, all he comes up with is cheap nitpicking.

> > > > You don't know what you are speaking of. Try systematic and
> > > > unattributed appropriation of another's work as your own. There was no
> > > > nitpicking. Dershowitz was playing fast and loose to the galleries and
> > > > got caught.


> > > He should have mentioned the source in footnotes,
> > > but the book is Dershowitz's.

> > It was the behavior of a delinquent college sophomore.

It was definitely not "the contribution" of the book. It contained
many such contributions. I wrote a review of it once and sent it to a
friend on your side of the fence, Prof. Werner Cohn. I'll look for it.

> I said an argument to support that claim
> would have made a meaningful debate.
> If you think an attempt to "whitewash Israeli criminality"
> is not far more meaningful than the issues Finkelstein raised,
> I can only wonder why.

It's because of Finkelstein's superior intellectual and acacemic
standards----and intellectual honesty.


>

It's honest.

> Is it just a way of running away without appearing to do so,
> in your own eyes at least?>

[NefeshBarYocahi]

> exception?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Look, you simpleton sons the bitch, HaShem will now punish you and
will continue punishing you until you apologize to all the Jews in
these Newsgroups that you have offended with anti-Semitic hate
speech. Now fuck the hell of and die asshole.

[NefeshBarYocahi]

> achievement is to suck on controlled substances and Jew rectums.- Hide quoted text -

[NEMO]

Don Ocean/PaxPerPoten is a

\\\\\Y//////
^
( )
I I
I I
OI IO

& a really big one!

[NEMO]

HHW is a

[drahcir]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:48:08 -0700 (PDT), HHW
<coaste...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Apr 24, 4:02 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 24, 9:15 pm, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> > > > > > I admire Dr. Finkelstein, but I 'follow' no one.
>>
>> > > > > Compare his resume, his life's work, with Dershowitz's.
>
>> > > > That's easy. You shouldn't make such suggestions without knowing the
>> > > > outcome in advance. I've already described the contents of
>> > > > Dershowitz's CV here a couple of times. It's pathetic.
>
>I know what law professors at great institutions do for a living.
>Again, his CV is pathetic.
>

>> > > So is your ongoing fantazia, dinobrain.
>

>> He has also published more than 100 articles in magazines and journals
>> such as The New York Times Magazine, The Washington Post,
>> The Wall Street Journal, The New Republic, The Nation, Commentary,
>> Saturday Review, The Harvard Law Review and the Yale Law Journal,
>> and more than 300 of his articles have appeared
>> in syndication in 50 national daily newspapers.
>
>Yes, in his career as a public intellectual he has actually published
>something over 600 such articles. I don't know if they are still on
>his faculty web site or not but they certainly were when I looked into
>the matter. Virtually all them were addressed to the general public
>and many are political and polemical in nature with a strong tendency
>toward the defense of Israeli interests in the context of U.S.
>politics. Virtually none of this is of assistance to legal scholars
>doing research for placement in serious legal publications. His
>colleagues at Harvard have to know this.
>
>

>> Professor Dershowitz is the author of 27 fiction
>> and non-fiction works with a worldwide audience.
>
>Fiction gets no one to the Frankfurter chair at Harvard Law. Neither
>does non-fiction which is not of use to hard working American legal
>scholars. That he has a world-wide audience as a public intellectual
>did not and does not make him famous as a law professor.
>
>

>> His most recent titles include Rights From Wrong,
>> The Case For Israel, The Case For Peace,
>> Blasphemy: How the Religious Right is Hijacking
>> the Declaration of Independence,
>> Preemption: A Knife that Cuts Both Ways,
>> Finding Jefferson - A Lost Letter, A Remarkable Discovery, and
>> The First Amendment In An Age of Terrorism, and
>> The Case For Moral Clarity: Israel, Hamas and Gaza.
>
>I believe that none of this was published by a legal publishing house.

>Check it out. In my opinion little of this can be said to have been
>written in his scholarly capacity as the Frankfurter Professor of Law
>at Harvard for use by serious legal scholars whose business it is to
>inform the profession about the ever changing state of the law. They
>don't even look to popular magazines for legal materials. They look at
>statutes, case law, regulations, cutting edge litigation, legal
>journals and law reviews et al. They are serious scholars, not
>gadflies.
>

>> In addition to his numerous law review articles
>
>He has not written numerous law review articles!

I'm going to presume that Zev pulled this bio from HLS's website. Are
you suggesting that HLS is lying? If so, why don't you write to them
with this accusation?

If I recall correctly
>there were a couple of obituaries in law reviews attributable to him.
>He is primarily a journalist and polemicist. But then perhaps he has
>written "numerous law review articles" in the last year or two---for
>the first time.
>
>

>and books
>> about criminal and constitutional law,
>
>There was a two book series written in the sixties. That's all on
>serious legal matters for the profession. Look to the presses which
>publish him.

No, it's up to YOU to prove that HLS is lying when they cite AD's
"numerou" books about criminal and constitutional law. Don't you see,
H, that you come off sounding like a loon? You actually believe that
HLS is going to hire an incompetent and then lie about his
incompetency - that is the mark of insanity. Step back for a moment
and you'll see I'm right.

>
>
> he has written, taught
>> and lectured about history, philosophy, psychology, literature,
>> mathematics, theology, music, sports - and even delicatessens.
>
>You don't become a chaired professor of LAW at any great American law
>school this way. Sports, delicatessens? This entire list is composed
>of subjects which are in other disciplines. They do not represent the
>systematic study of law which takes place in law schools. That body of
>material is published by the legal press.
>

>> (Edited slightly from his own blog,http://www.alandershowitz.com/biography.php)
>>
>> Finkelstein's credentials don't come close.
>
>His Yale or Princeton PhD is in political science and he is a
>disciplined and respected historian known for meticulous research.

>Apparently Dershowits' terminal degree was simply a JD. They are
>churned out by the tens of thousands. Hell, I have one.
>
>> Dershowitz wrote a book, "The Case for Israel"
>> which Finkelstein criticized.
>> Finkelstein's claims appear to be mostly correct,
>
>Mostly, indeed. He devastated "The Case for Israel" through use of the
>standards which apply to all professional scholars.
>
>

>> but he's just looking for anything he can find
>> to embarrass Dershowitz.
>
>Dershowitz is his adversary regarding the oppression of the
>Palestinian people and the future of Israel. They are not old friends.
>You can learn about Dershowitz's war against him on Finkelstein's web
>site.
>
>> Imagine reading a book several times, saying to oneself each time,
>> "maybe this is wrong", "maybe that's a mistake".
>> And in the end, all he comes up with is cheap nitpicking.
>
>You don't know what you are speaking of. Try systematic and
>unattributed appropriation of another's work as your own. There was no
>nitpicking. Dershowitz was playing fast and loose to the galleries and

>got caught. That and his failed scholarly record probably would have

>cost anyone else his position. He represents lots of power. By the
>way, his book was pure politics aimed at the American audience in his
>capacity as a prominent member of the Israel Lobby. It badly needed to
>be set to rights. Doing it was a great public service to the American
>people.
>
>> The  contribution of the book is the treatment of collateral damage,
>> of the continuum from combatant to civilian.
>> These are legal issues.
>

>These were the white washing of Israeli criminality aimed primarily at

[HHW]

On Apr 27, 7:10 pm, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:48:08 -0700 (PDT), HHW
>

Go ahead, do so. Why should I bother to correct such as you. You're
incompetent.

Are
> you suggesting that HLS is lying?

As I say, you're incompetent.

If so, why don't you write to them
> with this accusation?

Which one, yours above to the effect that Harvard Law is somehow
lying? Again, you are simply not competent to enter this discussion,
Ratner.

> If I recall correctly
>
> >there were a couple of obituaries in law reviews attributable to him.
> >He is primarily a journalist and polemicist. But then perhaps he has
> >written "numerous law review articles" in the last year or two---for
> >the first time.
>
> >and books
> >> about criminal and constitutional law,
>
> >There was a two book series written in the sixties. That's all on
> >serious legal matters for the profession. Look to the presses which
> >publish him.
>
> No, it's up to YOU to prove that HLS is lying

You are such a fool. Zev will set you straight with an ex-parte email.
I'm just going to let you continue to turn in the wind.

when they cite AD's
> "numerou" books about criminal and constitutional law. Don't you see,
> H, that you come off sounding like a loon? You actually believe that
> HLS is going to hire an incompetent and then lie about his
> incompetency - that is the mark of insanity. Step back for a moment
> and you'll see I'm right.

You are out of your depth. Based on his own listings at Harvard and on
his own web site, Professor Dershowitz, the Frankfurter Chair, has
published nothing significant in the legal press directed to legal
scholars and the practicing bar for decades, probably not since the
sixties. Now I suppose it is theoretically possible he has published
such things but suppressed them from the CVs, but that is certainly
counter-intuitive. I accept the information in his CVs, the one at
Harvard more so as it is or was far more complete. A little heads-up
for you regarding a possible exception. It appears he may have
published an article in an Israel law review on a subject of great
interest there among military and political figures concerned about
international prosecutions. The subject is said to be collateral
damage.

Zev, that's inaccurate, grossly so.

[Zev]

On Apr 27, 10:11 pm, dsharavi <dshara...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 27, 2:15 am, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 27, 1:19 am, HHW <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Yasher koach, Wolf.

"Hatzayad" hoo teref kal...

Todah v'shavua tov.

[Zev]

On Apr 28, 3:10 am, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:48:08 -0700 (PDT), HHW
> <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 24, 4:02 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I'm going to presume that Zev pulled this bio from HLS's website. Are
> you suggesting that HLS is lying? If so, why don't you write to them
> with this accusation?

I quoted, with slight changes, from AD's blog,
and said so in the post which quotes it.
But H hasn't called it into question and
he doesn't claim that HLS is substantially different.
We could all save time if he would come to the point.

[Zev]

You said you admire Finkelstein.
I asked to compare his resume etc. with Dershowitz's.
You accepted the challenge, but now you say you won't.
You're wasting your time and mine.

> > Tell us why you agreed to compare the two
> > if you think it doesn't matter.
>
> Get used to it, I won't ever "agree" to do anything on your terms .
> This is debate. It requires civility and logic. Nothing else. You're
> not serious because you know it will continue to get worse for
> Dershowitz. You're trying to find a distracting exit. As to my
> attitude here, remember that Dershowitz was largely responsible for
> driving Dr. Finkelstein out of his profession. He is now a very
> productive independent scholar, but no longer a university professor.
> Dershowitz's interferences with Finkelstein's book publication process
> and with his tenure situation was inexcusable.

If you see debate in our correspondence
you don't know what debate is.

Hunter, that was exactly my point.

I assume this means that you understand
that Dershowitz doesn't lobby.
I can only guess why you implied that he does.

No support whatsoever for your "devastated" claim?

That's why you think "an attempt to whitewash Israeli criminality
is not far more meaningful than the issues Finkelstein raised???

[HHW]

On Apr 28, 2:41 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 28, 3:10 am, drahcir <s...@sgscc.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:48:08 -0700 (PDT), HHW
> > <coaster132...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >On Apr 24, 4:02 pm, Zev <zev_h...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I'm going to presume that Zev pulled this bio from HLS's website. Are
> > you suggesting that HLS is lying? If so, why don't you write to them
> > with this accusation?
>
> I quoted, with slight changes, from AD's blog,
> and said so in the post which quotes it.

Thanks for saying so publicly instead of in a private e-mail.

> But H hasn't called it into question and
> he doesn't claim that HLS is substantially different.
> We could all save time if he would come to the point.

I've come to the point repeatedly. Professor Dershowitz, according to
the evidence of his own bibliographies, has not published a body of
legal scholarship in the professional press or anywhere else which
could be of significant interest to the American bench, bar or to
academic legal scholars.

This apparent fact, based on his own published bibliographies, begs
questions. If my personal conclusions are correct, how is it that he
has remained all these years the holder in apparent good standing of
the Felix Frankfurter Chair at Harvard Law without performing and
publishing serious professional research of interest and use to the
profession? Was a sinecure created for him? If so, for what purpose?

So far as Professor Dershowitz's original bibliography/CV on the
Harvard Law website is concerned, it listed something like six hundred
publications. After I wrote an e-mail to the Law School's Dean
pointing out its non-scholarly nature it was edited and re-ordered. I
haven't been back there since, but now, thanks to Zev, there is a
personal web site or blog. The periodical publications there are cut
back to roughly a hundred and ten or so articles and there is still
nothing among books of significant interest to research-oriented legal
professionals. According to Zev he was appointed to the Frankfurter
Chair at age 37. He must now be in his sixties. I understand he is
writing an opera.

[drahcir]

AAAAAAHAHAHAHA! Look at H! He's sticking out his chest, so proud he is
that Zev's quote is not from HLS and my presumption was wrong. That
does not make me invompetent, H. It makes me lazy.

>
>
> Are
>> you suggesting that HLS is lying?
>
>As I say, you're incompetent.
>
>If so, why don't you write to them
>> with this accusation?
>
>Which one, yours above to the effect that Harvard Law is somehow
>lying? Again, you are simply not competent to enter this discussion,
>Ratner.

H, give it a rest. I'll allow my incompetence but just think how that
incompetence has forced you to flee nearly every discussion you've
shared with it. Here's the most recent one, form elsewhere in this
very thread:

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.usa/msg/da64ed03b5b7c5fb?hl=en

Of course, the reason you want to pounce on this, besides that you so
feel the need to try to "win one" with me, is that you want to
distract that you cannot refute Zev's quote, regardless of where it
comse from.

>> If I recall correctly
>>
>> >there were a couple of obituaries in law reviews attributable to him.
>> >He is primarily a journalist and polemicist. But then perhaps he has
>> >written "numerous law review articles" in the last year or two---for
>> >the first time.
>>
>> >and books
>> >> about criminal and constitutional law,
>>
>> >There was a two book series written in the sixties. That's all on
>> >serious legal matters for the profession. Look to the presses which
>> >publish him.
>>
>> No, it's up to YOU to prove that HLS is lying
>
>
>You are such a fool. Zev will set you straight with an ex-parte email.
>I'm just going to let you continue to turn in the wind.

It's still up to YOU to prove Zev's quote erroneous. You're grasping
at straws, H. My laziness won't allow you to escape.

>
>when they cite AD's
>> "numerou" books about criminal and constitutional law. Don't you see,
>> H, that you come off sounding like a loon? You actually believe that
>> HLS is going to hire an incompetent and then lie about his
>> incompetency - that is the mark of insanity. Step back for a moment
>> and you'll see I'm right.
>
>You are out of your depth. Based on his own listings at Harvard and on
>his own web site, Professor Dershowitz, the Frankfurter Chair, has
>published nothing significant in the legal press directed to legal
>scholars and the practicing bar for decades, probably not since the
>sixties. Now I suppose it is theoretically possible he has published
>such things but suppressed them from the CVs, but that is certainly
>counter-intuitive. I accept the information in his CVs, the one at
>Harvard more so as it is or was far more complete. A little heads-up
>for you regarding a possible exception. It appears he may have
>published an article in an Israel law review on a subject of great
>interest there among military and political figures concerned about
>international prosecutions. The subject is said to be collateral
>damage.

H, you still don't get it. Do you "think" Harvard, the greatest law
school in the entire country, will hire someone who is a sub-par
scholar? Is this really what you believe? How did that happen, H/ The
Jooish Conspiracy? Regardless of the source of Zev's quote, that still
makes you rather off your rocker, no?

[drahcir]

Oh geez, I tihnk I got it now. I decided to visit the HLS web page for
AD. I'm gonna guess that you're basing your entire theory of AD's lack
of scholarly writing on his bibliography on that page. IF THAT IS NOT
TRUE, LIST YOUR SOURCES. THere's only one problem with that: there is
no publication written before 1996 there. PRoblem is, he's been a full
prof at HLS since 1967, and he certainly couldn't have joined the
faculty without VERY SUBSTANTIAL scholarly writing before that time.
If you deny that you've made this error, prove it. No denial means
acceptance that I am correct.