Dershowitz responds
Your readers should know that the letter from Sarah Weir
(Viewpoint, Oct. 24) is part of a widespread, coordinated and
well-funded campaign to attack my book, “The Case for
Israel,” not on its merits, but instead by raising phony
issues regarding my integrity and credibility. Similar campaigns
were conducted by the same zealous, anti-Israel bigots against
numerous other writers such as Elie Weisel, Sir Martin Gilbert,
Burt Nuborn, the Honorable Stewart Eisenstadt and David Goldhagen
who were perceived as pro-Israel or favorable to justice for Jewish
Holocaust survivors.
The plagiarism charge is a smoke screen and utterly without
merit, as determined by several objective experts, such as the
former president of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. The
charge itself is absurd in its face. Every single quote in my book
is within quotation marks. The accusation is that I cited these
quotes to their original source rather than to the secondary source
which the accusers claim is where I first came across the quotes.
Citing original sources is the preferred form, however, according
to the authoritative style manuals. Moreover, I originally found
many of these quotes in other books and have been using them for
years with proper attribution.
My accusers know their plagiarism accusation is totally false.
Why then do they make it? The answer is clear: to intimidate other
professors, especially those without tenure, from writing
pro-Israel books. The message they are sending is unambiguous.
Anyone writing a book favorable to Israel will be subject to false,
though potentially damaging, attacks on their integrity. This form
of literary McCarthyism has become a pattern that must be exposed,
along with those who are employing it.
Alan Dershowitz Professor, Harvard Law
School
Terrorism needs new answer
The U.S. military currently enjoys conventional dominance in
combat. However, no level of sophistication or technology applied
conventionally can detect, prevent, or counter a suicide
attack.
Random attacks on civilian targets create an asymmetrical
situation where terrorists exploit the vulnerabilities which
conventional forces cannot defend. The recent suicide bombings in
Iraq serve as an example. The terrorists responsible for the attack
on the Al-Rashid hotel and the International Red Cross gained a
political victory by instilling a climate of fear throughout the
city. The terrorists are waging a no-holds-barred attempt to
sabotage the reconstruction of Iraq and undermine American resolve.
This should be taken as a warning of the lack of forethought that
has gone into securing civilian sites in Iraq.
Policy makers in Washington must change the paradigm. To win the
war on terrorism, the nation will need well-trained,
well-conditioned graduates that are versed in the means and methods
of asymmetric warfare. In short we must out-think our enemy in
order to succeed.
Jorge Magdaleno Fourth year, political
science
Men have no right to choose
It never fails: A journalist or commentator attempts to get the
scientific word out about an emotionally-charged, political issue
such as abortion and the carnival nuts come out of the orchard.
The problem with the two letters printed on Oct. 27 is complex.
First, men have no ownership of the abortion issue. Moreover, the
men who wrote the letters are telling horror stories in order to
influence political decisions; please, guys, we need no more of
this. No less telling than these two criteria, the men who wrote
the letters have no scientific credentials.
No ownership, no journalistic ethics, no credentials.
What’s wrong with this picture?
Frances Goff UCLA staff and alumna