Under the guise of taking apart Dershowitz’s political-legal analyses Finkelstein gets off some nice shots: his victim is a “notorious serial prevaricator� and “moral pervert� who “mounts his case from multiple angles, sometimes implicitly, sometimes explicitly, but always falsely.�
Aaah, the sweet art of the ad hominem academic slapdown.
Overall the piece is a lot of fun, and provides some nice ammo for after-dinner arguments. Finkelstein’s comments on civilian culpability and casualties, and the implications of blurring civilian/military distinctions are one high point. Another comes at the very end where, well, he answers the question raised in the title.
In the same vein (readable, consumer level stuff on international law) Philippe Sands’s Lawless World provides a good clear primer on the political/judicial terrain over which Finkelstein and Dershowitz are punching each other’s lights out.
“moral pervert”- I love it!
Sad to see Dershowitz, who used to be such a strong defender of the First Amendment, succumb to nativism. I thought it was mostly after the second intifada but Finkelstein suggests it came earlier – hmm.
Even Michael Walzer, who made such uncompromising moral arguments for noncombatant immunity in his Just and Unjust Wars, has sunk to convoluted rationalizations for Israel’s attacks on Lebanese civilians. Shame on him.
http://www.tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20060731&s=walzer073106