Yes, these are dire political times. Many who optimistically hoped for real change have spent nearly five years under the cold downpour of political reality. Here at CounterPunch we’ve always aimed to tell it like it is, without illusions or despair. That’s why so many of you have found a refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us that you love CounterPunch because the quality of the writing you find here in the original articles we offer every day and because we never flinch under fire. We appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles to come.
Unlike other outfits, we don’t hit you up for money every month … or even every quarter. We ask only once a year. But when we ask, we mean it.
CounterPunch’s website is supported almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our magazine. We aren’t on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations. George Soros doesn’t have us on retainer. We don’t sell tickets on cruise liners. We don’t clog our site with deceptive corporate ads.
The continued existence of CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of our readers. We know there are a lot of you. We get thousands of emails from you every day. Our website receives millions of hits and nearly 100,000 readers each day. And we don’t charge you a dime.
Please, use our brand new secure shopping cart to make a tax-deductible donation to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription our monthly magazine and a gift sub for someone or one of our explosive books, including the ground-breaking Killing Trayvons. Show a little affection for subversion: consider an automated monthly donation. (We accept checks, credit cards, PayPal and cold-hard cash….)
To contribute by phone you can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683
Thank you for your support,
Jeffrey, Joshua, Becky, Deva, and Nathaniel
CounterPunch PO Box 228, Petrolia, CA 95558
Kay’s Misleading Report
Bush seized upon the report of David Kay, head of the Iraq Survey Group, to assert that Kay’s interim conclusions showed that Saddam had been in hot pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, as demonstrated in particular by the "deadly vial".
Kay made a cautious bid to help Bush and Blair out, but it’s a case of trying to bake bricks without straw. The best dissection of the Kay report came in The Independent from Dr Glen Rangwala of Cambridge (UK).
Kay stated flatly that his team had found
*no evidence of orders or plans to continue an active nuclear program after 1991. The aluminum tubes were not for the purposes of uranium enrichment.
*At the seven sites stigmatized in the September 2002 dossier of Blair’s government, there was no evidence of suspicious activities or residues.
*There was no sign of imported uranium.
There were no C/B "battlefield munitions" ready to be launched in 45 minutes.
There was no trace of "the chemical weapons, biological weapons, viruses, bacilli and10,000 liters of anthrax" invoked by UK foreign secretary Jack Straw.
Kay alleged that an Iraqi biologist had "a collection of reference strains" at his home, including "a vial of live C botulinum Okra B from which a biological agent can be produced." Straw leaped on this, claiming that this agent is 15,000 times stronger than the nerve agent VX. Wrong, says Rangwala. The vial held not the super deadly type A but the less lethal type B and there was no evidence found by Kay’s group of any preparations for the extensive process required for weaponization. Botulinum type B can be used as an antidote for common botulinum poisoning. The UK does so and calls them "seed banks".
Kay asserts that Iraq had been acquiring designs and undertaking "research" for missiles with a range of more than the UN limit of 150km. Rongwala says emphatically that Iraq was prohibited from actually having such missiles, and that Kay’s team had discovered no evidence of such possession or facilities, "just the knowledge to produce them in future".
Let me quote in full Rongwala’s final points, made in The Independent for October 5: "One sentence within the [Kay] report has been much quoted: Iraq had ‘a clandestine network of laboratories and safe houses within the Iraqi intelligence service that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research’. Note what that sentence does not say: these facilities were suitable for chemical and biological weapons research (as almost any modern lab would be), not that they had engaged in such research. The reference to UN monitoring is also spurious: under the terms of UN resolutions, all of Iraq’s chemical and biological facilities are subject to monitoring. So all this tells us is that Iraq had modern laboratories."
White House, Downing Street, CIA and British Secret Service in Plot to Murder Leading Syrians
Maybe they are now, but the evidence is incontrovertible that just such a plot was being hatched back in 1957. Plus ca change.
On September 27 the London Guardian ran a long piece by Ben Fenton describing private papers excavated by a British historian from Royal Holloway University, Matthew Jones, from the archive of Duncan Sandys, British secretary of defense in the Conservative government of the late 1950s headed by Harold MacMillan.
Sandys’ papers contain a document drawn up by secret high level working group that met in Washington DC in September 1957.
This document is remarkable for the frankness with which it outlines plans for assassination ("eliminate")and subversion by Western intelligence services.
The "preferred plan" reads, in part, as follows: "In order to facilitate the action of liberative [sic] forces, reduce the capacity of the Syrian regime to organize and direct its military forces, to hold losses and destruction to a minimum, and to bring about desired results in the shortest possible time, a special effort should be made to eliminate certain key individuals. Their removal should be accomplished early in the course of the uprising"
The three individuals scheduled for assassination were named in the document approved by the Eisenhower administration and by MacMillan. They were Abd al-Hamid Sarraj, head of Syrian military intelligence; Afif al-Bizri, head of the Syrian general staff; and Khalid Bakdash, leader of the Syrian Communist Party.
MacMillan described the action plan as a "most formidable report" in his diary and ordered it be held secret from British chiefs of staff, because of their propensity "to chatter". The background of the report was the overthrow in 1954 of the conservative military regime of Col. Adib Shishakli by an alliance of the Syrian Ba’ath Party, Communist Party politicians and their allies in the Syrian army.
Kermit Roosevelt, the CIA’s Middle Eastern chief hot from a successful coup against Iran’s legitimately elected Mossadegh government, strongly urged a coup in Syria. The plan was for CIA and British SIS operatives to initiate "sabotage, national conspiracies and various strong-arm activities" in Iraq and Jordan which would then be blamed on Damascus. It emphasized that "in mounting "minor sabotage and coup de main incidents within Syria. Care should be taken to avoid causing key leaders of the Syrian regime to take additional personal protection measures."
In the end the plan was abandoned because Jordan and Iraq wouldn’t come aboard. The interest of the MacMillan government was of course to curry favor with the US, and patch things up after the US had spiked the UK attack on Nasser in 1956.
Dershowitz: The Case of the Plagiarist Prof (continued)
For those who care to follow such things, here is Prof Alan Dershowitz’s effort at rebuttal of my recent excavation of his plagiarisms in his awful book The Case for Israel. Dershowitz’s bluster is followed by my closing speech for the prosecution.
ALEXANDER COCKBURN’s politically motivated claim that I "plagiarized" from Joan Peters is total nonsense Let’s begin with what is undisputed: Every word written by others appears with quotation marks, is cited to their original or secondary sources and is quoted accurately. This means that they are not plagiarized. James Freedman, the former president of Dartmouth and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, has concluded, after reviewing the relevant material, that what I did was "simply not plagiarism, under any reasonable definition of that word."
Cockburn’s claim is that some of the quotes should not have been cited to their original sources but rather to a secondary source, where he believes I stumbled upon them. Even if he were correct that I found all these quotations in Peters’s book, the preferred method of citation is to the original source, as the Chicago Manual of Style emphasizes: "With all reuse of others’ materials, it is important to identify the original as the source. This … helps avoid any accusation of plagiarism…To cite a source from a secondary source (‘quoted in …’) is generally to be discouraged…"
It is especially cynical that Cockburn would have me cite the quotes to Peters, since Norman Finkelstein-his source-has alleged that Peters herself originally found these and other quotes in earlier books. Should I have cited those books? That is why citing the original source is preferred.
I came across the quoted material in several secondary sources. They appear frequently in discussions of nineteenth-century Palestine. The Mark Twain quote, highlighted by Cockburn, appears in many books about the subject. I came across it in 1970 while preparing a debate about Israel for The Advocates. Cockburn also points out that I quote some of the same material from the Peel Report that Peters quotes, but he fails to mention that I also use many quotes from the report that do not appear in Peters’s book. I read the entire report and decided which parts to quote. I rely heavily on the Peel Report, devoting an entire chapter (six) to its findings. They are quoted directly, with proper attribution.
Cockburn refers to Finkelstein’s "devastating chart," which compares several quotes from my books with quotes from Peters’s book. By juxtaposing these quotes, he makes it appear that I am borrowing words from her. But these are all quotes-properly cited in my book-from third parties. Of course they are similar, or the same. One does not change a quote. And since I did find some of the quotes in Peters’s book, as she found them in others, it should come as no surprise that the ellipses are sometimes similar or the same.
It is important to recall that my book is a brief for Israel. It does not purport to be a work of original demographic research, as Peters’s does. A few pages are devoted to summarizing the demographic history, and these pages rely heavily on quotes from others to make my points. I found most of my quotes in secondary sources. When I was able to locate the primary source, I quoted it. When I was unable, I cited the secondary source. Contrary to Cockburn’s implication that I cited Peters once, I cited her eight times in the first eighty-nine pages (Ch. 2, fn 31, 35; Ch. 5, fn 8; Ch. 12, fn 34, 37, 38, 44, 47). Of my more than 500 references, fewer than a dozen were found in Peters and cited to original sources. Although we use a few of the same sources-and we each use many sources not used by the other-I come to different conclusions from Peters about important issues. As I made clear in my book, "I do not in any way rely on" Peters’s conclusions or demographic data for my arguments. Peters’s basic conclusion is that only a small number of Palestinians lived in what later became Israel. She provides specific figures, which have been disputed. My very different conclusion is that:
"There have been two competing mythologies about Palestine circa 1880. The extremist Jewish mythology, long since abandoned, was that Palestine was "a land without people, for a people without a land." The extremist Palestinian mythology, which has become more embedded with time, is that in 1880 there was a Palestinian people; some even say a Palestinian nation that was displaced by the Zionist invasion.
The reality, as usual, lies somewhere in between. Palestine was certainly not a land empty of all people. It is impossible to reconstruct the demographics of the area with any degree of precision, since census data for that time period are not reliable, and most attempts at reconstruction-by both Palestinian and Israeli sources-seem to have a political agenda.
I offer very different and rougher estimates, which Cockburn and Finkelstein do not challenge, as they do Peters’s. How then can I be accused of plagiarizing ideas or conclusions with which I disagree, from a book that I cite eight times, using the preferred form of citation?
Why then would Cockburn attack me so viciously? The answer is in his sentence bemoaning the fact that a pro-Israel book is "slithering into the upper tier of Amazon’s sales charts." He disapproves of my message and of the fact that it is reaching a wide audience. Instead of debating me on the merits, he has tried to destroy my credibility with a false accusation. (This is not the first time he and Finkelstein have gotten together and employed this tactic against people with whom they disagree.)
Let people read The Case for Israel and judge it for themselves against Cockburn’s charges. I have sent his attack and my response to President Summers. I have nothing to fear from false charges.
Alan M. Dershowitz
ALEXANDER COCKBURN replies
Every time he tries to leap to firmer ground,defending the rotten standards of scholarship in his rotten book Dershowitz simply sinks in deeper. Start with his defiant declaration from the dock that he did not commit plagiarism because "Every word written by others appears with quotation marks, is cited to their original or secondary sources and is quoted accurately." This skates (rather clumsily, I have to say) round the question of what source Dershowitz actually did use for his citation and whether or not he acknowledged it. Often he used Peters and pretended he didn’t, which would get him into very hot water at Harvard if he was a student and not the Felix Frankfurter professor.
Here are Harvard’s own rules, as set forth in "Writing with Sources A Guide for Harvard Students Copyright 1995 The President and Fellows of Harvard University":
"Plagiarism is passing off a source’s information, ideas, or words as your own by omitting to cite them." And also: "When quoting or citing a passage you found quoted or cited by another scholar, and you haven’t actually read the original source, cite the passage as ‘quoted in’ or ‘cited in’ that scholar both to credit that person for finding the quoted passage or cited text, and to protect yourself in case he or she has misquoted or misrepresented"
I discussed only Dershowitz’s first two chapters, as dissected by Norman Finkelstein, Dershowitz’s nemesis in this whole affair, who points out that 22 of the 52 footnotes to these chapters are lifted from Peters without attribution. Finkelstein recently laid waste Dershowitz’s attempts at self-exculpation in the Harvard Crimson. As Finkelstein points out, One problem for the beleaguered prof comes in the form of ellipses. Dershowitz echoes Peters’ ellipses. Another problem identified by Finkelstein: When it comes to Twain, Dershowitz cites from one edition and Peters from another, but the page numbers he cites are from Peters’ edition, not his. So Peters’ text is where he got the quote from.
Yet another problem goes to the concluding sentence from the Harvard guidelines quoted above. Dershowitz echoes Peters’ mistakes. From Twain she cites as one continuous paragraph what are in fact two separate paragraphs separated by 87pp. Dershowitz follows suit. He’s handcuffed to Peters in a more serious breach of scholarship when he plagiarizes her erroneous citation of a British consular official’s supposedly first-person description to Lord Canning of an instance of anti-Semitism in Jerusalem. The description was not Young’s, but a memorandum by one A. Benisch, which Young was forwarding.
Another bloodied glove, as it were, comes with Dershowitz’s attribution of the admittedly unlovely neologism "turnspeak" to George Orwell. This was a coinage by Peters, who cited Orwell as having inspired it. Glazed with literary pillage, and ever eager to suppress the fact that he was relying heavily on one of the most notorious laughing stocks of Middle Eastern scholarship, Dershowitz seized on Orwell as the source, once again cutting out Peters out.
Quoting the Chicago Manual Dershowitz artfully implies that he followed the rules by citing "the original" as opposed to the secondary source, Peters. Of course we know he didn’t but, aside from that, he misrepresents the Manual here, where "the original" means merely the origin of the borrowed material which is, in this instance, Peters.
Now look at the second bit of the quote from the Manual, separated from the preceding sentence by a demure, 3-point ellipse. As my associate Kate Levin has discovered, this passage ("To cite a source from a secondary source…") occurs on page 727 which is no less than 590 pages later than the material before the ellipse, in the section titled "Citations Taken from Secondary Sources." Here’s the full quote, with what Dedrshowitz left out set in boldface: "’Quoted in.’ To cite a source from a secondary source ("quoted in..") is generally to be discouraged, since authors are expected to have examined the works they cite. If an original source is unavailable, however, both the original and the secondary source must be listed."
So Chicago is clearly insisting that unless Dershowitz went to the originals, he was obliged to cite Peters. Finkelstein has conclusively demonstrated that he didn’t go to the originals. Plagiarism, Q.E.D., plus added time for willful distortion of the language of Chicago’s guidelines, cobbling together two separate discussions.
Some time ago three judges on a Florida appeals court overturned a $145 million landmark judgment against tobacco companies. In their decision the judges appropriated without acknowledgement extensive swaths of the brief put forward by the tobacco companies’ well-paid lawyers. The judges were sued for judicial plagiarism and as so often Dershowitz had a pithy quote: "If a student ever did what this judge did, he’d be tossed out on his rear end from Harvard Law School. We teach our students as a matter of ethics that when you borrow, you attribute."
Professor Sayres Ruby of Amherst, who tells us his credentials are "from the ground up", meaning they are drawn from practices actually used in colleges whose Honor Codes he either enforced (Davidson College) or in that position examined elsewhere (UVA, Citadel) has studied the Dershowitz/Peters case file and writes that "I can say unequivocally that under Davidson College’s and other schools’ honor codes Dershowitz’s quotations constitute plagiarism, with clear attempt to deceive as to (A) his research and (B) his findings. Thus his plagiarism is serious and unambiguous, and if it were a student in question, the debate would regard levels of punishment. Maximum punishments would be considered without any doubt, including at UVA expulsion, at Davidson two-term suspension, and at military schools such as West Point or the Citadel a discharge."
But then, Dershowitz isn’t a student. He’s the Felix Frankfurter professor at Hasrvard Law School, meaning presumably that he’s beyond reform. Two-tier justice for all!