When I was a law student there, a student was expelled for claiming, as his reason for missing a mandatory class session, that he was sick, when in fact he was out of town. It was harsh, but no quarter was given -- he was expelled.
Per our discussion here, there are obviously 2 different levels; one, whether Dershowitz plagiarized, and two; whether Peters' work is a "fraud", as alleged.
I was not commenting on the second level as a substantive charge, as I hope I made clear. In all the cites I provided, all I saw from Finkelstein himself was a misattribution of a quote ("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.")
It was a big deal for Finkelstein, but I'm not knowledgeable about its importance or whether it by itself proves his charge that Peters' work is a fraud.
That's trivial, may just be an honest mistake and in no way disqualifies the entire work.
If Dershowitz copied from Peters in excess of fair use then it's a matter of copyright infringement and intellectual property theft which does not involve Mr. Finklestein. It is a matter for Ms. Peters to pursue with Dershowitz's publishers and their attorneys. Again, this in no way invalidates Peters' original work.
All your massive cut and pastes have done nothing to prove that Norman Finklestein is a gentleman or a scholar, or anything else than a hateful, angry, bitter, vindictive son of a bitch.