Three Anti-Semites? - Hating Norman Finkelstein: Comments
Posted Apr 20, 5:53 PM at Norman Finkelstein’s Will to Truth
Name: oswald ostermann
I was flabergasted to read that you maintain this blog to defend the extremist Norman Finkelstein!
Everyone knows he is mentally unhinged.
Please read his books, especially Beyond Chutzpah. His rants against the Zionist Jews remind me of Hitler’s rants in Mein Kampf.
Finkelstein’s vile hate-mongering fairy tales have no place on your blog, the Internet or at DePaul University.
If you persist in publicizing this irrational anti-Semite who is a turncoat Jew on a par with Quisling, I shall launch a law suit against you who is called Mr. Brad Stroud, Esq.
You have until midnight, April 23, 2007 to comply with my request. My lawyer is Julius Grey of Montreal who has had a 100 per cent success rate in prosecuting vicious anti-Semites of your Nietzchen calibre and forcing them to pay costly settlements in the high hundred thousand dollar range.
——————————————————————————–
Posted Apr 20, 3:35 PM at Alan Dershowitz’s Shoddy Scholarship)
Name: sultana aref
The issue is not Dershowitz’s scholarship — he is an established scholar world-wide before the name Norman Finkelstein was ever known.
The issue is the mental illness of Mr. Finkelstein. Since his eviction from five American universities since 1988, he has blamed his fellow Jews for the ills of the world, particularly in the Holy Land.
Every article he has written, and every book he has written, contain non-stop invective, rantings and incoherence. These are on a par with the writings of that poor boy at Virginia Tech who was abandoned by the psychiatic community and left to kill and commit suicide because no one would treat his mental illness.
I fear that Mr. Finkelstein is headed in a similar direction. The originagtor of this web blog -Brad Stroud - owes it to the people of America to counsel Mr. Finkelstein into therapy immediately.
This is no joke. Second generation offspring of Holocaust survivors display increasingly violent personalities as they mature and turn against their very own ethnicity, religion, homeland and values. Mr. Finkelstein hates Judaism, Jews, Israel - you name it. He is unable to marry. He has no children. He has no life apart from a hideous obsession to demonize the Jewish people and their values. This is why vicious antisemites of the left and right manipulate him and use his lunatic writings extensively.
If this blog is unable to marshal the necessary help for Mr. Finkelstein, I will ask the Government of the State of Israel to have mercy on his tormented soul and fly him to its world-class mental treatment center at Be’er Sheva.
——————————————————————————–
Posted Apr 19, 12:18 AM at to Scrutinizing Finkelstein
Name: ken zhou
Re Scrutinizing Finkelstein — this pathetic individual is now being scrutinized by the DePaul University management committee on his eligibility for tenure.
Dr. Harold Williams has provided extensive documentation to them on the fairy tales contained in Finkelstein’s books, masquerading as “scholarship.”
This documentation is so thorough that the anti-Finkelstein dossier compiled by law professor Alan M. Dershowitz, of Harvard Law School fame and protege of Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal Prosecutor Telford Taylor, pales in comparison.
Thank you so much for allowing your blog readers to read and disseminate the Williams critique against Finkelstein. Finkelstein’s academic career is now drawing to an end in America and his employment prospects only look bright among the neo-Nazi crowd, including the rogue Iranian regime.
Related posts:
- Clark University cancels Holocaust, Palestine/Israel Expert April 14,
- ‘Jerusalem Post’ admits it was duped by hoaxer on report of anti-Semitism in Norway by Bruce W
- Anti-Jewish Pogroms: A Speech by Vladimir Lenin Anti-Sem
- “How to Cook Garry Trudeau” by the Anti Defamation League June 12, 2
- Is it Anti-Semitism, a Valid Analogy or an Uncontroversial Fact? Is it ant
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
14 comments
I agree with your commentators that Mr. Finkelstein is a disaster for the just cause of the Palestinian people. Personalities such as Sari Nuseibeh do a fantastic job for their cause, not vociferous ad hominem attack-dogs like Finkelstein.
Out of curiousity, why did you ever devote so much space to this deviant personality who detracts from the battle against the evil Zionists?
Roland,
Actually, I didn’t read that from the comments (its being a disaster for the just cause of the Palestinian people). Let me read them again …. .
- “the extremist Norman Finkelstein”; “Everyone knows he is mentally unhinged”; “His rants against the Zionist Jews remind me of Hitler’s rants in Mein Kampf.”; “vile hate-mongering fairy tales”; “irrational anti-Semite who is a turncoat Jew on a par with Quisling”
Never mind my being “threatened” with a law suit and being called a vicious anti-Semite of the Nietzschian calibre to boot! (Proving the writer is a know nothing.)
So you agree with this commentator about what exactly?
-”The issue is the mental illness of Mr. Finkelstein”; “he has blamed his fellow Jews for the ills of the world, particularly in the Holy Land.”; “Every article he has written, and every book he has written, contain non-stop invective, rantings and incoherence.”; “on a par with the writings of that poor boy at Virginia Tech who was abandoned by the psychiatic community and left to kill and commit suicide because no one would treat his mental illness.”; “Second generation offspring of Holocaust survivors display increasingly violent personalities as they mature and turn against their very own ethnicity, religion, homeland and values.”; “Mr. Finkelstein hates Judaism, Jews, Israel”; “He is unable to marry. He has no children. He has no life apart from a hideous obsession to demonize the Jewish people and their values. This is why vicious antisemites of the left and right manipulate him and use his lunatic writings extensively.”
Could you think of a less reasoned and more irresponsible set of accusations as this? I’ve read two of his books, part of a third (to date) and a number of his articles. In none do I read anything approaching such. I quite like his combative rhetoric and as long as he’s substantiating what he writes (and he does) there’s no reason not to take his arguments and conclusions seriously (and I do). If he isn’t sensitive enough or polite enough, so what? Perhaps he actually believes that what Israel is and has been doing in Palestine in beyond heinous. I mean, people might actually do the research and draw such conclusions given the historical record right? It seems to me that so much of this vitriol against him works off the premise that he couldn’t possibly be on the mark in his assessment of the State of Israel - so he must be [insert irresponsible accusations here].
What exactly in this persons string of ad hominem attacks do you agree with?
-”pathetic individual”; “Dr. Harold Williams [the Christian Zionist] has provided extensive documentation to them on the fairy tales contained in Finkelstein’s books, masquerading as “scholarship.””; “This documentation is so thorough that the anti-Finkelstein dossier compiled by law professor Alan M. Dershowitz, of Harvard Law School fame and protege of Nuremburg War Crimes Tribunal Prosecutor Telford Taylor, pales in comparison.”;
What exactly in these unsubstantiated ad hominem attacks and ridiculous assertions do you agree with?
I spent some time above highlighting what you claim you agree with. My obvious aim was to show that none of these Finkelstein haters even touches on the idea that he is “a disaster for the just cause of the Palestinian people”. Indeed, if past comments on these posts are an indication, there is pretty much zero concern among such commentators for their cause. So why would you assert such and make it seem as if such demeaning diatribes deserved to be anything but disparaged? That confuses me, especially when you appear to regard the Zionists as “evil” (Let me add, you threw in your own ad hominem with “deviant personality”.)
Finally, why have I spent so much space on him here?
If only my answer were not so banal:
Given that I’ve read two of his books, parts of a third and numerous articles on or about him, I’ve accepted my own ability to read and reason and I’ve concluded that Norman G. Finkelstein has offered up a critical stance on Israel that needs to be seriously considered. I’m not offended by his provocations. I don’t much care for his headings for articles at his site but I generally like the articles. I entertain the possibility that what we are witnessing in Palestine at the hands of the Jewish-Israelis (and their backers in the U.S.) is beyond heinous precisely because of what the nazi holocaust was supposed to mean.
So I wrote about him. And guess what?
It was him (not his arguments, reasoning, evidence) that garnered a litany of ad hominem filled attacks. So, what have I done in response? I’ve responded to such, offered up my own reason for why I think his reason ought to be considered and in the process, the ad hominem attacks continued (yours is the most recent). A recent comment (at Scrutinizing Finkelstein), however, did offer reasons - reasons for misgivings, and reasons for wondering about Finkelstein’s objectivity - but not reasons for why Finkelstein [insert irresponsible comments, as per above, here].
Most of the “space” really derives from my following up and highlighting what I take to be the biggest collection of stupidity in place of actual substantive criticism of Finkelstein. When a more substantive (but largely unreferenced) criticism of Finkelstein was offered, I addressed it in detail, point by point. This was followed by more silly ad hominem attacks and unreasoned acclamations for the semi-substantive critique.
As far as I can discern, Finkelstein has done some wonderful work and has been one among many, to offer some critical reason aimed at the Palestinian cause largely by fleshing out, in some detail, what the State of Israel has become - not what it wanted or hoped or dreamed to be; not what others erroneously think it is but what it actually is in terms of everyday actual practices and policies with respect to the Palestinians
His basic position is adherence to international law. That if Israel would accept such we’d have a two-state solution. What an extremist he is! The irony of this perverse focus on Finkelstein is that political positions that make him look mainstream have been offered here in the form of articles. Give Gilad Atzmon a read. But wait! Finkelstein has actually managed to have a measure of impact with his books, and to his credit they get a bit more attention than Atzmon’s critical essay’s on “Jewishness” among others so … let’s demonize him, lie about him, call him deviant but lets - at all costs - not talk about the criminality known as the settlements, or extra-judicial executions, or torturing children or house demolitions - all things he discusses explicitly in Beyond Chutzpah.
As an academic at DePaul commented:
“One DePaul professor, speaking anonymously, noted what she saw as the irony of rejecting Finkelstein on the basis of Vincentian values. “Finkelstein embodies Vincentian values,” she said. “He really cares about human rights, he talks about them constantly, it’s what he lives and breathes. So now they want to say the central issue is his failure to make nice in his writings?”
And you? Why do you dismiss his writing? Why do you align yourself in agreement with such idiocy? Why do you not offer a substantive criticism of something written in Beyond Chutzpah or the Holocaust Industry?
If any of this appears deviant, I’m sure you will be the first to state as much. However, there are some of us out there that tire of the careful, delicate approach to discussing an occupation that is sickening to the core. None of this is meant as mean spirited. It’s just serious stuff and maybe there’s neither room, nor time, to indulge baseless commentary save to highlight its absurdity.
I’ve read your reply on why you devote so much space to Finkelstein twice and am left scratching my head and laughing without stop.
Your reply is so incoherent, I wonder why you can’t answer a simple question simply.
Prof. Harold Williams is a far more learned expert on the Middle East than Finkelstein who can’t even read, speak, or write Hebrew and Arabic.
So is Prof. Gil Troy of McGill University a far superior expert than Finkelstein.
Prof. Efraim Karsh of Kings College in the UK is perhaps the most dynamic and provocative scholar on the Arab-Israeli conflict, fluent in Turkish, Arabic, Hebrew and Yiddish.
Why must you see the Middle East through the distorted lens of Finkelstein, whose main claim to fame is as a caustic book reviewer of other scholars whom he puts down for publicity reasons?
If the reason is you like Finkelstein’s ideology, then please tell us what its components are. For example, are you able to tell us if Finkelstein wants a 2-state solution or a 1-state solution?
Are you able to tell us whether Finkelstein has ever visited Israel?
Are you able to tell us whether he is a Socialist, Marxist, Trotskyite or Peacenik?
Can you inform us if he believes the Zionist lobby controls US foreign policy?
I have oodles of questions about your love affair with this scatological personality but will stop here.
I suspect you are not being honest with your readers — nor with yourself — in foisting this fellow upon us who is — in effect — an unknown to the world apart from his vitriolic expressions of hate directed at Israel.
And, if a lawsuit proceeds against you, I imagine these questions will make you squirm.
I am copying this message to Finkelstein’s mentor — Prof. Noam Chomsky at M.I.T. — for his take on this whole business.
Baldev,
Wonderful reply.
-two-state solution (see my comment above which apparently you stopped reading before you offered this considered comment)
-He has visited Palestine and hung out with the Palestinians - he’s met the Israel he criticizes.
-I don’t care much about the political associations
-He does not think the Zionist lobby controls US foreign policy
You suspect wrong.
Perhaps I am deceiving myself but that is what a will to truth is all about - about not deceiving, not even myself and so a will is something to work on, strengthen always with that aim in mind.
I am not squirming yet baldev srinigar.
Wow. You basically dismiss everything I say and then you say you are sending it to Noam Chomsky? I guess you must think it not so incoherent after all. Else why send it his way? (You see how absurd that is don’t you?)
Please let me know what he has to say, for were I to somehow, indirectly through YOU get read by Chomsky it would be interesting to say the least and an honour indeed even if he were to consider my take misdirected and in need of re-thinking.
One more point for Baldev, Roland, others …
Asserting that this or that professor or writer is fantastic, more learned, far superior or dynamic is not an argument against what Finkelstein has actually written, argued, and substantiated. They may be all you state and more. Perhaps more should read them and discuss them. But that is a different matter. You’ve changed the subject rather than face Finkelstein and his work head on. This is why such comments are unpersuasive.
You have to do more than talk. You have to show how what he is arguing is unsound, illogical or that his evidence is suspect (exactly the things Finkelstein did, explicitly, when he demolished Dershowitz’s The Case for Israel in Beyond Chutzpah a book I recommend all wannabe critics actually read themselves before forming an opinion on).
If you want to claim Finkelstein is [insert whatever accusation you want here] then support it with quotes from him, reasons why his reason isn’t reason or why his evidence is inadequate or somehow lacking. Or cite others who so criticize including all these important requirements.
Otherwise, don’t you think your making yourself look a bit foolish? Criticizing and demonizing without reason?
No doubt one can find weaknesses in his arguments. In fact, at his own site, he has included comments by others who critically discuss aspects of Beyond Chutzpah. Give them a read. If you can find any by Dershowitz that would be much appreciated because by all appearances it seems Dershowitz has not been able to refute Finkelstein’s claims about his poor scholarship in The Case for Israel and has instead resorted to nasty name calling and interference in the tenure process. Show me where Dershowitz has defended his book from the many substantive criticisms by Finkelstein. Give me something real and support it. Only then could I honestly begin to question his work. It certainly won’t come about from a relative barrage of nasty talking.
Reading the your reply to Baldev gives one the impression you have forgotten Prof. H. Williams devastating demolition of Finkelstein’s entire book( Beyond Hutzpah).
Williams went into a point-by-point dissection of the falsehoods in Finkelstein’s book which were ipso facto so clear that your weak defense of Finkelstein was embarrassing.
You disseminated these on your blog and everyone who is objective can see that Finkelstein wrote a complete and utter plagiarism, lifting wholesale page after page of so-called analysis from public propaganda groups. This is not scholarship.
When you were cornered and specifically asked by several of your readers to show the sources Finkelstein used to prove the non-indigenous Arabs of Palestine were the object of “Zionist fairy tales”, you copped out, threw away the Beyond Hutzpah book, changed the subject and scurried off to meekly cite another book of Finkelstein’s which was completely irrelevant.
I want to know - why do you continually divert people’s attention from Finkelstein’s mendacity and why don’t you read the books of the world-famous scholars on the Arab-Israel conflict which have already been noted by your correspondents?
Could it be that you are afraid of the truth? That your will is corrupted by an imaginary truth?
Feuerbach was right — “der mensch ist wast er est” - and you have swallowed the poisonous propaganda of that arch publicity-hound Norman Finkelstein. Until you admit that Williams and Dershowitz are right, you are nothing but a foolish scribbler wasting everyone’s time.
jackie szseczin,
How could I forget the world according to Christian Zionism? What I’ve learned most about Williams is that he has a rather insubstantial group of followers. Followers capable of baseless commentary in the main.
Jackie? Could you then, finally give me the name of this book by Williams? I’ve asked before but no response. One ought to be able to read it yes?, rather than have many speak of how brilliant it is without so much as a quote from it. (If you consider what he wrote here brilliant then perhaps therein lies the problem with our having meaningful communication.) What is the book called?
I addressed the Zionist Fairy tale comment perfectly adequately by discussing aspects of the chapter in which Finkelstein wrote about it - Quite detailed and certainly by the standards of you and your ilk. Nevertheless, one need only read Norman G. Finkelstein’s:
Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict (second edition) - Chapter Two - A Land Without a People - Joan Peter’s ‘Wilderness’ Image. This is the crucial chapter to read with respect to the Zionist Fairy tale comment because he was, in fact, referring to this chapter with that comment and it is, in fact, in this chapter that he substantiates the claim. (You understand that that is all he need do right? Make reference to the place where the comment is substantiated?)
[To the innocent reader now wading in the only way to assess accusations such as Jackie's is to read Finkelstein's Beyond Chutzpah for yourself while paying close attention to his arguments and his evidence.]
What you want to know: Of course one should read other writers. I personally enjoy Michael Neumann, Ilan Pappe, Gershom Gorenberg’s book on the settlements, Jonathan Cook (I’ve read his very detailed articles but have yet to read his book Blood and Religion: The Unmasking of the Jewish and Democratic State, Jacqueline Rose, Jimmy Carter’s Palestine Peace not Apartheid and the many articles that are also posted here on the topic including Uri Avnery and Gilad Atzmon among others.
I’m not afraid of the truth silly Jackie. I’m just waiting for some of you to actually begin to provide some of this truth you claim and allude to, rather than having you all ride on the coat-tails of Williams little unsubstantiated foray. Quote Williams for me. From his book. It would sure beat these senseless comments by your likes.
But lest we forget. How about actually discussing Palestine? I think Israel ought to accept the Arab Proposal or at least seriously enter into discussions on the basis of that proposal. What about you? I think all the settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem must be dismantled and the settlers must return to Israel. You? I think all resources in these areas are to be entirely under Palestinian control. You? I think Palestinians must have absolute sovereignty over these areas including all the associated political rights of nationhood. You? I think there has to be a partial right of return and a rethinking of the Law of Return. You? I think those are the conditions of peace that Israel must accept. I think if Israel rejects such a peace (including with Lebanon (Sheba Farms) and Syria (Golan Heights)) and Israel invites its own destruction. You?
You can blather on pointlessly all you want to avoid the real topics (the ones Finkelstein really discusses in Beyond Chutzpah) but at some point, shouldn’t we debate the real topics and put aside your infatuation with the person rather than with his arguments and evidence? Let’s talk about Israel’s use of torture, or house demolitions, or extra-judicial executions, or the settlement/theft process or land/resource theft, or the killing of children or of using Palestinians as human shields or of starving them or of withholding their tax money or of Israel’s apparent refusal to work towards peace or …. .
I’m not afraid of the truth Jackie. I just think we ought to try and discuss it instead of this continual refusal to. I’ve no doubt, real, substantive comments and criticisms can be made with respect to my view of matters. So make them. We’ll all be the happier. Further, for what it is worth, in fact, I’ve written about some other aspects of the conflict and discussed other books and articles and other authors and I’ve included my own assenting or dissenting views at times. Why not read them and offer some criticisms then, if you’re so interested in the truth? Why this obsession only with discussing this one wonderful, tenacious, critic of Israel as he focuses on its heinous policies and actions in Palestine?
You are a bigoted man and exhibit racist attitudes toward the people of Israel.
You have been inhaling a false image of Israel by reading the works of extremist professors and journalists who are not historians.
Michael Neumann is a philosophy professor. He has been put on a short leash by Trent University for assaulting his students verbally and by email with the Palestinian Arab propaganda. He wrote a book against Dershowitz. In this book, Neumann writes that the Jews are not a people. He also writes that they have no history. Then he writes towards the end that the homicide bombings of Israeli babies is a good thing if done by the heroic Palestine Arabs. You are truly insane if you expect your readers to buy into this racism.
Jonathan Cook is a vicious journalist who hates Israel. He wants to dismantle the country. He lives in the Israeli city of Nazareth where he and his Arab wife disseminate the terrorist Palestinian Arab narrative. He was dismissed from the Guardian newspaper for fictionalizing his reporting out of Israel.
Jacqueline Rose is an English professor in the UK. Her only claim to know anything about the Arab-Israeli conflict is that it reminds her of a tragic novel. She also thinks segregationist South Africa of yore has something in common with the Jewish state today. However, when apartheid South Africa was in existence, up to 1994, she never made this connection until a terrorist Fatah member told her she could be famous among anti-Semitic intellectuals if she used this slander.
Gershom Gorenberg is a freelance journalist in Israel whose reputation was built at the Israeli newspaper Ha’Aretz writing sensationalist accounts about Christians wanting to establish sovereignty over the Jewish Temple Mount grounds. His work is unreliable.
Gilad Atzmon is a deranged jazz musician who lives in London. He enjoys acting as a Jewish anti-Semite. At every sreet corner in London he shouts at people to force the Jews to give up Judaism.
Jimmy Carter is a Christian Baptist and former ex-president of the USA. He berated the late Prime Minister of Israel Golda Meir for not making Israel “more religious.” He has been jealous of the breakthrough diplomacy achieved by former president Bill Clinton during the Camp David peace negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinian Arabs. He now publicly attacks Clinton at every turn. He apologized to the Jewish people of Israel for accusing them of practising apartheid against Arabs. He said he didn’t mean to write this claptrap. What he meant was that they were practising apartheid against Arabs only in the West Bank and Gaza.
Ilan Pappe is an Israeli historian, albeit a revisionist one. He was the leader of the Israeli Communist Party for many years. He does not believe Israel should exist as a country. However, he did expose the genocide and war crimes of the Palestinian Arabs against the Palestinian Jews.
Uri Avnery used to own an Israeli pornographic magazine. He also was a member of the Israeli Parliament. He makes an income today slandering Israel. However, he too has exposed the unbridled brutality of the neo-Nazi Palestinian Arabs.
With this unwholesome stable of running dogs for Hamas terrorism, it is no wonder your mind is prejudiced, closed and made up on the Israeli issue.
You would do well to read the works of professional historians and diplomats and throw away the maniacal works of extremists.
I would suggest you immediately get a hold in your nearest library the works of Conor Cruise O’Brien, Daniel Pipes, Marin Kramer, Efraim Karsh, Howard Sachar, Bat Ye’or and Tom Idinopulos. When you read them, you will realize what a fool you’ve been and you will apologize to the country of Israel, to the Israeli people, to the Jews all over the world and to the Muslim and Christian Zionists who hold the Holy Land so dear. You will also then make retribution and reparations to the suffering Israeli victims of terrorist attacks and join the world-wide campaign to defeat the jihadi Arabs of Palestine with Saudi Arabia’s help.
Beautiful Jackie! I’m not a racist. It is precisely that which I deplore. I personally think any national or ethnic or tribal identification is already a form of racism. But people want their tribes and so the trick is to try and get them to see the “other” tribe in ways that doesn’t make them what to kill them. This groupism is a horrific problem and in Israel the problem is of one tribe wanting to wipe out the other tribe. In my view, the tribe with all the military might and financial backers in high places is the tribe to be most wary of because they are on the road to succeeding in this project of cultural destruction.
But before I forget, need I remind you, you’ve once again NOT mentioned Williams “brilliant” book. What is it called? Why have you not quoted from it? What is there to hide? NOR have you chosen to actually weigh in with some opinions of your own on the substantive issues I mentioned - the real topics. Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians and, to be sure, a faction of violent Palestinian resistance to this oppression.
You seem to think that if I read assholes like Daniel Pipes, I’m going to have a revelation? I understand Karsh to be a harsh critic indeed. Even Zionist Benny Morris gets his from Karsh. One can and should read views contrary to ones own, however. It’s crucial. But your conclusion is overblown. You have no idea about my views about the Jews, Judaism and the Jewish “people”. That’s because I’m not talking about these things really. I’m talking about Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians. An apartheid like segregation going on for decades now with many complicit in allowing it to continue unabated. What kind of sick mentality could look at the facts on the ground in Palestine and not oppose it? What kind of beliefs must be in operation such that the obvious cannot be seen?
Given your comments about the writers I mentioned, shall I include you then as a possible anti-Semite?
I like the clarity of Neumann’s arguments. I especially liked his “What is Anti-Semitism?” and indeed wrote a post on it here including a fair amount of my own thoughts on the matter. I enjoyed his book, The Case Against Israel although it didn’t have that weight of evidence like Finkelstein’s, given Neumann’s more philosophical tact. It wasn’t really against Dershowitz either. Finkelstein’s Beyond Chutzpah is the book that point-for-point demolishes Dershowitz. Neumann’s book is really more a case for the Palestinians than anything. I wrote a post called “When is Violence a Rational Response”. Part of it was based on discussing Neumann’s “Israelis and Indians” article. (Wallerstein, offers the other key argumentative basis for the post.) I strongly recommend you and others read it and weigh in.
Jonathan Cook writes incredibly detailed, lengthy and well argued articles. (Why do you mention his wife is Arab?) Why do you write such irresponsible things? Let the arguments and evidence do the work. One recent article of his called “Apartheid Looks Like This” is worth serious consideration.
Jacqueline Rose’s “The Question of Zion” was an incredible and inspiring read. Complicated. Especially the chapter where she invokes a psychoanalytic take and looks at Theodor Herzl’s 1902 novel Alneuland, a novel where the actual creation of Israel is not part of the narrative. Somehow this panacea comes to be and it is good for all the people of Palestine …. . She explores the idea of how the early Zionist leaders understood all too well what they were embarking on … just as they understood all too well that Palestine was already peopled and that for Zionism to succeed, the people would have to go. I’ve written two posts based on this book: Questioning Zionism and Zionism’s Messianic Spirit.
Gorenberg wrote a very sympathetic take on the early years of the settlements. You know, before Likud would turn the settlements into the present day issue that in my view threatens the viability of a secure Israel.
Gilad Atzmon is radical I suppose. There is something incredibly original and dynamic in his writing and he does such amazing things particularly when he focuses on and deconstructs the whole notion of “Jewishness”. One key article to read is “The 3rd Category and the Palestinian Solidarity Movement” (”Israeli People’s Most common Mistakes” gets one thinking also.) I’m familiar with much of the accusations about this ex-Jew being an anti-Semite and possibly even a Christian. I do not, however, read him as racist whatsoever.
Such silly comments - to characterize as “jealous” the only President to establish peace agreements between Israel and its neighbors. His book is a light, interesting read but it doesn’t really say much new to the familiar but for those ignoranti, perhaps their first dose of reality about the defilement of the “Holy Land”.
I have one post based on a Pappe article - “Palestinian Refugees - What Happened in 1948?”. It discusses Plan D, the expulsion and all that. He recently (2006) published a book called “Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine”. He’s talking about the present. (There’s a good article by him at the Electronic Intifada called “Palestine 2007: Genocide in Gaza, Ethnic Cleansing in the West Bank”.)
The Uri Avnery I read may indeed discuss atrocious actions on both sides but he certainly has written much critical of Israel’s actions in Palestine. One recent article (”Facing Mecca”) looks at the question of Israel’s “right to exist”. It begins:
“Must a Native-American recognize the right of the United States of America to exist?
Interesting question. The USA was established by Europeans who invaded a continent that did not belong to them, eradicated most of the indigenous population (the “Red Indians”) in a prolonged campaign of genocide, and exploited the labor of millions of slaves who had been brutally torn from their lives in Africa. Not to mention what is going on today. Must a Native-American - or indeed anybody at all - recognize the right of such a state to exist?”
I’m reluctant to banter around accusations of your being a racist or sympathetic to racist ideas about “the orient’ and its people - but it does seem something smells rather foul in your few characterizations of Arabs and Palestinians.
Finally, I’ve not made up my mind. All I’ve tried to do is consistently respond to most of your and your ilk with this refrain — Show me arguments and evidence rather than nasty name calling and (now) attempts to call into disrepute every single writer critical of Israel. I appreciate your offering names of authors to read. But it seems to me this and some other posts and the comments were intended to address the scholarship of Norman G. Finkelstein not others. And, so far, as I’ve consistently stated, what you’ve offered does nothing to persuade me to not take him seriously since you have not done what is required - critically interrogate his actually writing.
But wait: “Prof. H. Williams” and his “devastating” book. Ok. Maybe it is. What he wrote here little ol me dealt with rather effectively. Maybe he saved the real good stuff for a personal email to Norman. I don’t know. I guess you do. So, what is the book called? One ought to be able to read it and make up their own mind, don’t you agree?
Your reply constitutes embarrassing evidence of your complete and utter ignorance of Middle East affairs. It also demonstrates what a foul mouth you have — the gall you have to engage in stinking ad hominem attacks. You disgustingly call Prof. Dr. Daniel Pipes, an Arabist specialist, “ass-hole.” Where are your brains, sir? You must apologize to him because I sent him your post. I hope he sues you for defamation.
The most burning issue in the world is the Palestinian Arab oppression of the Palestinian Jews in the Land of Israel via terrorist atrocities. These have been going on for decades with the financial supporty of the oil elites. Concomitant has been the Arab world’s oppression through 9 quintessential wars against the tiny state of Israel. Israel is so tiny it is smaller than Vancouver Island. Just because the Palestinian Arabs and their brother Arabs surrounding Israel in territories they usurped from the Kurds, Maronites, Berbers and Copts control 5 million square miles of territory, that doesn’t give them the right to launch an imperialist jihad against the gallant Jewish state.
The only apartheid that exists in the Middle East is in the Palestinian territory of Gaza and their territory in Judea and Samaria. as well as in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Libya, Kuwait, Bahrain, Iraq, Lebanon, Syra, Tunisia, Somalia, Sudan, Djibouti, Mauritania, Yemen, Oman, United Arab Emirates, Algeria, Abu Dhabi, Morocco, Jordan and Qatar. In these Arab countries, women are enslaved and kept apart from society. Shi’ite Muslims are attacked mercilessly and confined to special Bantustans. Copts are forced to convert or else live in apartheid ghettos. Kurds are denied their self-determination and forbidden to live in the main cities of Iraq. Jews are not allowed to live freely in any Arab country. They must convert or be slaughtered by the Arab apartheid criminal regimes. Filipinos and Britons are raped mercilessly in Saudi Arabia and must live in segregated quarters in their cities, and are subject to humiliating checkpoints by the Saudi apartheid police. Palestinian Arab ethnic cleansing has been continuing for decades as they expel the Greek Orthodox from Bethlehem and Gaza, rape Cristian women, forcibly convert their children to Islam and burn down their churches, both Latin and Greek. The Palestinian Arabs also ethnically cleansed the indigenous Jews of Jerusalem, Nablus and Tulkarm as well as Gaza who lived there centuries before the imperialist Palestinian Arabs came with their swords from Arabia in the Hijaz. The Jews were the subject of genocide in their leading oases in Arabia by the Arab butchers. All their property was confiscated and the men-folk were beheaded because they refused to submit to the apartheid sharia regime.
T. Herzl’s novel was called Altneuland, not your spelling version. I find you quite clumsy when it comes to recording basic facts.
Gilad Atzmon is not an ex-Jew as you claim. He is a Jew, otherwise why would all the anti-Semitic web-sites feature his expostulations and why would you even mention his name?
Plan D was a think-piece developed by an official of the Jewish Agency. It did not get government approval and was never implemented. Do you rember Trudeau’s Plan R to arrest Claude Ryan during the FLQ crisis? Well, it was never implemented.
Prof. Dr. Norman Finkelstein has written that in 1948 the Palestinian Arabs and their tank-equiped brother armies from the surrounding Arab imperialist states were bent on annihilating the valiant Jews in Jewish Palestine but they failed in their diabolical plot. Why do you contradict Prof. Finkelstein?
You say Israel had peaceagreements with its Arab neighbors thru Carter’s intervention. Yet you say Israel was a decades-old practitioner of apartheid against the Palestinian Arabs. This is not true. It is also fatuous. Apartheid regimes like South Africa never made peace agreements with black countries. A racial segregationist country does not conclude peace agreements with people of the same race in neighboring countries. Obviously, your apartheid calumny against Israel is absurd.
You have the temerity to write to me telling me Carter was the only president to “establish” peace agreements between Israel and its Arab neighbors. He did not “establish” anything. Begin and Sadat established the peace agreements. Carter was merely a facilitator at Camp David. Why do you exclude other presidents? Open any text-book on Middle East history — you will find that President Reagan arranged the 1983 peace agreement between Lebanon and Israel and President Clinton arranged the 1997 peace agreement at the Wye Plantation between Israel and the Palestinian criminal regime headed by the late but unlamented Yasir Arafat.
You are certainly entitled to your distorted opinions which support the oppression of Israeli Jews by Palestinian Arabs and their taskmasters at the Arab League. But Fnkelstein is absolutely right — you have no business parading your atrocious ignorance of world developments, in this case the Arab design for Middle East conquest, on the Internet.
Because of the deathly fear of a nuclear holocaust set off by the monstrous Iranian regime, Saudi Arabia is behind the scenes meeting with Israel, begging it to work with it to defeat Iran’s Shi’ite plan for Middle East domination. They are offering Israel an alliance with the Arab League and special oil concessions if it puts its defense forces at the disposable of a united front. They realize Israel will only cooperate if Hizbollah and Hamas are defeated and Syria neutralized. Saudi Arabia has said it will remove these evil forces from the region and will crush any Syrian opposition. It has also assured Israel that the Palestinian Arab president M. Abbas follows its orders and that a Palestinian Arab and Palestinian Jewish rapprochement will be worked out before Iran can launch a nuclear missile against Saudi Arabia, Israel or Britain. Also, as part of the deal, Abbas will demolish the Ramallah-based Palestinian “victimhood” propaganda agency and halt the financial payments to the vicious anti-Semitic wackos in Europe and America on both the right and left who disseminate this phoney narrative.
Are you off your rocker? Are you not getting enough sleep at night? Stop badgering me about Harold Williams! I informed you in no uncertain terms that Prof. Harold Williams exposed Prof. Finkelstein’s book Beyond Hutzpah as a collection of fraud, falsification, plagiarism and nonsense. You published this eye-opening expose. I did not refer to any book by Williams.
Jackie Szseczin,
Very well written. Articulate. Detailed. Not exactly the strong counter-points I’ve been seeking but it’s something. Alas you’ve caught me as I take leave from this for a while (see top post - Israel and the State of the Art in Oppression). Nonetheless, it gives me something to work with during the break.
I apologize to Daniel Pipes. It was an egregious error on my part. (Incidentally, why do a few of you keep running off and emailing pre-eminent scholars about something I wrote? Do you think they really care? Something in that strikes me as absurd. Gain some perspective on matters please.)
-That other regimes also commit heinous actions does not amount to a defense of Israel’s heinous actions. Israel’s apartheid etc., is against Israel’s interests. Peace via Arab Initiative. Clocks ticking.
-Herzl - It’s called a typo.
-Plan D is something to read about. Whether or not and how it was implemented seems to be open to debate and discussion amongst the historians. What seems equally open to debate amongst the historians is to what extent ethnic cleansing was part and parcel of Zionist thinking from the start. I recommend reading my post on Pappe’s discussion of 1948, for starters.
-Gilad Atzmon - I wouldn’t cling too tightly to insisting he is a Jew. After all, given all he has written about Jewish identity and the third category, I would suspect Atzmon inclined to disavow precisely what his Jewish brethren insist he cannot disavow. (What happens when a individual refuses an identity that others will not allow her/him to refuse?). I mention his name because I enjoy his writing, am persuaded by some of his arguments about identity in particular and accept his self-definition as a universal humanist.
-Israel: It’s something like apartheid. Whatever you wish to call it, its still about land grabs, resource grabs and a community of bantustans and checkpoints.
-My point about Carter is quite simple. In the 70’s he brokered Israel’s first peace agreement. In this century, however, he wrote a book critical of Israel’s actions in the occupied territories. He put the onus largely on Israel to make right. He took a controversial position because he believes it is right. He thinks Israel needs to accept a two-state solution. He has stood by it even when anti-Semitic slurs have been slung his way. I think we ought to listen to what he is saying and take it seriously. You?
-Well, we could go more into what Finkelstein has written, if you like. I suggest we start by critically interrogating Beyond Chutzpah and the six chapters focusing on human rights issues in Israel.
-My opinions are without doubt distorted. One could largely understand them by reading all the books listed on the blog and reading all the articles posted on the site (I don’t agree with them all, however. Some are posted to provoke thought about the topic.) That would leave out large tracts of books and wide swaths of articles. (Plus - obviously - actually going to Palestine and experiencing the reality on the ground for all involved.) And your opinions? Are they distorted too? (You didn’t exactly diminish my suspicion with the vitriol you direct at the vast majority of wonderful people who make up the populations of the middle east.) Nonetheless, my distorted opinions support the idea that Israel must accept even less of a tiny sliver of land than it already has (i.e., the lands occupied.). Sorry to say it but there it is. I support a two-state solution but a real one not a pretend one where a Palestine for Palestinians is nothing but a reservation. You?
As for what ought to be on the internet Jackie, I consider that and this blog my business. Jackie, as I noted, I’ve written a number of posts. They don’t all say the same thing. Some do not fit well with others. Some, likely contradict parts of others. A number look at both the one-state and two-state solutions. So here (at this blog) is a bunch of takes. Weigh in. Actually weigh in to what I’ve written and demolish it. Smash it to pieces. Demonstrate what a profound ignoramus you take me to be. But do it by focusing on the topics and telling me why I’ve got things wrong. In the meantime, I’ll start thinking a bit more seriously about Christian Zionism.
You showed some weaknesses in my knowledge although given your over-estimation of Williams here I must remain dubious as to what exactly you consider sound, rigorous information. Please don’t over-estimate your own take on things. It sounds disgustingly racist although I can’t know that for certain. But, when it came to some of the key substantive topics I expressed opinions on above (with me asking you where you stood), you said nothing and talked about other things entirely. It is undoubtedly true that other nations commit heinous actions. How does that make it untrue of Israel as well? And since that is what I’m focusing on, why not discuss that instead of changing the subject (or trying to blanket discredit me when you’ve apparently read nothing else I’ve written).
-It will be interesting to see just how close or far your second last paragraph actually plays out. I’m not sure what to make of it (what you wrote). Such an alliance seems remote. I personally think Israel has nothing to fear from Iran save for what it creates out of its fear of Iran. Fear works both ways - as a warning and as an over-reaction creating the conditions it aimed to prevent.
-I only discuss William’s because you and others do also. What he wrote here you say? Well then. What more is there to say. I’ve already responded to that.
When he does to Finkelstein what Finkelstein did to Dershowitz, let me know.
Give this a read:
Dershowitz v. Finkelstein: Who’s Right and Who’s Wrong?
RUSH TRANSCRIPT - 05/09/07 - DemocracyNow!
Finkelstein’s two main topics of focus over his career have been the Holocaust and Israeli policy. Today we are joined by two world-renowned scholars in these fields:
Raul Hilberg. One of the best-known and most distinguished of Holocaust historians. He is author of the seminal three-volume work “The Destruction of the European Jews” and is considered the founder of Holocaust studies. He joins us on the line from his home in Vermont.
Avi Shlaim. Professor of international relations at Oxford University. He is the author of numerous books, most notably “The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World.” He is widely regarded as one of the world’s leading authorities on the Israeli-Arab conflict.
…
AMY GOODMAN: … We’ll begin in Vermont with Professor Hilberg. Can you talk about Professor Finkelstein’s contribution to Holocaust studies with his book, The Holocaust Industry?
RAUL HILBERG: Yes. I read this book, which was published about seven years ago, even as I, myself, was researching actions brought against Swiss companies, notably banks, but also other enterprises in insurance and in manufacturing. And the gist of all of these claims, all of these actions, was that somehow the Swiss banks, in particular, and other enterprises, as well, owed money to Jews or the survivors or the living descendants of people who were victims. The actions were brought by claims lawyers, by the World Jewish Congress, which joined them, and a blitz was launched in the newspapers. Congressmen and senators were mobilized, officials of regulatory agencies in New York and elsewhere. Threats were issued in the nature of withdrawal of pension funds, of boycotts, of bad publicity.
And I was struck by the fact, even as I, myself, was researching the same territory that Professor Finkelstein was covering, that the Swiss did not owe that money, that the $1,250,000,000 that were agreed as a settlement to be paid to the claimants was something that in very plain language was extorted from the Swiss. I had, in fact, relied upon the same sources that Professor Finkelstein used, perhaps in addition some Swiss items. I was in Switzerland at the height of the crisis, and I heard from so-called forensic accountants about how totally surprised the Swiss were by this outburst. There is no other word for it.
Now, Finkelstein was the first to publish what was happening in his book The Holocaust Industry. And when I was asked to endorse the book, I did so with specific reference to these claims. I felt that within the Jewish community over the centuries, nothing like it had ever happened. And even though these days a couple of billion dollars are sometimes referred to as an accounting error and not worthy of discussion, there is a psychological dimension here which not must be underestimated.
I was also struck by the fact that Finkelstein was being attacked over and over. And granted, his style is a little different from mine, but I was saying the same thing, and I had published my results in that three-volume work, published in 2003 by Yale University Press, and I did not hear from anybody a critical word about what I said, even though it was the same substantive conclusion that Finkelstein had offered. So that’s the gist of the matter right then and there.
…
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to bring Professor Avi Shlaim into this discussion, a professor of international relations at Oxford University, has written numerous books, including The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World. Can you talk about the significance of Professor Finkelstein’s work?
AVI SHLAIM: Yes. I think very highly of Professor Finkelstein. I regard him as a very able, very erudite and original scholar who has made an important contribution to the study of Zionism, to the study of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and, in particular, to the study of American attitudes towards Israel and towards the Middle East.
Professor Finkelstein specializes in exposing spurious scholarship on the Arab-Israeli conflict. And he has a very impressive track record in this respect. He was a very promising graduate student in history at Princeton, when a book by Joan Peters appeared, called From Time Immemorial, and he wrote the most savage exposition in critique of this book. It was a systematic demolition of this book. The book argued, incidentally, that Palestine was a land without a people for people without a land. And Professor Finkelstein exposed it as a hoax, and he showed how dishonest the scholarship or spurious scholarship was in the entire book. And he paid the price for his courage, and he has been a marked man, in a sense, in America ever since. His most recent book is Beyond Chutzpah, follows in the same vein of criticizing and exposing biases and distortions and falsifications in what Americans write about Israel and about the Middle East. So I consider him to be a very impressive and a very learned and careful scholar.
I would like to make one last point, which is that his style is very polemical, and I don’t particularly enjoy the strident polemical style that he employs. On the other hand, what really matters in the final analysis is the content, and the content of his books, in my judgment, is of very high quality.
AMY GOODMAN: Professor Shlaim, what about the whole issue of when you criticize the Israeli government, being charged with anti-Semitism? What is your response to this? You were born in Iraq. You’re also an Israeli citizen and then moved to Britain?
AVI SHLAIM: I am. I was born in Baghdad. I grew up in Israel. I served in IDF. And for the last forty years, I have lived in Britain, and I teach at Oxford. My academic discipline is international relations, and I am a specialist in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
And I think that there is no — that we must be very careful to separate questions of anti-Semitism from critique of Israel. I am critical of Israel as a scholar, and anti-Semitism just doesn’t come into it. My view is that the blind supporters of Israel — and there are many of them in America, in particular — use the charge of anti-Semitism to try and silence legitimate criticism of Israeli practices. I regard this as moral blackmail. Israel has no immunity to criticism, moral immunity to criticism, because of the Holocaust. Israel is a sovereign nation-state, and it should be judged by the same standards as any other state. And Norman Finkelstein is a very serious critic and a very well-informed critic and hard-hitting critic of Israeli practices in the occupation and dispossession of the Palestinians.
His last book, Beyond Chutzpah, is based on an amazing amount of research. He seems to have read everything. He has gone through the reports of Israeli groups, of human rights groups, Human Rights Watch and Peace Now and B’Tselem, all of the reports of Amnesty International. And he deploys all this evidence from Israeli and other sources in order to sustain his critique of Israeli practices, Israeli violations of human rights of the Palestinians, Israeli house demolitions, the targeted assassinations of Palestinian militants, the cutting down of trees, the building of the wall — the security barrier on the West Bank, which is illegal — the restrictions imposed on the Palestinians in the West Bank, and so on and so forth. I find his critique extremely detailed, well-documented and accurate.
AMY GOODMAN: Professor Hilberg, like you, Norman Finkelstein is the son of Holocaust victims, his mother and his father both in concentration camps. Your final thoughts on this whole dispute and whether Norman Finkelstein should get tenure at DePaul University in Chicago?
RAUL HILBERG: Well, let me say at the outset, I would not, unasked, offer advice to the university in which he now serves. Having been in a university for thirty-five years myself and engaged in its politics, I know that outside interferences are most unwelcome. I will say, however, that I am impressed by the analytical abilities of Finkelstein. He is, when all is said and done, a highly trained political scientist who was given a PhD degree by a highly prestigious university. This should not be overlooked. Granted, this, by itself, may not establish him as a scholar.
However, leaving aside the question of style — and here, I agree that it’s not my style either — the substance of the matter is most important here, particularly because Finkelstein, when he published this book, was alone. It takes an enormous amount of academic courage to speak the truth when no one else is out there to support him. And so, I think that given this acuity of vision and analytical power, demonstrating that the Swiss banks did not owe the money, that even though survivors were beneficiaries of the funds that were distributed, they came, when all is said and done, from places that were not obligated to pay that money. That takes a great amount of courage in and of itself. So I would say that his place in the whole history of writing history is assured, and that those who in the end are proven right triumph, and he will be among those who will have triumphed, albeit, it so seems, at great cost.
http://www.juancole.com/2004/12/character-assassination-yes-im-aware.html
“The thing that most pains me in all this is the use of the word “antisemite.” Pipes already had to settle one lawsuit, by Douglas Card, for throwing the word around about him irresponsibly.
Israel is not being helped by extremists like Pipes and his associates (see below). It is being harmed, and its very survival is being placed in doubt by aggressive annexationist policies, and by brutal murders and repression, which Pipes and his associates support to the hilt.
Moreover, among the real targets of Pipes and Co. is liberal and leftist Jews. Indeed, the article attacking me begins with a vicious attack on Joel Beinin, a past president of the Middle East Studies Association (MESA). David Horowitz and Daniel Pipes are encouraging a new kind of antisemitism, which sees it as unacceptable that Jews should be liberals or should criticize Likud Party policies.”
Good text., guy