A prefatory word. Norman Finkelstein had my highest regard. Unsparing in his judgment, pulling not the slightest punch in his rhetoric, universal in his morality and religious in his adherence to fact, I respected him and his work enormously and thought his dismissal from DePaul and his (still) lack of an academic post pathetic--the output of a system manned at every level by cowards and fools. A friend pointed out that Finkelstein's fate was probably "inevitable," and suggested he was in that sense looking for it. Perhaps true, but not so much an indictment of the man as of the system he decided to crash into, kamikaze-like. Maybe the analogy is over-drawn--in that respect Finkelstein has been self-effacing, speaking of his foreknowledge of the consequences of his actions. He's obviously aware that the US is not a totalitarian state. The crashing kamikaze was his academic career and not his life. Anyway, that's enough overwrought prose about my intense admiration for Finkelstein and the choices he's made.
A member of my I-P organizing committee e-mailed me yesterday to say that the undertaking was going forward with endorsements based upon a "Statement of Context." Situating the march with respect to this statement of context was, apparently, the condition for Omar Barghouti and Haidar Eid [and fuck the pretense to omniscience; didn't know who he was before today] to endorse the march.
The original consensus of the International Coalition to End the Illegal Siege of Gaza was that we would limit our statement to a pair of uncontroversial, basic and complementary principles that would have the broadest possible appeal: the march to break the siege would be nonviolent and anchored in international law. I agreed with this approach and consequent statement and decided to remove myself from the steering committee in order to invest my full energies in mobilizing for the march.
During the week beginning August 30, 2009 and in a matter of days an entirely new sectarian agenda dubbed “the political context” was foisted on those who originally signed on and worked tirelessly for three months. Because it drags in contentious issues that — however precious to different constituencies — are wholly extraneous to the narrow but critical goal of breaking the siege this new agenda is gratuitously divisive and it is almost certain that it will drastically reduce the potential reach of our original appeal.
It should perhaps be stressed that the point of dispute was not whether one personally supported a particular Palestinian right or strategy to end the occupation. It was whether inclusion in the coalition’s statement of a particular right or strategy was necessary if it was both unrelated to the immediate objective of breaking the siege and dimmed the prospect of a truly mass demonstration. In addition the tactics by which this new agenda was imposed do not bode well for the future of the coalition’s work and will likely move the coalition in an increasingly sectarian direction.
I joined the coalition because I believed that an unprecedented opportunity now exists to mobilize a broad public whereby we could make a substantive and not just symbolic contribution towards breaking the illegal and immoral siege of Gaza and, accordingly, realize a genuine and not just token gesture of solidarity with the people of Gaza. In its present political configuration I no longer believe the coalition can achieve such a goal.
Because I would loathe getting bogged down in a petty and squalid public brawl I will not comment further on this matter unless the sequence of events climaxing in my decision to resign are misrepresented by interested parties. However I would be remiss in my moral obligations were I not humbly to apologize to those who, either coaxed by me or encouraged by my participation, gave selflessly of themselves to make the march a historic event and now feel aggrieved at the abrupt turn of events.
It can only be said in extenuation that I along with many others desperately fought to preserve the ecumenical vision that originally inspired the march but the obstacles thrown in our path ultimately proved insurmountable.
Related posts:
- Gaza Freedom March, Update The organizational issues have been ironed out, not without some...
- Hey Eric Write about Cast Lead or the Gaza Freedom March So I am sitting here, procrastinating in the face of...
- Let the Gaza Freedom March go to Gaza Repost widely. I had thought to write something inspiring about...
- Open Letter to President Mubarak from the Gaza Freedom March We are making a public entreaty to Mubarak to let...
- Documentary: Gaza Freedom March “Between a Rock and a Hard Place,” Maurice Jacobsen’s...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
What obstacles? What the fuck is this old man on about?
I’ve always questioned his legitimacy… Right now, I just don’t know what to think.
The right of return. That is the mysterious, “Controversial,” “precious to constituencies” (80% of the people of Gaza are refugees) issue that those darn Palestinians keep on insisting upon, even when they ought to let Norman Finkelstein do their thinking for them. Oh, how dare they.
/sarcasm
Norman F. won’t just SAY what it is about the “statement of context” that is so very “sectarian” and “divisive.” And people should read it — because really, it’s quite mild. Yet, the determination of Palestinians to define their own cause and national rights is something that NF sees fit to dismiss, belittle and denounce, while never once openly saying what it is to which he objects.
This isn’t actually new for NF, I haven’t heard one speech (in the US, at least) where he does not include a paragraph or so stressing upon the idea that the right of return is a topic about which ‘reasonable people can disagree.’ Of course, as far as more or less the entirety of the Palestinian national movement, as well as international law, is concerned, that is not the case, and it is a fundamental, basic right, and it is not up to NF to give it away on behalf of the Palestinian people.
Unfortunately, people proceed to diss someone on the basis of something he didn’t say. In all the talks I’ve listened to, Finkelstein is quite clear that the right of return is real. What he says “reasonable people can disagree” on is how to resolve the conflict. He (and chomsky, and avnery to name a few) does not think it is politically feasable to actually implement a one state solution. He and others think that a 2 states solution is more likely acheavable in the near future, and therefore it’s the best way to go to improve the lives of Palestinians. I disagree with his reading of the political landscape, but I understand what he’s saying, and he’s not a racist.
NF bailed out. Maybe you all should just let it be and move one.
I’m sorry, and maybe I’m guilty of hero worship, but Norman Finkelstein has given everything for this cause, and with transcendent humility, he was literally risking his life for this, and I can completely understand him insisting on the kind of concision of the original intent… that this was the world coming to insist, not the Palestinians, but the whole rest of the world. THAT would have been impossible to ruin, but any other way can, and so WILL, be ruined.
I know it’s hard to see that, but he is right… and he’s done the right thing.
Agent 99–
This is your privilege to think what you wish to think, but I for one would appreciate a more precise description of the modalities of Israeli response to “the world“‘s opinion that would have made it “impossible to ruin,” but the other way “can, and so WILL, be ruined.” The Palestinians, despite Israeli efforts, are a part of the world.
Agent99 — It is a strange fallacy to suggest that possibility implies necessity, and it is here that your argument collapses.
“…but any other way can, and so WILL, be ruined.”
This is patent nonsense.
Adoption of your axiom would mean one never had a reason to attempt anything in this world — where success is rarely, if ever guaranteed. One would never get out of bed for fear of the procedure somehow going wrong.
This would be a very sad state of affairs indeed.
Max,
Why do you believe Norman has fallen “so hard”.
There is too much vagueness from everyone about what is going on. As an outsider to the movement it is hard to understand exactly what happened. I think good journalism would work to expose and explain.
Really, whether or not something will “be ruined” in someone’s opinion is a poor justification for attempting to deny Palestinians the ability to define their own needs, interests, fundamentals and cause. It is the opposite of any kind of humility.
I, too, personally would have liked a more in the way of detail about what parts of the statement of context he objects to, or at least an explanation of why he has declined to provide specifics. His statement leaves a lot of open questions, though, given the strong positions he has taken and the invaluable work he is done, I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Elise I replied in greater detail over at Pulse, but as much as I wish it weren’t so, it’s not clear he deserves the benefit of the doubt.
http://gaza08.blogspot.com/
I know Norman Finkelstein as a fellow academic. I respect his careful detail to research, a powerful lecturer and great teacher, but he was dead wrong in giving up on a march he personally conceptualized. If you read the statement of context that is an appendum to the main call it only gives acknowledgement to BDS (international boycott) and “al awda”, the right of return. Anyone with an ounce of common sense would see that they could march without necessarily endorsing the statement of context, which just was expressed to let those who are not conversant in the struggle of Palestinian inalienable rights to reflect upon.
I also am an email correspondent of Haidar Eid, a very erudite associate professor in English literature at Al Aqsa and sits on the steering committee of PACBI (Palestinian Campaign for the Academic & Cultural Boycott of Israel). He also spent considerable time in South Africa as a graduate student and a lecturer in one of the universities in Soweto. He is well aware of the commonalities as well as unique differences between the Apartheids in South Africa and Palestinian Occupied Territories.
Please support this initiative as without the general consensus of the Palestinians in Gaza this would not have been a rightful or potentially successful march of support.
@Agent99
“I’m sorry, and maybe I’m guilty of hero worship, but Norman Finkelstein has given everything for this cause”
No, you are wrong, Palestinians have given everything for the cause, and they continue to give with each body they bury.
Norman Finkelstein lives in America, with freedom and equality and a home that foreign invaders cannot remove him from.
Steph has hit the nail on the head. Finkelstein is a two state solution guy, and he is clearly aware that, globally, the movement is increasingly centered around a one state alternative, regardless of any statements. He is also aware that, by the time Obama, the Saudis, the Israelis, and the PA get done, whatever legitimacy the two state solution possessed will have been totally destroyed. The funny part is that both he and Chomsky believe that the two state solution is politically feasible in a way that the one state one is not, even though people have been trying to implement a two state solution since the early to mid 1970s! Sort of, I guess, like a single payer health care system isn’t feasible, but a private system with a public option is. It would be interesting to know why both Chomsky and Finkelstein continue to hold onto the necessity of preserving a Zionist state in the Middle East. In Chomsky’s case, I suspect it may be because he remembers the anarchism of the early kibbutz days (as described in a recent book released by AK Press), and can’t quite accept letting what little remains of it go. As for Finkelstein, I can’t say.
I largely agree with you, but a part of me thinks it’s a mistake to get too intellectual about this resignation.
hey man. could be wrong, but wanted to add my 5 cents worth — i think you’re coming at this from the wrong angle. (for the record, I’m a finkelstein fan, but can only claim a basic knowledge of the issues here — and of course, i can in no way assume to speak for him or understand his motives) however,…the two state solution is theoretically achievable, as its basic tenants are enshrined under international law (67 lines etc) which has been flouted and ignored etc. both Hamas and Fatah are fundamentally aligned to this.
A one state solution however necessarily spells the ‘end’ of israel as a ‘jewish’ state, based, as i understand it, purely on population stats (palestinians would outnumber jewish israelis at some point in the not too distant future). the right of return of course remains an issue, but i think serious Palestinian players involved in this (inlcuding Hamas) accept that it will not be ‘literal’, but will involve financial compensation, land exchange etc etc. it is not a question of whether you think the one state solution is right or wrong. it’s about pragmatism and focus.
i really don’t think finkelstein is defending or ‘trying to preserve a zionist state’ per se (i don’t think he has any love for it). rather, i think he is being pragmatic and thinks that, here and now, the one state solution is a real red herring for the Palestinian struggle. whatever the ‘movement’ thinks globally, and despite any arguments about what is ‘right or wrong’ in principle, i think it is massively naive to think that a one state solution, which necessarily entails the loss of Israel’s ‘jewish identity, will ever be entertained seriously by Israel, or by the international community, which unfortunately have influence — nor is it an achievable aim for the devastated, and divided Palestinians, who still can’t claim real sovereignty over Gaza or the West Bank.
i also think that, given what he has undergone and the fact that, as i understand it, he really has nothing to protect or lose (like a well paid academic job etc) other than his own integrity, to suggest that he’s trying to sabotage something because it doesn’t fit with his view is undermines his seriousness to the issue — and the complexities of it. i think it is a genuine disagreement over some fundamental issues (like a leninist having a beef with a troksyist kind of thing).
Lastly, how can it follow that the legitimacy of a one state solution (in which Israel stands to lose a lot) becomes any more probable, plausible or achievable, if the legitimacy of a two state solution (in which comparatively, Israel doesn’t lose that much) is ‘destroyed’? if it’s acceptable for the Israelis (backed by the US, UK etc) to massacre Gazans with illegal weapons and bomb hospitals and schools with impunity and starve people to death etc, what on earth makes you think that they’ll give up everything they’ve taken and grant the arabs equal standing in their blessed country.
is the movement trying to appeal to their sense of decency, or the decency of the international community (which would be a joke)? or is it looking to dismantle the state in its current form by force (good luck).
sorry for ranting. my main point: i don’t think Finkelstein is trying to preserve the Zionist state. i think he thinks the struggle should focus on Palestinian self-determination and human rights in Gaza and the West Bank NOW.
I don’t think a one state solution is gonna be feasible anytime soon either,the Israeli government will do anything to ensure Palestians have no access to their country.
It’s worth pointing out that Chomsky has supported a one-state solution (single, binational state, etc.) as the ultimate goal since at least the 1970s (see his Mid-East Illusions). Finkelstein generally talks about his visions and proposals in tactical terms — what is likely to be feasible in the current situation, etc. He has never — to my knowledge — opposed a binatonal state on principle, but rather has emphasised that it makes sense to start from where there is already international consensus.
Despite its vagueness, his statement of resignation is quite consistent with this general thrust.
As for what “sectarian” means here, it is a bit hard to tell without an example from Finkelstein of what he means, but the following headline on gaza08.blogspot.com might fit the bill: “Gaza Freedom March is Now Zionist Free”. Another way to put it, of course, is “Gaza Freedom March loses supporters,” but some people prefer the Pollyanna outlook.
Also, while it’s certainly absurd to compare the risks to which Finkelstein has exposed himself to those to which the Palestinians are exposed (a fact he himself regularly points out), it’s rather offensive to say that the Palestinians “gave everything.” They didn’t give everything– everything was taken from them. It’s the difference between “getting laid” and “getting raped.”
The same piece refers to “much pressure” being brought to bear in order to secure the endorsement of the Statement of Context. While no details on the nature of this pressure are provided, it seems safe to say that this may be what Finkelstein was referring to when he described the Statement of Context as being “foisted” by means of “tactics” with which he took issue.
The whole thing reminds me a bit of an anecdote of Chomsky’s from a while back. Sometime in the 1970s or 1980s, he and some other US Palestinian-rights activists had suggested to the PLO that they send some of their literature in English in order for it to be placed in US libraries, allowing a US audience to see a Palestinian perspective that they were likely completely unaware of.
The PLO leadership would only do so on the condition that the books contain the stamp PROVIDED COURTESY OF THE PALESTINE LIBERATION ORGANISATION (or something to that effect), even though this would practically guarantee that no library or library patron would have anything to do with the books.
Palestinians and thir leadership are the experts on what goes on in the Occupied Territories and what the likely IDF reaction to things will be, etc., and their views should certainly be deferred to in those areas, but this does not necessarily mean that they are experts on how the US and European public — particularly those unfamiliar with the overall issue — will react to statements of context that contain things that are obvious to those familiar with the issue, but smack of dangerous fanaticism to those who are under– or misinformed.
Unless someone has some pretty compelling evidence suggesting otherwise (I’ve heard none at all yet), Finkelstein’s decision was clearly a tactical decision based on the likelihood of success of the enterprise. I continue to think he has a point on that score.
Appreciate your detailed response, but consider this: “Finkelstein generally talks about his visions and proposals in tactical terms — what is likely to be feasible in the current situation, etc. He has never — to my knowledge — opposed a binatonal state on principle, but rather has emphasised that it makes sense to start from where there is already international consensus.”
And, what might that be? If anything, the international consensus is moving away, quite rapidly, from the two state solution. By that I mean, people are turning against it, governments are another story. But, again, one can’t help but wonder, on what precisely, does Finkelstein think there is “international consensus”?
Elise,
Several points.
First, about Chomsky/Finkelstein and 1 state vs. 2 state–I heard Finkelstein on a panel with Ali Abunimah state that he thought a 2-state solution had a 5 percent chance of success. That was pre-Gaza massacre. Of course their judgments are tactical, rather than moral–they’re both communist-anarchist about states, anyway.
The people at the gazablogpost you linked to are more than a little self-righteous. That does not mean that they are symptomatic of the decision-making that went on. I wasn’t there for it, but I’m pretty sure the decision was a tactical one: what type of compromises do we make to get the widest support? Reasonable people may differ on that, but having lost the argument about compromises, the wise thing would’ve been to move forward, without a public resignation. Obviously everyone accepts that some compromises are intolerable. The Mission Statement doesn’t say, for example, that we accept Israel’s legitimacy, or that the Nakba was understandable, although then we could’ve gotten a lot more liberal Zionists. The line must be drawn somewhere, and in that respect the accusation of sectarianism is self-serving.
I would suggest that you look on the gazafreedommarch.org and look at the organizations that are supporting it the list is a mile longer than it was a week ago before the new statement of context was posted. There are 32 more organizations yet to be listed. Not all these are Palestinians ones. But what I will see is that to initiate a march without the majority of Palestinians notified and behind it was wrong–hence why Code Pink agreed to the statement of context, which again is only an acknowledgement of BDS and al awda (the right of return) not an endorsement. What Eid and Barghouti objected to was the patronizing attitude of Finkelstein’s that he the great white father was showing Palestinians a way of breaking the seige by applying Gandhi’s principles as if the Palestinians had not practice non-violent civil disobedience, no mention of the 1936 non-violent protest, the first intifada and the most recent the Human Chain that extended through to the six checkpoints of El Erez (Beit Hanoun).
This is correct: there’s nothing in the statement committing anyone to endorsing the ROR or BDS. Their existence is acknowledged, that’s all. The claims of sectarianism are disingenuous.
Anyway if a couple hundred drop out it is doubtful it is a moot point as knowing the Nazi Egyptian border officials they will not probably let all these folks in. I have been in Gaza and have seen how the Egyptians operate as well as on my flight from Cairo to Beirut they claimed my visa had expired, which it had not. I read Arabic and showed them the dates, but to get their way they marched me to the visa counter and restamped it.
Palestinian Leadership doing what it does best. Taking the extreme route, which alienates most of the people that would support their cause, leaving a bunch of anarchist, communists and extreme left to bicker about how it is their right to be as extreme as they want to be.
Mike, I fear this is irresponsible and dishonest. Either you’ve read the statement of context or you have not.
If you’ve not, then it’s quite misleading to say what you’ve said with the *pretence* that you know what you’re talking about.
If you had read it, you’d see that there’s no basis whatsoever in the notion that it is somehow “extreme”.
Perhaps you can explain yourself?
Zionist, Andrew, Engage at your own risk to your peace-of-mind.
I just read the statement. You’re right, it does not even call for the right of return only the implementation of UN resolution 194.
“resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date”
Which is far from what the right of return advocates preach.
It seems like this whole thing blew up because of a number of large egos and a little bit of anti-semitism.
I direct you to the picture on blogspot
http://gaza08.blogspot.com/
Best of luck breaking the seige!
Mike, it is helpful when you make comments of this sort to actually directly quote what the statement says. It says, “The hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who were forced out of their homes during Israel’s creation in 1947–48 are still denied the rights granted them by UN Resolution 194. ”
That’s a fact. Isn’t it?
The picture on blogspot is not something I’m thrilled with [note: a real-life example of something that I’m not thrilled with]
Jewbonic,
1) I never argued it was a fact.
2) Since you brought it up, no, this statement is not factually correct. There were many palestinians that left there home on their own free will when the arab armies came to destroy Israel. That is a fact not even contested by Chomsky.
3)Do you contest that the definition of a refugee by UNRWA is a bit odd and exacerbates the problem? Israel did agree after 1948 to take in around 100,000 refugees but not the total stated by UNRWA.
4)Over 900,000 Jewish arab refugees left there homes in arab countries. They have no chance of regaining their lives and livelihood. Not only that, it is not even contested that if they were granted a right of return they would be treated as second class citizens by law.
Mike,
(1) This is what you wrote: “You’re right, it does not even call for the right of return only the implementation of UN resolution 194.” Except that’s not true, see above
(2) The statement says “The hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who were forced out of their homes during Israel’s creation in 1947–48 are still denied the rights granted them by UN Resolution 194.” This is of course literally true. The question of Palestinians leaving voluntarily vs. being cleansed is irrelevant viz. their right to return: refugees have the right to return home. You have the history and such wrong, but this is not a classroom, and if you’re interested in some scholarly work on the matter, go read NF’s Image and Reality, chapter on Benny Morris.
(3) No, I don’t think it exacerbates the “problem”; I think Israeli/US intransigence “exacerbate” the problem
(4) Hate to devolve here but two wrongs don’t make a right. That should be obvious [Zionist complicity in compelling those Jewish Arabs to leave their homes has been extensively documented anyway].
But this is all irrelevant, isn’t it? The occupation is illegal, isn’t it?
Jewbonic,
I got it wrong with the statement of context but here you get it wrong. You are ignorant to what the UN Resolution states.
Article 11 reads:
“Resolves that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.”
The text merely states that the refugees “should be permitted” to return to their homes at the “earliest practicable date” and this recommendation applies only to those “wishing to… live at peace with their neighbors”.
(Note: you have no care whether or not the refugees wish to live at peace with there neighbors, it is also in question who is responsible. I would say Israel is responsible in the cases Benny Morris has pointed out to involve expulsion. Yet, Israel is not responsible in cases where the palestinians left their homes because of calls from the arab armies.)
No thanks on reading Finklestein. I’ve seen him talk and I have no respect for his scholarly work.
“refugees have the right to return home.“
– This statement is blatantly wrong and would cause havoc in the world today if it was actually implemented. Once again I point you to the special definition a palestinian refugee has. Moreover, palestinian refugees are the only refugees that can claim refugee status through birth.
“No, I don’t think it exacerbates the “problem”; I think Israeli/US intransigence “exacerbate” the problem ”
– Would you think any other way?
“Hate to devolve here but two wrongs don’t make a right. That should be obvious [Zionist complicity in compelling those Jewish Arabs to leave their homes has been extensively documented anyway]. ”
– How did zionists exactly compel those jews to leave their homes? Attacks on jews and second class citizenry in arab countries is well documented before Israel came into existence. You remind me of those who claim jews have it good in Iran because they aren’t constantly attacked. Only when a leader gets out of line he is hanged every now and then.
“The occupation is illegal”
–The occupation is not illegal. It is wrong and long overdue to end. There’s a difference. If you cared about the occupation you would go have a march in the west bank not Hamas ruled gaza. Let me remind you that it is Hamas that controls all of gaza where it is used as a base to launches rockets at Israeli civilians. Hamas still claims that all of Israel is occupied and that any agreement made would be limited to a 10 year time period.
Now are you going to refute these claims or just call me a Zionist and continue in your ways.
One does have to stand in awe of the scholarly judgment of someone who relies heavily on the work product of Joan Peters and her chief plagiarist Alan Dershowitz.
First of all, the idea that the rights of refugees should depend on whether they were directly forced out of their homes at gunpoint or left in order to preempt physical expulsion is nonsensical, and has no basis in international refugee law.
The supposed “special definition” a Palestinian refugee has is one of the many deceptions contained in Joan Peters’ discredited tract “From Time Immemorial.” The restriction of refugee status to persons who resided in the area in question for at least two years prior to fleeing — turned on its head by Peters — is actually stricter than that normally required by international refugee law, which merely turns on the refugee’s “place of usual residence.”
Nor is it at all unusual for the children of a refugee, whether born prior to the flight or subsequent to it, to be granted accessory refugee status. In countries that do not automatically grant citizenship to those born within their borders, the children of lawful residents are automatically granted the same residency status as their parents. In such countries, asylum extends to the children of person who has been granted asylum (the central right arising out of refugee status). The extension of refugee status to the children of Palestinian refugees born in exile is the norm.
What is actually documented about the situation of Jews in the Arab/Muslim world is that it abruptly and surprisingly worsened at the start of the Zionist colonisation of Palestine. For centuries, the Arab/Muslim countries had been major Jewish cultural centres, where Jews were treated better than they were virtually anywhere else. According to the reports of the British colonial administration — mangled by Peters and lifted in distorted form by Dershowitz — fear of Zionism was to account for the late 19th-century surge in anti-Jewish incidents in Arab/Muslim countries.
The occupation, in addition to being wrong and long overdue to end, is in direct violation of a host of international conventions that constitute ius cogens and a variety of UN Resolutions. It should first be noted that there is no “right to occupy.” An occupying power has no rights at all, only duties toward the occupied population. Cardinal amongst those duties is the ban on acquisition of territory by force, and the related requirement that the occupying power not transfer its civilian population into the occupied territory or deport any of the occupied population — individually or collectively — from that territory. Israel has done plenty of both and has made no bones internally about the unlawful purpose of the occupation (territorial expansion and exploitation of natural resources). There is no exceptional legal justification for the occupation; therefore, it is illegal.
It is not at all clear why someone seeking to protest the illegal embargo against the population of the occupied Gaza Strip would do so in the occupied West Bank.
While it is true that Hamas constitutes the elected government of Gaza, it is absurd to claim that Hamas has anything approaching control of “all of Gaza.” Israel has absolute control over all airspace, land borders (apart from the lone border crossing with Egypt, which plays along with Israel), and coastal waters, and makes regular, murderous incursions inside Gaza.
The homemade “rockets”, which mostly land harmlessly, far away from settled areas, all but stopped during the ceasefire, with Hamas going so far as to arrest members of other organisations that continued firing them. When Hamas, which has publicly accepted the two-state solution as the basis for negotiations, offered to put in place a ten-year ceasefire, the offer was rebuffed. To claim that “any agreement made would be limited to a 10 year [sic] time period” is simply disingenuous; it falsely implies that a longer agreement had been offered by Israel, when Israel couldn’t even wait for the existing ceasefire to expire before launching an attack timed to be overshadowed by election coverage in the US.
The question is not whether Mike is a Zionist, but whether he has repeated all this nonsense out of ignorance or is aware that it is false.
“The restriction of refugee status to persons who resided in the area in question for at least two years prior to fleeing is actually stricter than that normally required by international refugee law, which merely turns on the refugee’s “place of usual residence.”
– It’s easy to gather you are no expert in refugee law and make assertions as you go along. Name one group of refugees that have been given similar rights to those granted to palestinians refugees? It is one of the main reasons the number of palestinian refugees has ballooned to over 4 million from an initial 700,000 (taking the palestinians numbers)
“The extension of refugee status to the children of Palestinian refugees born in exile is the norm”
– This is a blatant lie and easily disproven by any simple fact check on the internet.
“For centuries, the Arab/Muslim countries had been major Jewish cultural centres, where Jews were treated better than they were virtually anywhere else”
–Please give examples of how they were treated in other places and why it was “better” to live under arab rule. Jews had nothing resembling equal rights in arab countries. Let me remind you that in comparison to being gassed to death any existence is virtually better. Also, in many european countries jewish communities thrived (Holland and Greece are two examples).
“The homemade “rockets”, which mostly land harmlessly, far away from settled areas”
–Is this stated in ignorance or just extravagant hypocrisy?
YOU would be willing to live under rocket fire that sometimes lands away from settled areas and sometimes doesn’t, but is always directed and targets civilians?
“it falsely implies that a longer agreement had been offered by Israel”
– Any agreement signed during the Oslo Accords would have been for a longer period than ten years.
By the way, if you want a scholar. Why don’t you read this.
And reflect on what Orwell meant when he talks about transferable nationalism.
http://www.orwell.ru/library/essays/nationalism/e...
It is terribly shameful the way N.Finkelstein walked out of the march, door slamming.
I have all the respect in the world for him, but this is very irresponsible. What does he want his pubic repudiation of the march to achive? who does it help to publicly fan out bickering within the movement like that?
He’s apparently trying to draw in legitimacy for his cause like that, but I’ve read and heard him use language, easily rephrasable, that had far more potential to ward of support for his own causes than anything in the “Statement of Context” comes close to. Those were his choices, and we all have had an utmost respect for them.
His constant public shaming of few famed rich holocaust survivors like Weisel and Weisenthal and the alludings of various Jewish organization’s manouvering around war politics to the Nazi party, I mean, you can’t say he’s incorrect, if alittle hyperbolic, but quite right nontheless. Still, these various statements have major potential of “offending” off support that he’sd otherwise could have harbord to increase his legitimacy in the mainstream, isn’t it what this all about?
It seems that it was Eid and Barghouti who’ve made the bigger effort to reach out.
But no one has the legitimacy to curse Finkelstein a “Zionist”, that is pure hearsay. Oh and while we’re at it, lets bring up more Jewish names in the Palestinian Solidarity movement and extradite them because of things we suspect they’ve once said.
I agree pretty much totally, and am not a big fan of people cursing Finkelstein as a Zionist, because of tactical positions, whether or not we agree with them.
[…] Freedom March, die na een conflict waarin serieuze inbreng van Palestijse kant leidde tot het nogal treurigmakende vertrek van Norman Finkelstein toch steeds steviger in de steigers komt te staan. Die mars naar Gaza verdient, in de vorm van […]
Norman Finkelstein is right and any Palestinian “intellectual” who slanders him deserves to be tarred and feathered. If not for Finkelstein, the Palestinians would never have received the support of the Left in America and Europe. They would have been nobodies in the academic world, just like the Uighurs and Tibetans. Where do the Palestinians get off thinking they can simply discard that giant of a man Finkelstein who raised their cause from the dung heaps? I’m terribly sorry.… my patience with you people is at an end. You do not give proper honour to your betters and for that I say… pity!
There are some empirical problems with this statement, without getting at normative issues. No Palestinian “intellectual” nor Palestinian intellectual “slandered” him. The idea that “If not for Finkelstein, the Palestinians would never have received the support of the Left in America and Europe” is untrue–it’s a strange stochastic view of history–no Finkelstein, no support from the US/European left. Can’t really run history through again but that statement seems indefensible. So “Where do the Palestinians get off thinking they can simply discard that giant of a man Finkelstein who raised their cause from the dung heaps?” the Palestinians didn’t discard him. He resigned. “I’m terribly sorry.… my patience with you people is at an end. You do not give proper honour to your betters and for that I say… pity!“
Serious?
What people keep missing in all this is that the original statement (not the new mangled one) WAS endorsed by the elected representatives of Palestinians, the Hamas. I am not sure who these self-appointed representatives of ‘Palestinian civil society’ are and whom they represent, but the original initiative was conceived and received enthusiastic support, not just from the Hamas leadership, but also from wide variety of ordinary Palestinians. It was this original initiative that was then hijacked by folks who claim to represent all ‘Palestinians’. As to a ‘mile long list of Palestinian organizations’ that support the march now and held back before, let me point out it is very easy to form an organization. Come up with a catchy name (for example, ‘Palestinian Civil Society’), conscript half a dozen people, and launch an attractive looking website, and lo and behold, you have an organization. Hell, you can spawn as many organizations as you want, all you need is some creativity.
Discussion is over. At this point you can destructively and aspersively refer to the dozens of NGOs that signed on in the wake of the new Statement of Context being adopted as “conscript[ers] [of] half a dozen people,” confectioners of a “catchy name,” etc., or not. If you want to be condescending and destructive, your business.