There's a lot to say and get pissed off about in Jamie Stern-Weiner's recent interview with Norman Finkelstein. Some of it will definitely be taken up by others. Finkelstein no longer strikes me as very radical, nor does he strike me anymore as very thoughtful, or, better, reflective. His concern for Palestine has always had a diamond-hard outrage at its core, but it is also aging into a resigned pragmatism. His prose and his thinking both lately have these machinic cadences, and I wonder where the man is who called Hezbollah heroes for fending off the Israeli army, and captivated me into caring about this conflict on a more intense level with his own intense moral clarity and his harsh Spartan judgments, "incensed that history should even have versions." Jamie asks and NF answers:
I guess they'd respond that they're trying to build as broad a movement as possible, and so as far as they can, they try to avoid specifying their preferences for a final settlement so that people who disagree about that can still unite to achieve more immediate goals.
Yes, but it also turns a lot of people away because they want clear answers before they're willing to join in. You know, they say they oppose "Zionists" -- "Zionism" is the epithet du jour -- but what does that mean? You're against Richard Goldstone? You're against Noam Chomsky? I don't know what it means. Richard Goldstone is the enemy? I don't see that.
Zionism is the motive force of the conflict, the reason Israel can't stop settlement-building without causing massive internal damage to its own society, why it can't and it won't stop the occupation until external forces compel it to do so. When those massive external forces--fucking us!--are in a position to compel a resolution on terms approximating justice, why should we settle for a two-state solution? The Palestinians don't want to, and one state vs. two states is not so relevant to the the short-term political horizon, although clearly, as the Palestinian left and Matzpen insisted for decades, two-states is both unrealistic and immoral. So what's Finkelstein getting at? Does he or does he not support condemning Hamas for "war crimes"? Does he or does he not support institutionalizing irredentist religious nationalism, AKA Israel on the '48 armistice lines? Does or doesn't Finkelstein think that American support for Zionism is premised on the perceived usefulness of a state running amok, sowing chaos in the Middle East, scaring up arms sales, scaring up oil prices, working well for the Israeli stock market, mostly high-tech with a huge side-business in arms-development? Does or doesn't Finkelstein think materialist analysis matters? He does think ideas matter: justice is an idea, morality is an idea, international law is an idea. And Zionism is an idea. Problem is, Zionism's metastatic, it's a cancer, it grows and gobbles land and starts wars, that is its nature. Zionism is an idea that's being practiced. That doesn't mean those condemning the idea and its practice are a bunch of hipsters indulging the latest bohemian fad.
American elites won't abandon Israel because of a pragmatic, realist case that such support is against American elite interests--or at least, I don't think that's the way it will play out, although others do. Elites will abandon Israel when a social upsurge, with one of its many planks being concern for Palestine, renders that support way too costly, when threatened "interests" include threats to the maintenance of domestic stability or stability in the Arab dictatorships. Certainly, those elites don't want what we want. They don't want justice for all the people in the Middle East. What I think could happen is the maintenance of some kinds of support in the context of security arrangements for a bi-national state. That'll be easier when most of the Israeli Jewish populace abandons Zionism, pressed by the threat of being turned into a nation of pariahs and tired of sending their children to brutalize and be traumatized to defend an ethnocracy internally stratified along ethno-national lines. Anyway, doesn't it seem like the second option is more likely than the first one, and in fact a very good sop to throw to a radical universalist anti-Zionist anti-capitalist movement, since the Empire of Capital can absorb the loss of Israel as a Middle Eastern client state (not that we should settle for that sop when it comes)? Suppose we as a movement suddenly have the power to press for our goals: why accept such truncated justice? And if we don't have such power, Zionism has simply woven itself too tightly into the Empire. Finkelstein's pragmatism forgets to take account of reality, both the Lobby, capitalist interests, and the way the Lobby functions as a shield for those interests.
In any case, when two- and one-states are equidistant from the present catastrophe, there's a facile convenience in choosing the course currently more amenable to sectors of domestic elite opinion: the two-state solution, a la Geneva. There's a bit of posturing going on, double-posturing, because it's posturing that pretends not to posture. There's something abrasive and condescending about choosing for the victims what sort of justice is appropriate for them. There's something slippery about side-stepping the way Zionism, economics, capitalism, and imperialism braid to sustain the conflict, and focusing instead on a notion of "consensus" from the world community, as though world opinion matters, as though the consensus on so many other issues is easy to transmute into policy. There's something nearly naive about the focus on "international law," when international law's implementation basically reflects power relations in the real world--which is not to say it doesn't matter. Finkelstein is free to sidestep power, and he is free to promulgate this sort of analysis. Of course he is. But that tint of superiority coloring this turn to pragmatism is quite annoying, and I can't imagine I'm the only one getting a little annoyed. Others are getting worse than annoyed--they're getting alienated. Legacies are in constant construction. Is there a good reason to tarnish a legacy with this kind of gratuitous destructiveness?
Related posts:
- hey Eric didn’t I tell you you were too dumb to write about Palestine? I have just seen Eric Alterman’s response to the response...
- “Jewish challenges to Zionism on the rise in the US” I looked for an aphoristic or stunning, incisive sentence...
- Israel Lobby? Try again Bradley Brooks writes in the AP, “Last year [Brazilian Archbishop...
- Why Norman Finkelstein Resigned from the Gaza Freedom March A prefatory word. Norman Finkelstein had my highest regard. Unsparing...
- is there a humanitarian crisis in Gaza? not the point Israeli hasbara and the nincompoops who repeat it in the...
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
Max,
When you say:
“When those massive external forces–(fucking us!)–are in a position to compel a resolution on terms approximating justice”
What do you mean?
The “massive external forces” are the USA?
And what is the resolution approximating justice that you would want to compel?
“Massive external forces” is a social movement or a solidarity movement which Israeli, European, and American elites fear–fear enough that they’ll compromise on Zionism so that they don’t have to compromise what they really care about, which is power.
A step towards justice would be one state, return-of-refugees, and some reparations.
I believe you are overestimating the power such a movement can have over us simple Israelis. I was born way after 48 and was a small child in 67. I have to think of the welfare of my children and not dwell about what my ancestors did. I don’t agree with your view of what justice means in this case. Maybe at the point of the gun you may be able to force on us a one state solution and the return of the refugees, but I seriously doubt that any international pressure would do the trick.
That’s OK. It can and it will.
Only the future will tell for sure, but you seem pretty sure of yourself for someone who is not Israeli and has not lived in Israel for any long period of time. You also don’t have much business experience and you underestimate the ingenuity and the global trading networks of Zionist worldwide. Putting international pressure on Israel that will hurt Israelis so much that they would be willing to accept a one state solution is going to be almost impossible even more so since huge natural gas deposits have been discovered in Israeli waters.
As an Israeli you should be aware that the end of Israel will come, just like the end of apartheid, the end of Rhodesia, French Algiers, Indo-China.. it will come to an end. It will either come to an end the humane way, the semi-voluntary forfeiting of power from the Zionist elite and the recognition of their responsibility for the Palestinian tragedy, which , if would happen, would be caused by economic and cultural isolation and pressure (much like what is being done right now to North-Korea. of course their self sustainability is much superior to Israel’s who relies, almost entirely, on foreign trade and assistance) or it could come about by a bloody revolution in neigbouring Arab regimes which will fall like dominoes to popular anger and will drag Israel with it.
I myself tend to believe in the hybrid model. Popular Arab anger and the coming collapse of an Arab dictatorship or two will cause the Israeli elites to curb their enthusiasm and Ideological zeal and to make offers unimaginable before to save their hides. BDS will be there to saw distrust in capitalist and cultural institutions at Zionist policy.
There have been several coups and revolutions in Arab countries during Israel’s existence and non have impacted Israel.
Take the worse case the scenario in which both Egypt and Jordan fall to the Muslim Brotherhood. This would in fact make Israel much stronger as it would become the only American ally in the region. It will also make Israel even more economically strong relative to its neighbors because the turmoil, civil strife and radicalism will only make Jordan and Egypt less economically viable. Therefore, a change in Arab regimes will only enhance Israel’s power, not making it weaker and more willing to accept a one state solution.
It is not only the Zionist elite that is against the one state solution. It is the middle class Zionists like me who do not want Israel to be trashed. 99.5% of Israeli Jews are against the one state solution you imagine.
As for foreign pressure bring about the end of Israel, you are sorely mistaken. But of course time will tell. In the meantime, Israel is just getting stronger. Europe is moving to the right and it looks like also the US. As China becomes stronger and the world becomes multi-polar again, the value of Israel as an ally for the US grows. So, the long term trends are not in your favor.
Maybe 90 something precent of the Israeli jews are against the ending of the Apartheid in Israel but the Arab population of the entirety of Palestine, which you (like most Israeli pundits) don’t see at a foot’s distance, are equaling the Jews demographically. They’re sitting quietly now, but I wouldn’t count on it staying that way if Egypt and Jordan fall. And don’t be so sure the US would be willing to pay the price of having 2 more Afghanistans. Look at the way they’ve abandoned South African Apartheid, the Noriega dictatorship of Panama, Charles Taylor’s Liberia, Saddam.. Not to mention what a revolution in Egypt and Jordan would stir up in the Saudi kingdom.
Why would the Palestinians launch another intifada if Jordan or Egypt have regime changes? What is the reasoning behind this? If the Muslim Brotherhood take over Egypt (the only option other than a palace coup) they will be very busy for many years trying to feed the 81+ million Egyptians who will all of a sudden have to do without US aid and with very limited trade with the West (I am assuming they will annul the peace treaty with Israel and therefore pay a heavy international price). And if they keep respecting the peace treaty, and keep receiving US aid, then how has the situation changed at all?
And if the Palestinians do start another intifada, why do you think they will fare better than in the second intifada? Israel has only gotten stronger relative to the Palestinians and its intelligence in the West Bank is 100 times better than it was at the beginning of the second intifada.
I don’t understand what you mean by “two more Afghanistans” that the US can or cannot afford. If Egypt or Jordan have a regime change, no one is going to invade them to restore the old regimes. The world will just treat those regimes like it treats Hamas’ regime in Gaza or Iran’s regime.
You are an optimistic Zionist, that’s becoming rare in Israel. Most Zionists I know are going paranoid and keep drifting further and further to the extreme right in hopes that it will rescue them from these dire circumstances (I hope to see it cooling down soon as I already see quite a few of my friends getting frustrated with our public image).
You also underestimate the assistance that Israel is currently getting from neigbouring regimes like Jordan and Egypt at keeping Palestinian political activism in check. It will also demand Israel to take even more stronger measures to thwart Palestinian national and international mobilization which will cause it’s democratic image to corrode even more in the eyes of the world.
I am a realist Zionist, not an optimistic one. And you must be moving in strange circles. I find that most people are like me in Israel. What dire circumstances are you talking about? The following is fact: Israel at this point is as well off economically as it has ever been. It also has never been so militarily strong. It also has been able to build huge deterrence. Not only has the border with Lebanon never been more quiet in the last 4 years, Hizballah did nothing during Cast Lead.
How are Egypt and Jordan keeping Palestinian activism in check? There is just no evidence of that. What specifically are they doing? And you still need to answer the question why you think a third intifada will fare better than the second intifada? I think that most Palestinians have reached the conclusion that non-violence may get them better results than violence. This seems contradictory to your position that a violent intifada will force Israel to compromise.
Hello Max, I dunno what ticked you off about that pefectly rationed NF interview, where did he suggest we capitulate to a 2-state solution? by not breaking off with Chomsky and Desmond Tutu?
Was that his mistake?
Michael,
I don’t understand what you’ve written at all. I laid out pretty clearly at least a part of what pissed me off, which is the condescending, superior tone and the framing. Finkelstein isn’t a dummy and knows the tone he’s using and doesn’t care anymore. He doesn’t care because he revels and relishes being divisive. This is a problem because he’s not organically embedded in any movement and there’s no one to call him to account (and no, working the lecture circuit at affluent colleges does not count as being organically embedded).
“where did he suggest we capitulate to a 2-state solution? by not breaking off with Chomsky and Desmond Tutu?
Was that his mistake? ”
is this something I am supposed to respond to? What the fuck did I write about Chomsky, who I see things differently from and makes a lot less of an effort to canonize himself and never comes in for criticism here anyway?? You say that the NF interview was “perfectly rationed.” If perfectly rationed, it follows that I’m writing belligerent non-sense. So why bother reading or commenting?
You accused him of openly advocating the “global consensus” on the two-state solution, my simple question was what, in the interview, are you basing this on?
I’m not a native English speaker, perhaps the word “rationed” is somehow offensive in American culture, i wasn’t aware, but what I meant was that the interview was reasonable. He ain’t got to sign up for this or that party you support in order to be 100 times more effective than a whole bunch of us.
Michael,
He speaks in terms of this consensus relentlessly in his published work and his speeches. I linked to the pages in his book where he goes on about this “global consensus.” He does the same thing in his Maastricht Lecture on Gandhi. If you have heard or read his lectures, you know that this is the case, he does it all the time.
I understand that you meant that the interview was reasonable. I didn’t think it was reasonable; people I know find his tone intolerable [remember this? http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article10761.sht.... So if you found it reasonable and I found it unreasonable we are simply having different judgments about what is reasonable and what is not. I don’t have the time or the energy to parse the piece word-by-word; Finkelstein’s debating/rhetorical strategy is posturing by pretending to not posture and it’s self-serving and as I said, alienating.
You must have me confused with someone else, When he refused to march on Gaza I respectfully stood against his decision on this very blog. I’m well aware that he’s one of the “practicalists” but he never followed Chomsky’s type of “practicalism” where a complete dismentaling of the Israeli Apartheid was favorable but impossible, or the need to constantly highlight the damage Israel is supposedly doing to itself.
You’re speaking of a tone, you read something between the lines that I just don’t see. You quoted the last question and answer as an example of what’s troubling you about Finkelstein’s tone, but in that very answer he pointed out that Chomsky, who was a full fledged left-Zionist in his youth, still carries a small (and ugly) Zionist bias and that Richard Goldstone is a full-fledged Zionist.
Both men have delivered severe blows against Zionism. Should pro-Palestinian activist boycott the Goldstone report? You haven’t said THAT obviously, but i just don’t read what you have read between the lines of that interview.
Michael,
I remember precisely what you said on this blog and did not mean to suggest anything else. All I meant by referring to that article was that I am not alone in noting that what Finkelstein does with tone and word-selection are political choices, they are calculated. Regarding tone: I could have been more specific.
What I meant in that specific passage was this: “You know, they say they oppose “Zionists” — “Zionism” is the epithet du jour — but what does that mean?“
“epithet du jour” for example is insulting in the dialect of English Finkelstein uses. He asks what people mean–is he serious? If I asked what Finkelstein asked here people would just think I was a racist clown, no one would take me seriously–is this a problem with Palestinian society, that they should modulate their (correct) descriptions of the ideology that’s killing them? In that as in other places there are gratuitous divisive insults and why? So NF can preen?
On Goldstone, frankly, he insisted on including Hamas “war crimes” within his remit. I haven’t criticized him on this blog, because it’d be sectarian and it’s not worth it, but the man is an imperial lawyer, he’s done bloody work in the ICTY and regarding Kosovo, he is a scoundrel. If ever there was an instance of the structure–the Empire’s need to shore up the liberal Zionists to prevent things in Palestine-Israel from spinning out of control, the need for damage control in the wake of Cast Lead–selecting for the man, this was it. Any barrister was going to produce exactly the same report, maybe more in favor of the Palestinians. Has Goldstone dealt Zionism a blow? The war dealt Zionism the blow, Goldstone wrote it up. I’m reluctant to give the man too much credit frankly.
I understood the “epithet du jour” being question directed at those who advocate boycotting the Goldstone report because of some quirks about responsibility of the victim, and also advocate a boycott of most Jewish pro-Palestinian activists who have had, no matter how insignificant, a Zionist past. should I point you to the Mary Rizzo or the Gilad Azmon blog first?
And the Gaza war is far behind on past Israeli atrocities against the Palestinians, European outrage usually appears after a UN resolution, Palestinian matters have never been mainstream.
No matter what one might think of the worth of someone like Goldstone, he brought the Gaza war crime and Israel skepticism to the mainstream. Only if you’re one who objects to the UN from the right (like most US citizens, you excluding of course) then you can still look at what happened in Gaza as anything short of a massacre.
I did not understand it being directed at them, and as I’m sure we think the same way about them don’t even want to discuss them. But I understood it as an attack on an entire segment of the radical left that identifies as anti-Zionist. Note his quiet contempt for the settler-colonial model-thesis [Matzpen], at ideological analysis generally. It’s of a piece Michael, I really think it is, and it’s disquieting, and borderline anti-intellectual despite it being studded with chunks of analysis borrowed from the days when Finkelstein’s interests were different, and broader.
On Goldstone: I think it’s a mistake to think that “he” brought Gaza to the mainstream, that “he” did anything. I’m not opposed on principle to leaning hard on structural or sociological analysis, or on the other hand leaning on personal-characteristics-explanations. But in this case, Gaza was a massacre too far, too crazy; it was too far because aggressive bellicose invasions and right-Zionism are becoming destabilizing in dangerous ways; a measure of instability in the Middle East has always been good, but too much and the Arab populations will explode–they’ll explode eventually I hope–and Cast Lead could have been a tripwire. The next Cast Lead could be a tripwire too. Hence the goal of avoiding it, which is why people accepted the Goldstone nomination: he’d do a nice job, not question the legitimacy of the war, intimidate Israel into comporting itself a little more reasonably in the future, and the Lobby will have trouble with him because of his background. The question is complicated, I don’t want my answer to be too pat–ultimately a question of Goldstone relies on complete analysis of how Israel is fitting into global Empire, where Israeli society currently stands, the Lobby, etc, and for me these aren’t by any means settled questions. But I think it’s reasonable to interpret the Goldstone report sociologically, structurally, from a Marxian perspective and wonder: cui bono. Did he hammer Zionism? Or did Zionism hammer itself and wait around for a scribe to put a spin on it, a scribe taking marching orders from those with power?
Max, I had an email exchange w/ Prof. Finkelstein awhile back and he just avoided a down-to-earth answer. I said ‘Zionist’ somewhere in my email and rather than answering my question, he focused on that.
I don’t know what’s going on with him, but I felt like he was an intellectual you begin with, not end with (hopefully). I’m the same age as you Max, when did you get interested in the issue? For me it was 2003-ish and Norman was one of the intellectuals who sort of introduced me to the issue. Good blog btw, I enjoy reading your analysis here and occasionally on Mondoweiss.
Thanks Cliff.
It doesn’t surprise he that NF did so. He has fallen far in my book.
I did begin with Finkelstein and Chomsky as I suppose many do but I think it’s a mistake to think that he is an intellectual we begin with and not end with. Not everyone is so tightly focused on this issue, even some good unimpugnable people on the radical left take their cues from NF or Chomsky and this has its problems. I got seriously interested I guess around then as well, 2003-ish, although it has been present in one way or another since I was a child.
We should never underestimate the importance of the entry point and of the deliverers, the people that introduce you into an enlightened position.
My entry point to questioning Israeli policy was, oddly enough, Chomsky, since at the time, i was not aware of any radical Hebrew language publication (they are still extremely rare) and my knowledge of Arabic was non-existent.
It soon rolled to me refusing to conscript in the IDF, even in the most menial position. Soon, I’ve completely broke off from Chomsky’s evaluation of the Russian revolution, I was never an Anarchist (but i was really never anything before).
Now i may take Chomsky to task about this or that cringeable quote but I would never second-guess his importance in the world.
Yes again I didn’t mean to come off as taking a side-swipe at Chomsky, just making an observation about how broader left circles perceive these issues.
Finkelstein doesn’t know what “Zionism” means? I find that hard to believe. Certainly, he must know that it has nothing to do with Noam Chomsky and Richard Goldstone. Nothing is more irritating than when people like Finkelstein (and, sadly, Chomsky, too, sometimes) play these word games. Both seem to have lost the thread of participating in social movements for change, substituting statecraft instead, as Chomsky did in his recent trip to Gaza.
I would be a bit less harsh than than on Chomsky (I usually am). International law isn’t unimportant, neither are how states vote in the GA [then turn around and pursue policies supporting Israeli irredentism]. What gets me, and this is by no means just a gripe about Finkelstein, is that the Israeli left, or what is circulated in English, speaks about the conflict as leftists, talking about capitalism and colonialism and empire, and NF ignores that work, and it’s often ignored in other circles as well, and I don’t get why and I don’t see what’s left once we’re done with that but as NF says “elitist” lawyers throwing documents at each other in courtrooms. It’s not a very empowering route to justice, for sure, tied to the lost “thread of participating in social movements,” I think. Resignation transmutes to pragmatism and an elitist path to intolerably compromised justice.
Chomsky was pretty uninspiring during his trip to Gaza, and he has been talking around in circles when it comes to BDS, although he seems to support it, I can’t really tell. Perhaps, it is a personal communication thing with me, but both now seem incapable of giving a straight answer to a question, they always seem to be starting out in left field somewhere, and meander around.
I always liked people like Tariq Ali more anyway, I guess. Perhaps, I am simpleminded but I reread parts of “The Clash of Fundamentalisms” more than I do anything by Chomsky, especially the chapters about Pakistan, a US imperial relationship that is not well understood in terms of its importance here. Very direct in his way of expressing himself. His Islam Quintet series of novels are quite fine, especially “The Stone Woman”, “Shadows of the Pomegranate Tree” and his most recent one, “Night of the Golden Butterfly”. All of them present an alternative history of the relationship of Islam with Europe and Christianity, as well as the profane sensuality of the religion as expressed within the daily lives of his protagonists. But then, as I have said on blog, I have been socially and politically influenced more by film and literature than theory.
As you might have guessed, I have an enduring respect for Edward Said as well, because he understood the interrelationship between culture and imperialism, especially as expressed in the great literature of the 19th and 20th centuries.
yeah but even Said was taken to task by Ibn Warraq for Orientalism and Culture and Imperialism. I’ve completly lost faith in anyone whose lauded as hot shit on the left…Slavoj Zizek for example 98% incoherent bullshit in his talks…i’d rather watch the Pinky show.
Zizek is a clown. My mentor likes him a lot but I haven’t seen anything useful he wrote since he reviewed Peter Hallward.
There’s no question that his stance on BDS is unacceptable. But for me, reading American Power and the New Mandarins, especially that introduction, was amazing and searing. “The principle that we should retract our claws because the victims bleed too much is hardly an elevated one,” the dedication to the “brave young men who refuse to serve in this criminal war,” the comment about the exhibit in the Boston Science Museum. Those passages will stay with me forever.
Max
maybe you forget Finkelstein’s position in the academic power play, i think he does what he has and fills a good role. As Cliff says he’s a start not an end and his works (when they manage to get past the anti-semitic/self hating jew remarks and reach a new comer) still carry huge weight.
I’m not sure whether or not he’s radical enough but then who’s able to carry on being radical forever? Even Chomsky’s fucked it a few times (Chavez) and those that carry on being vociferous in their criticisms (as an example i know of Murray Bookchin and the Ecology movement) usually alienate themselves and their ideas. He does his bit, even if they are in the privileged campus circles, and it’s necessary (particularly in those circles…i still have leftist friends with eyebrows raised when i mention The Holocaust Industry).
I disagree with you about his tone. He remains measured and i’m not sure he is “naive” about international law, he simple decides if we have these tools we might as well use them. The UN’s power is debateable and certainly is a tool of Empire but there are worse ideas to be promoting and using to end the conflict than the International Declaration of Human Rights.
I think you’re right he doesn’t use Power enough in his analysis but then maybe he’s not into Foucault, or maybe he doesn’t give a shit and thinks the weight of UN coupled with a growing international consensus is sufficient.
Though as his support has grown i’ve noticed an increase in self assurance but after years of death threats and vilification, no tenure etc i’m willing to overlook that.
Goldstone a scoundrel? Yes and definitly no. Yes he works for Empire but it also takes alot of balls to do what he did and he’s created a shit storm (big or small it’s stil there to be used)
I hope im not off point.
The comment about “campus circles” was only meant to indicate that NF is peripatetic, he isn’t rooted in any organization. A problem all over the American left, of course, and that leads to movements being unable to call more articulate representatives to account. What there is of the movement is of course anti-Zionist, not “international law-ist.”
I will get into this in more depth but I disagree about his tone here.
Of international law it is very important. I refer to it all the time. IDHR is very important. But let’s not imagine that a “consensus” on a “resolution” or the mere fact that international law is in the side of the Palestinians will resolve the conflict.
I don’t see any reason ti invoke Foucalt. I’m not into Foucalt either. Bertrand Russel was talking about power as the key concept in the social sciences way earlier than Foucalt anyway.
I am not bothered by the self-assurance but the divisiveness, something which I guess in a smallish way I am now contributing to.
I’m really past thinking a Goldstone has balls. He produced a useful document. good. let’s use it, and ignore the man, he’s covered with blood.
max
i tripped up invoking Foucault and i agree thouroughly on Ignoring Goldstone (something i think he and NF would agree with, but predictably the israel supporters continue to dredge up. is it not more divisive to not support a man who probably went against his Zionist/Israeli conditioning to produce a good document and either forget or consider the document as washing part of the blood off his hands?)
He can’t give a speech anymore without an invocation about how “reasonable people can differ” about the right of return. At one speech in NYC, in response to a question about the importance of the ROR (NOT phrased as a challenging question to NF, I may add), he responded by going on about how he wouldn’t be trapped into talking about Israel’s legitimacy or not, and how we should understand “demographic concerns,” because the ROR is like “300 million Chinese” moving to the US.
Image and Reality is still a good book. But I’m not sorry to see an end to unnecessary hero-worship more broadly in the movement.
I think NF raises a good point in that is unfair to deny the concerns of Israelis about the ROR. I think his analogy about the Chinese moving to the US is spot on. Almost all people care about the welfare of their family, and I am quite sure that if the ROR is implemented, Israel would become a hell hole, not a place I would wish for my children or myself. It takes generations for populations to double and this gives enough time to build the required infrastructure to support larger populations. Israel, or any other country, cannot cope with the doubling of its population over such a short period of time. Just think about the number of schools, power plants, hospitals, etc. that need to be built. Think how many jobs need to be created. And all this, with two populations that have huge economic differences between them and also hate each other. It is a recipe for disaster.
Finkelstein’s comment was about as bizarre a response to a question about the right of return as one can imagine, actually. Do you even remotely realize how utterly racist this post is?
What was *wrong* with Finkelstein’s comments were, among other things: 1) the idea that Palestinians are somehow “alien” to Palestine when in fact they are indigenous; 2) that the right of return is an immigration issue that is somehow utterly unconnected to the *reason* these Palestinian refugees are not in their home country at present, namely that they were forced out by ethnic cleansing; 3) that everyone in the room was expected to identify “Chinese” as “foreign,” “unwelcome” and “an understandable fear”.…
It’s funny how much effort “Israel” expends on trying to convince Jews to immigrate, for a country with such alleged concerns about population. In fact, it does have one concern about population —> namely, the “demographic threat.” It’s not even slightly about numbers of people. It’s about the people themselves, Palestinian Arabs, the indigenous people of Palestine, as opposed to colonial settlers.
Somehow, no one’s concerned about “Israel” becoming a “hell hole” due to constant aliyah promotion; on the other hand, people are offered homes, education funds, and much more to immigrate. But the caveat is: only if they are Jewish. And certainly not if they are Palestinian Arabs.
1) The Palestinians of the diaspora ARE alien to Israel. Only a small number of them have ever been in Israel. Yes, their ancestors are from Israel, but that does not make them less alien. 62 years have passed since 1948. I was born in Israel and so were my parents. We are more indigenous to Israel than most of the refugees.
2) We can argue about the “reason” but the fact is that most Israelis are not responsible for what happened in 1948. A person who was 18 in 1948 is now 80. The people over eighty are a very small percentage of Israelis. So the “reason” is not really important because the people responsible are not around anymore. Which leads us to:
3) Yes, the diaspora Palestinians all immigrating to Israel is something any rational Israeli would fear.
The aliyah to Israel is very gradual. It does not double Israel’s population overnight. Furthermore, the olim are not people who we have been at war with for the last 100 years.
“Aliya” to Israel wasn’t very gradual around 1948–49, and check out another peaking at 1990 onwards, which was the time my clan arrived here: http://jewishagency.org/JewishAgency/English/Abou...
I think you just proved my point. To this day Israel suffers from the consequences of the bad absorption of the Aliyah of 48–51 that overwhelmed Israel. The immigrants, mostly from Arab countries lived for years in ma’abarot (refugee camps? slums?). They also suffered severe socio-economic hardships that took a couple of generations to overcome, and the process is not completely done yet.
By the time the gates of the USSR opened, Israel was much richer and as a percentage of the population, the number of immigrants was much much smaller.
yes, it is amazing how many Americans have not grown up around Asians, and still consider them “foreign”, or have limited interactions with them
and, of course, not surprising that, to provide a plausible justification for rejecting the right of the return, one has to purvey these racist stereotypes
as someone who grew up with Chinese Americans, and knows Japanese Americans who had their parents interned, I find the use of these stereotypes offensive, and think even less of Finkelstein that I did before
Most Americans are very comfortable with Latinos. But how many Americans would support making Mexico and the US one state? Very few. Does that make them racist according to you?
Looking over the fact that Palestinians aren’t “neighbouring nation” to Israelis, again you pick your words carefully but the typical Israeli racism is always showing.
How are the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza not a neighboring nation to Israel? In fact the analogy is excellent. Just as there are Latinos in the US, there are Arab Israelis in Israel. So just as Americans are not racist because they do not support making Mexico and the US one country, neither are Israelis against the one state solution racist. Of course, common sense goes out the door when judging Israel and Israelis.
[…] From The Invention of the Jewish People, Shlomo Sand. That’s the progression of Zionism. Dies hard. But still, seriously: don’t we want to kill it? […]
[…] […]