You Cannot Call BDS a ‘Cult’, Support the Existence of an Apartheid State & Attack the Slogan of the Movement ‘Palestine Must be Free’ & Expect To be Worshipped Like An Ancient God
Norman Finkelstein has been a
remarkable analyst and critic but he has also acted like a bull in a china shop.
Finkelstein’s demolition of the
fraudulent Joan Peter’s From Time Immemorial,
which claimed that it was the Zionist settlement which attracted the
Palestinians to Palestine and that there were therefore no refugees, was a classic
example of how to deconstruct an opponent’s argument. To say that Finkelstein demolished Peters and her wretched book, whilst swimming against
the tide of favourable reviews in all the mainstream press, the NYT included,
is an understatement.
When Daniel Goldhagen wrote the
execrable ‘The
Germans: Hitler’s Willing Executioners’ which said that the Germans
killed Jews because they were a particularly sadistic and cruel nation, Finkelstein
tore him to pieces. So devastating was his criticism
that Goldhagen threatened him with libel initially, rather than reply to the
substance of the criticism.
Holocaust Industry
Finkelstein’s Holocaust
Industry, helped change the debate over the weaponisation of the memory
of the holocaust but it nonetheless refrained from drawing any conclusions
about the relations between the Zionists and the Nazis which are surely
relevant to the Zionists’ exploitation of the holocaust?
The pre-eminent holocaust scholar
Raul Hilberg, author of the Destruction
of European Jews was a ‘strong
supporter’ of Finkelstein. Finkelstein savaged the Zionist Jewish Claims Conference which has
embezzled millions of dollars, intended for the holocaust survivors, for the
Zionists’ pet projects (as well as engaging in more mundane corruption).
This was all too much for the Socialist Workers’ Party
resident guru, Professor Alex Callinicos [Finkelstein
and the holocaust] who declared, in a review which, more than anything,
demonstrated that the SWP is incapable of a serious analysis of anti-Semitism today
or how the holocaust has been used to undermine Palestine solidarity.
How different is his assertion that “the field of
Holocaust studies is replete with nonsense, if not plain fraud” from the
Holocaust revisionist David Irving’s rantings during his recent libel case?... so
exaggerated is his polemic that at times he comes, quite contrary to his own
intentions, dangerously close to giving comfort to those who dream of new
holocausts.
Perhaps this is one reason why the
SWP front organisation, Stand Up to
Racism, continues
to march with genocidal Zionist organisations like Glasgow Friends of Israel.
The misnamed Zionist group Honest Reporting was more than happy to take advantage of Finkelstein's attack on BDS as were other Zionists
Finkelstein is not an anti-Zionist
I say all this because Finkelstein
has one major flaw. And it’s not just an overweening ego. Finkelstein is not an
anti-Zionist nor is he a socialist, despite once having been a Maoist. His
support for a 2 State Solution, which he has never disavowed, is based on the
myth of the ‘International Community’ which is nothing more than an attempt to
cloak the interests of US imperialism in a democratic garb. His faith in
International Law as the arbiter of relations between states and nations has
been shown to be hollow with the genocide in Gaza.
Gaza has demonstrated that international
law is unable to prevent Israel from committing genocide in Gaza because it has no enforcement mechanism. As long as Israel is
backed by the United States it can and does act with impunity. International law can’t
even prevent states like Germany and Britain supplying arms
for the genocide.
Finkelstein is erratic in that he
took a correct position on the 7th October attack by the Palestinian
Resistance, namely that it was akin to a slave revolt against their masters,
but he refused to draw the necessary conclusion that the slaves destroyed the
institution of slavery where they could (Haiti) because it was incompatible
with their own freedom and liberty.
Norman has consistently supported the
continued existence of the Israeli state and played down its supremacist and
apartheid nature. That's what support for 2 States means.
Finkelstein's Opposition to
the slogan 'From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free' echoes
what the Zionists say
In his interview with the Guardian, Finkelstein made plain his disagreement with the slogan ‘Palestine will be free, from the river to the sea’ when he said:
“What do you mean by Palestine will be free? Do you
mean there is no room for Israel?”
But then he went on to say something
even more interesting.
“Palestine
will be free” can also mean something else. It can fit into what’s called the
settler colonial framework, which basically says, “Settlers do not have
legitimate rights to the land. The land belongs to those who are ‘Indigenous’
to it. And everybody else, at most, can live there on the sufferance of the
Indigenous majority, or they have to pack up and leave.” And the reason that
slogan is ambiguous is because the movement is ambiguous about what its goal
is. And if you try to remove the ambiguity, you risk breaking up the movement.
Finkelstein
did not say this to the encampment at Columbia University. At Columbia he beat about the
bush and was vague and waffled on about strategic
goals. He didn’t say ‘what about Israel’ there because he knows the reception
that would have got. As soon as he had he finished speaking the students
broke into the very slogan that he was trying to get them to disavow! Clearly
his argument was not very convincing.
What Finkelstein said in his Guardian
interview is that he doesn’t agree with the settler-colonial framing that apparently sees
Israel as a product of western colonialism and imperialism and in which the
settlers have no rights. What Finkelstein is doing is deliberately distorting and caricaturing the settler-colonial
paradigm. It does not say that the
settlers don’t have legitimate rights to the land. That was never said in South
Africa, quite the contrary. What it said was that the settlers were entitled to live as equals with
the indigenous and that is what Palestinians say today. Although to be blunt I wouldn’t blame Palestinians
for saying for example that the neo-Nazi settlers on the West Bank should fuck
off back home.
What the settler colonial framework does
say is that the settlers’ rights are no greater than those who are indigenous
to the land and they have to jettison their belief that they are superior. All
of this Finkelstein disparages and distorts.
In essence Finkelstein is a liberal democrat. That is why he is so fond of the reactionary Mahatma Ghandi whose acceptance of communal electorates helped pave the way for Partition and the present day Hindu Supremacist state of India and the permanent military dictatorship of Pakistan.
Finkelstein isn’t prepared to say
that Israel is a settler colonial state that has got to go. On the contrary he
admires the early Zionists, the kibbutzim, their ‘idealism’, the ‘austere life’
and the ‘rugged individualism’ of the early Labour Zionist settlers. This isn’t
a matter of speculation. It is what he wrote in correspondence to me.
It is unfortunate that Finkelstein,
who is very close politically to Noam Chomsky, who himself has never disavowed Zionism,
hasn’t made his position clear on Zionism and the continued existence of a Jewish
State. When Finkelstein calls Israel a ‘lunatic’ or ‘satanic’ state what he is
doing is saying that the genocide it is carrying out today and the expansion
now in Syria isn’t on account of Zionism but relates to the ‘thuggish’
messianic vision of Netanyahu as an individual.
— susan abulhawa | سوزان ابو الهوى (@susanabulhawa) November 30, 2024
Susan Abulhawa & the Oxford Union Debate
Susan Abulhawa,
who made that brilliant
speech at the Oxford Union debate on November 28, which was won by
278-59, was highly critical of Finkelstein’s behaviour for many of the same reasons as I've given. Susan wrote:
Finkelstein decided to back
out ostensibly because Morris wasn't coming, but in reality, I think he didn't
want to be overshadowed by actual Palestinians who can speak more cogently and
eloquently than him on the matters pertaining to our own lives, on which he
claims expertise, almost exclusively. Norman is a star and shall be treated as
a star. Therefore, he demanded to have his own Oxford Union session, undiluted
with the voices of pesky Palestinians. That left a gaping hole in the
opposition's side, which could not be filled on such short notice. That's why
the president of the union, Ebrahim Osman-Mowafy stepped in....
Norman Finkelstein had his own event the following
day and everyone fawned over our white American savior. Yes, I'm angry. Norman
came to be invited because I suggested he be there to have an academic
counterweight to Morris. Rather than supporting Palestinians, he withdrew,
apparently because he's too special and important.
The Spires of Oxford
However it wasn’t Finkelstein’s event
the next day which made a political impact but the Oxford Union Debate which
the pro-Palestinian side won by 4-1. Given that he had been invited at Susan’s
suggestion his failure to co-ordinate tactics with her is indicative of
his individualistic and egotistical approach when it comes to being part of a collective movement.
Finkelstein's Infantile E-mail
It was because of my recent blog
in which I called on Finkelstein to ‘Stop Undermining the Global Movement in
Support of the Palestinians’
and then a subsequent challenge by me to debate his objections to the Palestine Must be Free slogan (which he
declined) that he sent me an infantile email. I guess I should be amused at finding
out how thin Norman’s skin is!
Norman’s email was notionally in response to a
circular I sent to people advertising a webinar on December 3, How
Anti-Semitism has Complemented Zionism in which Tony Lerman, Barnaby
Raine, Michael Richmond and myself spoke. Norman wrote:
I’m tempted to ask readers of my
book to email Finkelstein (normfinkelstein@gmail.com/norm6344@gmail.com) to disabuse him of his
belief! However that would be to respond in kind.
All I can say is that it’s clear that Finkelstein was stung by my criticisms and instead of debating it out as we have done before, our usually loquacious academic pundit responded with a temper tantrum. Clearly Finkelstein finds it difficult to defend his opposition to the slogan without having to defend his other views such as the two state solution.
Below is my letter to
Finkelstein.
Tony Greenstein
I have long valued Norman Finkelstein's incisive work on behalf of accurate, principled scholarship. But lately his recorded polemics have begun to grate, at least for me, in a fashion impossible to ignore. When speaking, he very often addresses the audience using a method employed by dog handlers and trainers. He slowly, emphatically distills his message into a single declaration which he repeats, sometimes twice, separating each word, driving home the import in a manner that suggests his listeners are mentally impaired. It's as if he's issuing a simplified instruction to be incorporated into a set of reflexive responses. To be honest, I can take his sarcasm. I can take the frequently exaggerated rhetoric. I can even put up with his residual sympathy for Zionism and his professions of devotion for his parents. But when he reverts to that grinding, abrasive and frankly insulting form of address, I ask myself, am I really dumb enough to sit through another of these performances? Am I Norman Finkelstein's dog?
ReplyDeleteLately, the answer has been no.
very interesting comment - yes I've got that feeling too
ReplyDeleteIsn't Norman Finkelstein's big thing a commitment to the facts? Facts are sacred, i've heard him say many times. He is a serious scholar etc. So why then does he not engage with your argument (convincing IMO) that historically it is Zionists who have worked with - and have more in common with - antisemites? Go over the many cases that you have put forward in the book (and on this blog) that illustrate this quite clearly. Instead of a firing a cheap shot that no one has read your book (seems the likes of Asa Winstanley, Ilan Pappe and Jonathan Cook have). Also, since when does how widely a book has been read denote its quality? In that case, all hail the genius writers Dan Brown, E.L. James! Better than Dostoevsky clearly
ReplyDeleteThe problem with Norman F, besides the lack of any serious class analysis of the forces behind the Israeli state or imperialism, is that he is extremely mercurial and lacks judgement. It was obvious to anyone who had any understanding of Zionism and he should have done since his Ph.D thesis was on Zionism, that there was no way Israel would ever allow a Palestinian state to emerge.
ReplyDeleteAnyone with any sense of judgement would not have called BDS a 'cult' when it is clearly the chosen strategy of the solidarity movement. There are arguments as to how effective it really is etc. but there is no doubt that BDS activities in themselves help build the solidarity movement.
And why he chose to attack the slogan of the movement 'From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free' is beyond me. The fact that the British Government and Sue Braverman don't like it is reason enough to chant it. To say it leaves room for doubt and 'what about Israel' calls into question just what Norman's politics are really about.
As for no-one having read my book well of course I'd like it if far more people did but it has certainly played a major role in people seeing that Israel originated in the acceptance of anti-Semitism and that Zionist claims to inherit the memory of those who died in the holocaust are bogus and false.