Here's why I believe in the Israel lobby theory of American Middle East policy.
Here is Anne Bayefsky in Forbes the other day urging the Obama administration not to "sacrifice" Israel to the U.N.'s Durban conference. (Advice taken.) Bayefsky is basically a neocon; Israel is perfect. In today's Washington Post, Jonathan Chait of the New Republic attacks the Chas Freeman appointment to the National Intelligence Council, saying that Freeman is a realist and in the camp of Walt and Mearsheimer, who are of course not granted space in the same publication to put forward their views. Also in today's Post, Lally Weymouth, essentially a neocon, sanitizes Benjamin Netanyahu to an American audience as a maturer, gentler figure than he was 10 years ago; and Weymouth seems outraged that John Kerry is carrying a letter to Obama from Hamas.
The issue is not that these people have backward views of the Middle East. There is not much anyone can do about that. Iraq, where terrorists are now part of the government, has taught them nothing. The issue is that they are routinely granted access to mainstream publications. The realists whom Chait despises don't get that access; Mearsheimer has been out at the New York Times ever since he made the mistake of opposing the Iraq war. Nor do leftwing critics of Israel get access--Glenn Greenwald, Tony Kushner. Nor do Arab-Americans.
It is true, as Chait observed some time ago, that Steve Walt has a blog at Foreign Policy. Great. And yes, I believe that things are softening, and we are winning, under Obama. But Walt's perch is still the exception that proves the rule.
Neoconservatives and their fellow travelers continue to dominate in the official discourse. The best our side has at the Washington Post is Richard Cohen, and even he feels a responsibility to represent Israel as best he can. A responsibility I assure you that I do not accept; as I don't feel the responsibility to represent French interests or Syrian ones, or Chinese ones either.
It is impossible to speak of this domination without reference to the large Jewish presence in the establishment (political/financial/media) and Jewish money in the political process--at a time when as Alan Dershowitz has said, supporting Israel is the "secular religion" of American Jews. Adam Horowitz, Jack Ross and Richard Silverstein are making inroads; but Israel pervades the American-Jewish mind.
Speaking for my own political explorations here, I would add that that it is forcibly stupefying, or certainly an insult to the progressive American intellectual tradition that I am part of, to have to discuss these issues without the use of political imagination. And here I invoke my guru Abraham Lincoln. One of our greatest political intellectuals, in the late 1850s, Lincoln hammered away at a "conspiracy" he saw of the southern slave power with northern Democrats to extend slavery across America. The alleged conspirators didn't like the accusation; when Lincoln accused Senator Stephen Douglas of being a part of this conspiracy, Douglas said it was an "infamous lie." Still Lincoln kept at it; and always he insisted on the supremacy of his political imagination. I don't know this conspiracy to exist, he said, but I believe it to exist. And here is my evidence.
And through this insistence, Lincoln built the Republican resistance to slavery, and split the Democratic Party. Frankly, I don't know whether Lincoln was right about that conspiracy, but his political imagination had tremendous effects.
We are now 6 years into a disastrous war pushed by the New Republic and Lally Weymouth and Bayefsky's Hudson Institute, and countless other hawkish supporters of Israel--Peter Beinart who is simultaneously paid by AIPAC as he urges a "good fight" on Americans, Paul Berman who is employed by the American Jewish Committee as he urges us to shed blood against Islamists who blend in his mind with the Nazis that exterminated so many of our ancestors; and still it is impossible for our progressive political leaders to say directly, Israel's war is not our war; and to directly oppose the American springs of support for Israeli apartheid. Kerry carries Hamas's letter but insists again and again that there is no change in policy.
But Kerry knows, and Obama too, that there will be no progress till Hamas is engaged.
Hamas is little different from the insurgency in Iraq that used suicide bombing against occupation and is now part of a political coalition we applaud on daises. Hamas is little different from the insurgency of John Brown who hated slavery so much he was willing for his own children to die trying to destroy it. Hamas is a resistance movement to an occupation that has utterly corrupted Israel, and powerful American Jews too, who go before Congress and urge the implementation of "appropriate biometrics" to sort out the good Palestinians from the bad ones.
Until my side, in all its dimensions (realist, leftist, Christian, Arabist, Jewish anti-Zionist), gets to state our belief that the Israeli occupation is wicked, and say it in the public square, American politics will remain corrupted by that occupation.
P.S. And I would add this important piece of the hypocrisy/fiction. When Obama condemns lobbyists, as Obama did today; or when MSM writers produce big books about bad bad lobbyists, as Washington Post editor Robert Kaiser does here, it's never about the lobby that is distorting our policy in the hottest region in the world, and depriving Palestinians of self-government for 6 decades...
It is interesting that Hamas formally proposes the destruction of Israel in its Charter as the sole acceptable mechanism of dispute-resolution, and decries conferences, negotiations, and interim measures, with a nod to the slaughter of the Jews as its ideal implementation of the ideal outcome. Like John Brown, inarticulate slaughter of civilians is their only mechanism of action, unlike him, their rhetoric is Islamist boilerplate, and their political program is that of the imposition of Islamic rule on all Palestine, which, if Iran and Pakistani Swat are any guide, will involve the suppression of the rights of legions of people, of all faith communities of the Holy Land.
I think your profound misreading of the situation is a danger to Jews everywhere, and am thankful for your political marginalization, at least insofar as you are pro-Hamas.
It is a shame that Paul Berman keeps confusing the goals of two entirely different sets of Antisemitical ideologies. I am constantly amazed at his inability to differentiate between two groups who have genocide as a goal.
What is wrong with that fellow? Why won't he learn that those who wish to kill all of the Jews today are totally different from those who wanted to kill all of the Jews 77 years ago?
From interview with Norman Finkelstein – 12.15.2006 | The iWitness
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=3&ar=73
Finkelstein: First of all, we need historical context. For thirty years, from the mid-1970s on, the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) was on record supporting a two-state settlement. That did not bring the conflict any closer to peace, for the very simple reason that Israel does not want to leave the Occupied Territories. So the claim that Hamas is the obstacle is rather curious in light of the fact that for thirty years there was a movement that openly recognised Israel, and it still did not facilitate a resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Therefore, the argument that Hamas is the obstacle is obviously nonsense.
Right now, they are saying, "We have to support Abbas, and not support Hamas." Abbas is the successor to Arafat. There has been no change in the official position of the PLO. It is not as if Abbas suddenly said, "I support a two-state settlement." That has been the position of the PLO since the mid-1970s. So why is it that now we need to bring back Abbas, when in fact you had an Abbas for thirty years without it bringing about a resolution to the conflict.
Number two: the Hamas government has sent mixed signals about its willingness to recognise Israel. It has certainly made enough gestures to recognising the June 1967 borders, such that you can negotiate with them. But the real question is: what has been the Israeli position? Has any Israeli government, or official, or mainstream political party ever recognised a Palestinian state in the June 1967 borders? And the answer is, flatly, no.
It is not complicated. The position of Hamas was that any recognition had to be mutual. I think that is perfectly legitimate. Why should recognition be one-sided? Why should they have to recognise the Israeli state, but the Israeli state not have to recognise the right of the Palestinians, not to any state, but to a state within the pre-July 1967 border? No Israeli government has done that. If the Israeli government does not do it, then I agree with Hamas: they should not do it.
Lets hope that those who want to prevent harm to minorities are similar to those who have been saving minorities in USA until now.
I reckon that their principles will withstand the screams of accusations that they are all, deep down, genocidal mass murderers.
re bayefsky and weymouth, 'essentially' and 'basic': no. downright, outright jewcons.
saturday the bloody sabbath
the day of the jackals
sat bloody sabbath is our day for rest
killing is not work
killing is not pleasure
we are required
murder is our commandment
our god is savage
we are our god
can jews say
israel has no right(s) to exist
jews have no right(s)to palestine
truth is difficult
try
I think your profound misreading of the situation is a danger to Jews everywhere, and am thankful for your political marginalization, at least insofar as you are pro-Hamas.
Posted by: Eurosabra | February 28, 2009 at 11:48 AM >>>>>>>
Well you are slam out of luck…far from being marginal, Phil is being quoted widely on the internet more and more often…by more public and serious people.
The only danger to the Jews is the jews themselves.
The realists whom Chait despises don't get that access; Mearsheimer has been out at the New York Times ever since he made the mistake of opposing the Iraq war. Nor do leftwing critics of Israel get access–Glenn Greenwald, Tony Kushner. Nor do Arab-Americans.
Its really hard to disagree with this point.
Anne Bayefsky. The more important link in this context. She obviously is the specialist for the UN: editor Eye on the UN
There is nothing more antisemitic than Zionism.
But I think Jews like Suzanne, Euro, etc. can only identify themselves as 'Jews' (special, Chosen, blah blah) if they are hated. So they engage in disgusting behavior knowingly.
Ben-Ami: Israel, the USA must talk to Hamas if they want peace
GAZA, (PIC)– Former Israeli foreign minister Shlomo Ben-Ami has urged both the Israeli occupation government and the USA to change their policy of isolating the Hamas Movement, adding that they should deal with Hamas if they want peace in the region to progress.
In press statements he issued Thursday, Ben-Ami asserted, "I concluded hat dialogue with Hamas Movement is necessary since the Movement won a land-slide victory in the PA elections in 2006 and formed the "tenth" PA government".
Ben-Ami's remarks came in the aftermath of a letter sent by 14 political figures and former negotiators to the British Times newspaper urging the USA and Israel to include Hamas in the Middle East peace process.
Ben-Ami, who served as foreign minister in the Israeli occupation government from (2000-2001), and Alvaro De Soto, the UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East, among other figures, have put their signatures to the letter.
According to the letter, there will be no meaningful peace process in the region if the USA, Israel, and the EU keep on talking to representatives of certain section of the Palestinian people while trying to isolate and destroy the other "strong" players, alluding to Hamas Movement.
They alleged that integrating Hamas into the peace process wouldn’t mean "closing eyes to attacks on civilians", but, they opined, the integration would enhance chances of "pragmatic figures" in the Movement to settle difficult issues and reach a peace agreement.
"The latest war on Gaza [that reaped lives of around 1500 Palestinian civilians, and wounded close to 5500 others, mostly children and women] proved that attempts to isolate Hamas Movement wouldn’t succeed and wouldn’t achieve stability in the region", the letter highlighted.
USA must talk to Hamas if they want peace
Hamdan welcomes European calls for renouncing policy of isolating Hamas
BEIRUT, (PIC)– Osama Hamdan, the representative of the Hamas Movement in Lebanon welcomed the letter written by a number of European diplomats and published Thursday in the British Times newspaper which called for renouncing the failed policy of isolating Hamas and involving it in the peace process.
Hamdan told the Quds Press expressed his belief that such message reflects the awareness of some British politicians about the importance of opening dialog with Hamas and their recognition of the democratic results of the last Palestinian elections which many tried to ignore.
The Hamas leader urged the Europeans to open dialog with Hamas away from any preconditions such as demanding it to recognize the Israeli occupation, saying that the victim should not be asked to recognize its oppressor.
Hamdan welcomes European calls for renouncing policy of isolating Hamas
The "Lobby" is a conspiracy….but a totally open and transparent one.
Claiming that is just their "right to representation".
Democracy is by nature a two edged sword…it's principles and tools can be twisted or subverted by those who want to 'use it' for undemocratic purposes.
We think of dictatorships as being corrupt and more corruptable when actually a democracy attracts more of those who would corrupt a country or government for their own purposes, specifically because democracy is so open to all. A jewish lobby would last about 10 minutes in China.
AIPAC,ZOA,all the jewish Israeli orgs are totally simple and transparent.
They work for the interest and benefit of jews and Israel,no one else.
And they use money as political bribes and the holocuast as the excuse and justification for everything they do.
That's all there is to them, and I would say today that everyone who has even heard of them recongizes them for exactly that. No one mistakes the jewish lobby as having anything to do with the interest of America at large.
How can pro-Israel solution also be a pro-Palestinian solution?
http://www.payvand.com/news/09/feb/1332.html
Interview with Morton Klein of the Zionist Organization of America
Warmongering president of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) Morton Klein believes that the ultimate goal of any Zionist is to live in Israel. Except of course for Christian Zionists, they don’t need to go to Israel for fulfilment “but you’re not a 100% fulfilled Jewish Zionist unless you live in the Jewish state. ”
There are other exceptions, such as Klein himself who says “many people tell me, rightly or wrongly, that I can really do more as one human being fighting for Israel from America – with our lobbying in Washington, our campus work, our work in the courts and with my writings in America and throughout the world – than I could if I were in Israel.”
Klein also reveals that Israel requested US permission to bomb Iran and that the Zionists in America are beginning to move towards the Likudnik belief that there is no “partner for peace”. One might wonder what his solution is then? Another Gaza massacre? Another ‘48? The problem is that the Palestinians want a just peace, Klein does not…
Interview with Morton Klein of the Zionist Organization of America
I too was disappointed with the post.
The title "Why I believe the theory of the Israel Lobby" promised to be a coherent logical weighing of various interpretations and weight of relevance.
Instead it contained only additional invocations of "enemy".
I feel like I'm listening to GW talk about the evil empire.
Your summary of Hamas politics is ludicrous, LITERALLY. I surmise that you read it from Norman. You should have more integrity than to FAIL to criticize.
Philip Weiss: "…It is impossible to speak of this domination without reference to the large Jewish presence in the establishment (political/financial/media) and Jewish money in the political process–…"
So, why can't we talk about it…? In Israel there's no beating about the bush… They just come right out and say it. For example:
That was 2006, after the 2008 election JTA still maintains the "Jewish' tally — calling it: "The Chosen: Jews elected to 111th U.S. Congress" [17 Pg PDF]– not sure if that heading was tongue in cheek or not? Anyways, read the rest of the election coverage and you'll find they are perfectly giddy over Rahm. It seems to all come down to votes, power and influence for an agenda — Trying to find certain individuals whether they are Jewish or not [Steny Hoyer comes to mind] that are going to be easy to pull into line — when it comes to 'Israel'. Nothing conspiratorial — it's out there, just maybe not in the US media.
Before Iraq and the growing drum beat of war against Iran, most people weren't too concerned about the game of 'Identity Politics', including the rise of the Christian Right [however, we sure woke up quickly on that one] — but now 'we are' concerned — the political bias towards Israel is overwelming in US.
Q: Who is the President of the ICJP [International Council of Jewish Parliamentarians]?
A: Gary L. Ackerman
Q: Who is a Member of The United States House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Chairman of the United States House of Representatives Subcommitee on The Middle East and South Asia?
A: Gary L. Ackerman
"Well you are slam out of luck…far from being marginal, Phil is being quoted widely on the internet more and more often…by more public and serious people."
Yeah, like Davidduke.com and Stormfront. They LOVE him.
You have a strange definition of public and serious. Unless you mean publicly scorned and seriously deluded. lol!
You should have more integrity than to FAIL to criticize.
—-
@Witty – Please follow your own advice. I would love to hear your specific criticisms (other than his caustic style) of Dr. Finkelstein. As Dan Kelly has shown, no less than Former Israeli foreign minister Shlomo Ben-Ami shares views with the good doctor.
Also, since berel, Suzanne, Thom, and others of their ilk like to make linkages to Phil and others here with Hitler, and Stormfront and the like, do you have any criticisms of the berel-like discourse of the rabidly pro-Zionist views here?
I should think that a FAILURE to criticize shows a lack of integrity in your eyes.
This is from Lance who has no integrity.
Your summary of Hamas politics is ludicrous, LITERALLY. I surmise that you read it from Norman. You should have more integrity than to FAIL to criticize.
That one has to "read it from Norman" to come to the conclusion that the Palestinians have a right to a state inside the borders occupied by Israel in 1967 is utterly silly. Almost the whole international community has come to that conclusion. But of course it's only since we are all antisemites. Norman's importance lies in the fact that he energetically makes this international consent public.
That there is no movement in the "peace process" has much to do with the fact that Israel helped by the US and some minor actors (e.g. tiny states in the South Sea) have blocked all UN resolutions. To state that one can learn this only from Norman is plain silly. …
If you do agree there should be a two state solution, what exact problems do you have with Norman Finkelstein position?
The settlements show all too clear that Israel never intended to give the land up, and many Israel hardliners here show us very well the basic arguments why this is so. But even without them it is actually really easy to both find them in literature and on the web. Here is the Israeli view in a nutshell:The Myth of the Occupation.
Norman Finkelstein makes nothing but showing the Reality of the Occupation in a nutshell. Do you remember the part of the Balfour Declaration that is usually missing in the Israel Hasbarah tale? Why do you think is that?
it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine,or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country".
This was of course an issue one decided to wipe away with war.
Norman Finkelstein doesn't touch Israel's right to exist in the least. All he demands is a state for the Palestinians inside the 1967 borders.
Since you attest that is what you support too, again: what exactly is your problem with Norman Finkelstein?
sorry: Why do you think that is so?
I am slightly tired of your anti-Norman and anti-Phil slogans. And I guess it just did show. So yes, a couple of commas are missing too. ;)
I had an extensive e-mail exchange with Norman a month ago, in which I laid out the argument that Hamas initiated the escalation that resulted in Israel's harsh response. Norman responded by calling me the equivalent of a "holocaust denier".
Similarly, in response to his assertion that Nasrallah was one of the only men of integrity in the middle east whose word he trusts, I laid out a number of critical and intentional lies that Nasrallah issued to the press, that led me to DISTRUST Nasrallah explicitly.
My feeling upon dialoging with him, is that he regards his word and "sources" as authoritative, not opinions, not interpretations. And, that others' views when they differ with his are ignorant or fascist.
I pointed out to him that I've read three people describe themselves as "pugnacious" publicly: him, Dershowitz, and Norman Podhoretz.
I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until that direct exchange. My most negative presumptions were confirmed, more than confirmed, amplified.
I had an extensive e-mail exchange with Norman a month ago, in which I laid out the argument that Hamas initiated the escalation that resulted in Israel's harsh response. Norman responded by calling me the equivalent of a "holocaust denier".
Similarly, in response to his assertion that Nasrallah was one of the only men of integrity in the middle east whose word he trusts, I laid out a number of critical and intentional lies that Nasrallah issued to the press, that led me to DISTRUST Nasrallah explicitly.
My feeling upon dialoging with him, is that he regards his word and "sources" as authoritative, not opinions, not interpretations. And, that others' views when they differ with his are ignorant or fascist.
****
Thank you for posting this, Richard.
I agree that Norman Finkelstein has become increasingly radical and pugnacious, as you say.
However, when he was more reasonable and scholarly his opponents did not debate him. Rather, they acted in concert to destroy his career. I cannot be surprised that he doubts any Zionist can be trusted to negotiate in good faith.
I am sorry that Finkelstein is lapsing into the use of the same meaningless slurs as his opponents.
@Witty – Thanks for your reply. Though you point to some specifics where you and he part ways on your understanding of the conflict and the facts you each use to support your positions, a lot of the dislike seems based more on his approach. It is hard for any of us to completely free ourselves of our own biases when arguing these issues.
I feel it is a sign of respect to share views openly and honestly with another. I give you credit for your willingness to do just that here. Having seen some of your writings, and some of Dr. Finkelstein's, I still have to side with Dr. Finkelstein. I do not think he is infallible, nor do I personally have enough knowledge to either support or refute all his claims, but I've seen him lecture a couple of times where those out to discredit him did not fare well. In line with what you have stated, I've read of encounters where he would dismiss challenges that I felt had some legitimacy to them.
Do you reject the Israeli position outright because they have been shown to have lied in the past (as with the initial claims that they were not using WP at all)? I respect the uphill battle Norman Finkelstein wages when doing otherwise would certainly smooth the road before him. I consider him a truth-teller that also makes a valiant attempt to interpret those truths in a manner both consistently accurate and constructive. His detractors, even if they are able to find some chinks in his armor, want to dismiss him outright as he tells far too many uncomfortable truths.
Finally, speaking of respect, there are certain posters here for whom I have none. While ignoring them entirely is certainly an effective approach, there are times when some things they say are worth addressing (often for its extreme idiocy and potential for perpetuating disinformation). I would suggest that anyone doing so speak of them in the third person. That conveys the appropriate contempt for their unwillingness to deal with discussion in a serious manner while allowing for comment wherever one has something to add. Note that all were given full opportunity to engage and interact while stating their positions, but they instead chose to be almost exclusively vulgar and abusive (when not actually lying through their teeth spouting the predictable propaganda).
For myself, I am willing to try to learn from all, though for some all I have learned is that they are incapable of being anything more than merely annoying.
FROM HAARETZ:
Canadian politicians get more free trips to Israel than anywhere else
By Rhonda Spivak – Last update – 04:18 01/03/2009
Canadian parliamentarians accepted more free trips to Israel last year than any other country.
Israel outnumbered other destinations nearly two to one, with 74 sponsored trips, beating out Taiwan as the previous most popular country.
A report by Canada's ethics commissioner shows the Canada-Israel Committee paid more than 160,000 Canadian dollars to send 24 federal politicians on trips to Israel, often with their spouses.
Shimon Fogel, CEO of the Canada-Israel Committee, said the trips enable parliamentarians to better understand Israel's geopolitical situation.
SOURCE – link to haaretz.com
Briliant.
But Kerry knows, and Obama too, that there will be no progress till Hamas is engaged.
[...] Hamas is a resistance movement to an occupation that has utterly corrupted Israel, and powerful American Jews too, who go before Congress and urge the implementation of "appropriate biometrics" to sort out the good Palestinians from the bad ones.
Until my side, in all its dimensions (realist, leftist, Christian, Arabist, Jewish anti-Zionist), gets to state our belief that the Israeli occupation is wicked, and say it in the public square, American politics will remain corrupted by that occupation.
In my e-mail correspondence with Dr Finkelstein I described that I supported the Arab League proposal, so the question of "differing with Dr Finkelstein" in our conclusions was an imagined criticism of me on your part Leander.
I wrote to him to comment on his points in an Edmonton lecture in which he described both Hamas and Hezbollah as heroes solely, and that he relied on for integrity.
And, that my impression of the escalation of conflict in Gaza to a war status, was compelled by Hamas, that they insisted that Israel attack Gaza militarily BY incrementally escalating shelling of Israeli civilian cities UNTIL they responded militarily.
He's alternately careful and careless in his research. And, far far less than careful and respectful in his response.
If he is going to call everyone that disagrees with his primary and secondary conclusions a racist or in my case the equivalent of a "holocaust denier", then that IS content.
Have you noticed the change in both Fink and Weiss? Since they both lost their gainful employment, they have become much more antisemitic and much quicker to attack. It would seem that they blame the Jews for their ill fortunes and are, like children, lashing out.
Yes, I find that whenever you look into critics of Israeli policy and its helpmates I find they all meet the standard profile of
sore losers, malcontents, jealous of those going higher by dint of pure merit and courageous moral and intellectual integrity; such has always been the case with the character of anti-semites throughout the ages. They are always simply children who never grew up and often their pathology includes deviant
sexual and psychopathic stands.
"Have you noticed the change in both Fink and Weiss? Since they both lost their gainful employment, they have become much more antisemitic and much quicker to attack. It would seem that they blame the Jews for their ill fortunes and are, like children, lashing out.
I've been thinking about this very thing. Also it seems like tribal beta male jealousy of alpha male power. Very oedipal.
My understanding is that Fink admits his strident, arrogant overbearing posture first revealed itself during the Vietnam war. It's not a new development.
Duddy, I haven't noticed that. In fact, that does not even seem to be a reasonable assumption. It just appears to be the case of Phil and Norm. Perhaps if a profilr of Phil's Phools could be published, such a pattern might emerge. It certainly is the case for Rowan, who blames his unemployability on the Jews.
In my e-mail correspondence with Dr Finkelstein I described that I supported the Arab League proposal, so the question of "differing with Dr Finkelstein" in our conclusions was an imagined criticism of me on your part Leander.
Thanks for the answer Richard.
Some points, as short as I can:
Norman Finkelstein is a person who answers everybody that contacts him. Since he is quite prominent that must necessarily take a lot of time. His answers thus have to be short and to the point. Now imagine the mass flood that he must get in our times, with lots of lectures by him out there on the web. Further imagine he must be connected to a network of other scholars who either point out important things to him he might need to know, or ask him specific questions concerning certain points of his research.
As a scholar, he can and should expect that people who ask him questions about specifics are at least somehow familiar with his work. Somebody that gives him Alan Dershowitz as one of his authorities in the Israel/Palestine conflict he relies on, immediately tells him that he cannot expect the least bit of awareness beyond basic (MEMRI) talking points, he had to start at zero. In a way it must trigger a specific line of thought deeply connected with the basic propaganda out there smearing him.
Maybe he should have a spokesperson who first lures out the basis of people's judgments and then make people familiar with the basics of Norman's critique, that is show them if that is what convinces the person most why e.g. he gave up to challenge Dershowitz in a law suit may, is not due to his not being wrong but rather that in the sciences tons of material could be unearthed that shows what Dershowitz did is indeed a standard technique. More often than not even wrong judgments especially are repeated rather thoughtlessly. But I trust you can see that it is really easy to spin Norman's giving up a direct legal challenge can easily be spinned into he must have been wrong. I encountered it often in my research and got really made especially if it was mixed with arrogance, since we all are fallible.
But then Dershowitz openly admits, that he is not a scholar who makes he case, that he does what lawyer does, he makes a case. A clever move it leaves the real scholar in the field out there letting his evidence evaporate. A lawyer can choose selectively whatever supports his view, and he cleverly admitted that Peter's work was flawed but that in making a case it was rather valid.
You mention Dershowitz and Podhoretz as the two authorities you rely on. The first is a lawyer and not especially an expert on Middle East history the second Norman Podhoretz, an interesting case in itself, is not a historian or political scientist either. You don't think this could somehow have hindered a dialog? I am not too familiar with the US system, but I often was a bit puzzled when Israelis or American Jews were announced or labeled as Middle East expert, in spite of the fact that they were either scholars of economics, literature or law as in our special case. This doesn't mean that they shouldn't be allowed to enter the discussion, but why the hell are they considered Middle East experts in the US?
You once mentioned you respect the late Baruch Kimmerling, this is what he has to say about the larger issue:
Now obviously Kimmerling's short note shows us also the distinction between Norman and Phil. There is evidence that Phil, just as Kimmerling and me, has problem's with Norman's "intemperance" or his fast labels, but why on earth shouldn't he accept his, and this is what he obviously respects, his meticulous research. Why shouldn't we?
Let me give you a text by Norman Finkelstein which may tell you something about the source of his intemperance and the emotional layers it is based on. I can easily connect to his kind of Holocaust inspired perspective. As I think people that ultimately use the Holocaust as a defensive weapon, and I surely didn't need Norman Finkelstein to see this, don't really think deeply about it's implications for mankind, yes mankind and not just Jews. But then, it is a text he wrote for us German's. So maybe you can't understand.
Are you familiar with Neve Gordon's analysis? There is an update version in Norman Finkelstein's Beyond Chutzpa.
Many mistake due to not much time. I trust you ability to correct them in context.
Wow, Leander, talk about someone milking German guilt and tapping into the holocaust industry to do so…he's a piece of work.
Why is he not using his so-called prominence to work with moderates on both sides?
That is the moral question of the day. By all appearances, he is not interested in enduring peace.
Jew-haters are constantly whining about Jews exploiting the Holocaust–but this ingenuous comparison of Israel to Nazi Germany is exploitation to the Nth degree.
Such disgusting moral hypocrites.
"You mention Dershowitz and Podhoretz as the two authorities you rely on. "
I NEVER even suggested that I "rely" on Dershowitz or Podhoretz. Please take the care to respond to what I actually state, rather than what you imagine.
I'm glad that you remembered that I had read Kimmerling and other new historians fairly thoroughly.
Kimmerling describes my attitude fairly closely.
Did you get my point that at some early point the stridency becomes the content of the message, Finkelstein's?
A critical question I asked was "Do we agree to disagree?"
His response.
"It seems you desperately want to evade all the evidence, and not connect any of the dots. I regret to say that you reason just like Holocaust deniers, looking for any picayune gap in the evidence to prove this or that couldn't have happened. Please, let us stop this. The notion that you would cite the ridiculous NT Times on anything to do with Israel is already quite painful."
Richard Witty: I pointed out to him that I've read three people describe themselves as "pugnacious" publicly: him, Dershowitz, and Norman Podhoretz.
LeaNder: Somebody that gives him Alan Dershowitz as one of his authorities in the Israel/Palestine conflict he relies on,
Richard Witty"You mention Dershowitz and Podhoretz as the two authorities you rely on. "Please take the care to respond to what I actually state, rather than what you imagine.
OK Richard. That's at least 1.000 points. I've already chosen the appropriate punishment. I'll go back to check how my image of Richard relying on Dershowitz as a highly respectable scholar on the topic came into existence. … Anyway my impression was and still is you appreciate Dershowitz pugnaciousness and heavily question Norman's. Hamas, Hesbollah = Finkelstein's view, or something close to that was the main trigger. Or in other words that you raise the main MEMRI talking point seemed to support this impression. If this was a trap, it was a good one. I initially wanted to ask you to post relevant passages in context, but then realized I wouldn't.
Afterthought:
I raised the issue of harsh attacks and/or judgments in our exchange. Since yes, one especially hard statement/judgment startled me, even more since another one already had led to the exchange. I even did something many, many people must have done by now, I offered advice on how to handle critique, so it gives the opponent a chance to deal with it. But I also see certain ends in these polite exercises. And to be quite honest, I do not find his style, that is so often mentioned as especially revolting. Why?
I had the pleasure to encounter quite a few Machiavellians in my life, experts in the field of polite manners–and I think here it is important that I am not a very political person–experts who beneath their pleasantness use outright lies to smear non-present people, if it serves their aims. Mind you never in a negative fashion that would attract attention and might conflict their aim. Negative statements are useless if you want to control people's perception. So it must be something negligible that only on second thought fits a larger aim to smear the person. Each one of my examples would take to much time to recount. But maybe I should start a Machiavellian series for myself.
I devoted quite a bit of my time to look closer into many of these stories. And my investigations always made the polite society and especially political circles react with absolute horror. I think it's always basically a personal horror. Someone could look at my own tricks as carefully as this. And it was without exception my protective instincts that led me to do it. (my central red button issue)
To a real Machiavellian, this is my experience, this only happens when their general perspective they want to force on people–mostly in carefully planned presentations–is challenged. There is always a rather vague connection to reality the rest was, in each of the cases I studied, freely invented. The reputation for whoever is misused in this game is rather small change, as is the life of people on a larger level.
The core of the Finkelstein – Dershowitz encounter reminds me somehow of this more everyday life experiences. In scholarship the vanity and judgment patterns I detest, are less easy to summarize.
Maybe Norman too learned early that all people are actors and that polite manners can shroud the absolute evil, and yes that's a very post-war German experience in many ways.
Do you completely deny that you basically confirmed what you knew before?
Thank for posting the exact quote, Richard.
"It seems you desperately want to evade all the evidence, and not connect any of the dots. I regret to say that you reason just like Holocaust deniers, looking for any picayune gap in the evidence to prove this or that couldn't have happened. Please, let us stop this. The notion that you would cite the ridiculous NT Times on anything to do with Israel is already quite painful."
Well, now I have to take Norman's side. He didn't call you the "equivalent of a holocaust denier." He said you reason like one, which I think is a justified observation. (Though if you haven't read much of the Holocaust revisionist literature, you might not get the comparison. Revisionists likewise tend to focus obessively on small details, sometimes using dubious sources, in order to distract from much larger and more important issues.)
Likewise, you ought to know by now that no one who follows ME affairs closely considers the NY Times to worth the paper it's printed on.
Thanks David F.,
I shouldn't say, but I think he nails Richard from a very short exchange. I loved this sentence: The notion that you would cite the ridiculous NT Times on anything to do with Israel is already quite painful."
This is what I really like about Norman. He is a full human being not a functionalist academic marionette. I have to admit that I like his language, and never really felt it was inflammatory, or say more inflammatory than the matters he deals with. It was partly really painful reading.
And although I strictly do not like Holocaust analogies, denial is obviously similar no matter what is denied.
Finkelstein is too caustic, I think–I read him and value his opinions, but I'd never cite him directly if engaged in an argument with a moderate to liberal Zionist because his style might get in the way of the message. And he is, IMO, too sympathetic to Hezbollah. (I haven't read him in enough detail on Hamas to say much about his opinions on that.)
But I certainly agree with his statement about the NYT–it's a ridiculous paper on the I/P conflict, usually slanting its coverage in a pro-Israel direction.
Leander,
You know how I know you misread? Its because I have NEVER spoken highly of Podhoretz, and specifically LIMITED my appreciation of Dershowitz to his primary thesis, which is that the left and left/right (expectedly) unnaturally single out Israel for criticism and condemnation.
I get how people like to "type" others, but it is false.
Richard, we have to do this all the time unfortunately, this realization helped me over one of my childhood obsessions. I will look closer into this. I may even learn something from it. Obviously I somehow bring my own post-WWII history into this, which turned me from a introverted story loving girl into the schools most famous rebel, believe it or not with almost no conventional rebel characteristics. It was what I asked and felt and thought that was apparently threatening to some, not all.
I absolutely agree with Witty's anonymous critic and obviously Richard himself, Finkelstein is too caustic, although as suggested above I have a certain degree of understanding for it.
When I suggested a specific approach to him, that is a standard and works on ones emotional layers when one practices it, I felt utterly silly. Fact is I want him to be well. Yes, I feel guilty about the late Maijdanek trials and even more the approach towards the witnesses he attended with his mother in Duesseldorf. One day I'll try to find out more about it.
Rage gives much energy (as every actor knows) for people with a certain disposition. Some people can surpass themselves when angry, I know I can.
Maybe that's why I am never sure, if he doesn't use it as a signal sometimes, a meta-communication.
BUT in his debate with Dershowitz he would have been much more effective, hadn't he forced Dershowitz into instant defense. He could have much more relished it, had he started it slowly. Given him a chance to open up. And in some videos, usually circles with his opponents he is visibly tense, I know this feeling from inside out and it obviously harms his flexibility in the situations, he answers like a machine. I know it, it sucks up enormous amount of your energy, as if it is needed to build up an imaginary defense wall. Can one understand that without knowing the experience? Actors are good teachers, they know how to control emotions and let them flow, they can teach you too, how to handle these situations. I am thankful, they noticed and thought me important things.
Leander,
Thanks for such good analysis. I think Finkelstein took the necessary approach with Dershowitz.
Dershowitz is an extremely skillful and aggressive debater, and has no trouble simply denying things he said, changing the subject, or deliberately obfuscating the issues in order to score points with the audience or jury.
I try to be extremely courteous to my opponents in a discussion, I take what they say at face value, and I avoid making direct attacks.
Dershowitz would butcher me in a debate, even if all the evidence was on my side. He could say something incorrect or off-topic, and I would become completely confused trying to figure out his point, which I would assume was relevant and made in good faith. Finkelstein is one of the few people who is even meaner than Dershowitz, and can really get in the mud and beat him at his own game.
Notice that although Dershowitz lobbied heavily to get Finkelstein fired and has continued to make personal attacks on him from the safety of op-eds, he hasn't dared to face him in public since the Counterpunch debate.