Next Tuesday, the New School in New York is holding a forum on the Goldstone report (press release below). I sense that there’s going to be some Goldstone-bashing and equivocation: "3 experts will reflect on the flaws and achievements of the report…"
Notice that flaws is the first word. Hmmm. My big question about this panel: How many of them have actually been to the place they’ll be talking about: Gaza?
The three panelists include a representative of B’Tselem, which has been somewhat critical of the report, and two people associated with Human Rights Watch, which did excellent work on the Gaza war.
No one from the National Lawyers Guild, which went further than Goldstone. No one from the Arab League report, which also went further.
My vote: I think they should invite Norman Finkelstein to participate in this "critical discussion." Finkelstein would surely support Goldstone’s conclusions and extend them. He has standing: He’s about to publish a book on the Gaza war, he knows all the human rights reports backward and forwards, he’s been to Gaza and observed the conditions–I heard him talking about Israel as a vandal state as we went through the rubble of Gaza’s former industrial zone– and by the way he’s for the two-state solution and against the right of return (i.e., a lot of Zionists should be reaching out to this guy right now).
One other thing: Finkelstein is an internationally-known scholar who has been punished/exiled by American institutions that trashed the idea of intellectual freedom. The New School came about as a refuge for European scholars who were being ethnically cleansed by fascism, and a refuge for American scholars pursued by nationalists post WWI. The New School would honor this great tradition by berthing the brave and prickly son of Brooklyn.
Promo for the event after the jump:
Debating the Goldstone Report
A critical discussion
6 pm, Tuesday February 9, 2010
Wollman Hall, The New School
5th Floor, 65 West 11th Street, NY, NY
The September 2009 UN-sponsored report by Richard Goldstone concerning the
Gaza conflict has generated considerable controversy. Were war crimes
committed? What are the limits of self-defense?
In this forum, 3 experts will reflect on the flaws and achievements of
the report and on the difficulties of human rights fact finding in an
intensely politicized and polemicized conflict.
Panelists:
David Kretzmer, Professor Emeritus at the Hebrew University Faculty of
Law and Chair of the Board of Directors of B’Tselem, The Israeli Information
Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories.
Ruti Teitel, Ernst C. Stiefel Professor of Comparative Law at New York
Law School and Visiting Professor at the London School of Economics
(2010-2013).
Fred Abrahams, Senior Emergencies Researcher at Human Rights Watch.
Moderated by Nehal Bhuta, Assistant Professor, The New School Graduate
Program in International Affairs
An event sponsored by the New School Graduate Program in International Affairs
Is it my imagination or are all the experts Jewish?
Not necessarily.
The MSM will pick up an Arab or Muslim who says Arabs and Muslims are terrorists.
Look at Wafa Sultan, or that Lebanese lady, forget her name.
But yea, it’s at least accurate to say Palestinians have Jews speaking for them more than Palestinians – in the US.
Can you imagine a conference on racism with no “coloured people”?
Seems to me, having only Jews discussing any issue about Palestine is a serious conflict of interest.
But if you let Palestinians speak, they might say the wrong things.
completely agree.
There are ‘pet’ Arabs and Muslims in our political system who dominate these kinds of conferences.
I mean the conferences that are usually set up by the Establishment.
I believe there is some Islamophobic ‘former’ Muslim whose book is required reading for Officers (or something, some military ‘group’) in the Army.
It’s like how Witty frames a rally HE goes to as ‘pro-Peace’.
These people think they ‘own’ words.
So they try to define Palestinian and Arab and Islamic identity by selecting perspectives they agree with instead of an honest and open ‘war of ideas’.
It’s always a stacked, rigged game.
Just look at our popular culture and how we portray the Middle East. Then look at our political culture.
There is a correlation between the two.
It is interesting to note that Finkelstein’s bottom line is almost identical with that of Bradley Burston, to pick one example. It shows the power of rhetoric. Because of his prickly rhetoric (cheering on Hezbollah is one example that comes to mind) no Zionist would want to deal with Finkelstein, despite his bottom line.
I partly agree with this–I wish Norman F would lay off the Nazi comparisons, for instance (and that goes for everyone else on both sides of the issue). And he might be a little too sympathetic to Hezbollah. I can’t say for sure, since I haven’t read his full remarks on the subject.
OTOH, people who don’t listen or read Finkelstein because of this are, I suspect, often people who badly need to have their minds opened. Still, Finkelstein shouldn’t throw up purely unnecessary barriers.
Pingback: New School should honor its tradition by inviting Finkelstein … Image
Norman would be good, but how about Richard Falk? He’s supremely qualified, in terms of both international law and the realities of Palestine, and he has pointed out the real “flaw” in the Goldstone report: it starts from the premise that the Israeli attack was legitimate self-defense and criticizes it only for its “excesses.”
Of course, that would compound the problem Sammy idenitifies: all Jews.
RE: “…how about Richard Falk?” – hnorr
ME: Yes, he is very impressive!
VIDEOS (12:00 & 10:51), interesting al jazeera chat with Richard Falk – link to niqnaq.wordpress.com
Mondoweiss has become an oasis for me. Unlike any other blog, it provides a conversation which inspires optimism where most inspire despair.
I look forward, however, to the time (and I am certain it will come soon) when the words Hamas and Hezbollah do not of themselves inspire the sort of pavlovian reaction displayed above where it seems the word “Hezbollah” itself is considered to contain negative connotations that require no support – as if “everyone” accepts that they are somehow intrinsically “badass”. I do not subscribe to that view and neither does a growing number of highly credible witnesses – in particular those who actually deal with them.
Both are grievance based political entities that, in terms of principle and ethics, make U.S. political parties look like bacchanalian orgies.
Finklestein is ahead of Mondoweiss in this instance.
Norman wears his condemnations on his sleeve. He calls those he agrees with “nazis”. I’ve seen it twice to people that are committed two-state dissidents. He did it to me in correspondence.
Phil,
YOU define yourself as self-censoring when you only praise Norman. His work is not that rock-solid, and his tone is often offensive.
You got religion. You saw. But you let Norman interpret.
Pingback: ‘New School’ convenes legalistic panel to bash Goldstone with no advocate for the other side