Norman Finkelstein (AP via Haaretz)
For those who follow the saga of Norman Finkelstein, a new interview with him by Haaretz reporter Natasha Mozgovaya breaks no new ground but nicely sums up his current perspective. The headline it carries on the Haaretz website – “Norman Finkelstein bids farewell to Israel bashing” – may make most Israeli readers happy, but though it’s based on a quote from the interview, it’s actually quite misleading: While Finkelstein repeats his now-familiar criticisms of the BDS movement, he makes it clear that he hasn’t softened his critique of Israel. Some highlights:
On American public opinion:
“Nobody really defends Israel anymore…. They’ve lost the battle for public opinion,” he says. “They claim it’s because American Jews know too little – I claim it’s because they know too much about the conflict… The tide of public opinion is turning against Israel…. And the American Jewish community that for a long time was a huge obstacle to resolving the conflict is breaking up.”
On Walt and Mearsheimer:
“I accept that the lobby is very influential and shapes [U.S.] policy on Israel-Palestine. But when Walt and Mearsheimer start generalizing about the influence of the lobby on Iraq, Iran policy and elsewhere – that’s where I think they get it wrong. I just can’t find any evidence for it.”
On J Street:
Finkelstein describes the leadership of J Street as “hopeless”. “It’s simply the loyal opposition. Politically they identify themselves mostly with Kadima.”
On his feelings about Israel:
“I don’t feel particularly attached to Israel – nationalism, as Noam Chomsky said, is not my cup of tea – but I feel no particular need to demonize it. I do feel a certain amount of disgust, that’s for sure. If my focus was on any other country’s human rights violations, I would be as appalled and disgusted. It’s just unacceptable, and you can’t make excuses for that with ‘other people do it.'”
On Palestinian tactics:
“International law says people fighting for self-determination can use force in order to achieve their independence….They do not have the right to target the civilian population. But now more and more Palestinians are turning to various forms of civil resistance and civil disobedience. This tactic of fasting in prison is going to spread.”
On the future of the conflict:
“I do not see other reasonable basis for resolution of this conflict other then the international law. What else can you use? To say, I have the rights, and solve it by force? Or based on needs – but who decides what are the needs? Dennis Ross decided Israel needs whatever it says it needs – and the Palestinians get everything that is left over. It’s a political problem, so it’s up to the international community to apply sufficient pressure to Israel to accept this map that is fair, within the parameters of law – and reasonable. And then the conflict can be solved. With the regional changes, there will be pressure applied by Egypt and Turkey however things settle with the Arab Spring, there will be pressure applied by the Palestinians and the international community, that is weary of this conflict, to resolve it on the basis of international consensus.”
Finkelstein has two new books coming soon from OR Books. The first is a short (100-page) tract entitled What Gandhi Says: About Nonviolence, Resistance and Courage. Here’s some of the publisher’s description:
There is much that will surprise in these pages: Gandhi was not a pacifist; he believed in the right of those being attacked to strike back and regarded inaction as a result of cowardice to be a greater sin than even the most ill-considered aggression. Gandhi’s calls for the sacrifice of lives in order to shame the oppressor into concessions can easily seem chilling and ruthless.
But Gandhi’s insistence that, in the end, peaceful resistance will always be less costly in human lives than armed opposition, and his understanding that the role of a protest movement is not primarily to persuade people of something new, but rather to get them to act on behalf of what they already accept as right – these principles have profound resonance in both the Israel-Palestine conflict and the wider movement for justice and democracy that began to sweep the world in 2011.
The second book, this one a hefty 470 pages, is entitled Knowing Too Much: Why the American Jewish Romance with Israel Is Coming to an End. From the website:
Despite Israel’s record of militarism, illegal settlements and human rights violations, American Jews have, stretching back to the 1960s, remained largely steadfast supporters of the Jewish “homeland.” But, as Norman Finkelstein explains in an elegantly-argued and richly-textured new book, this is now beginning to change….
In successive chapters that combine Finkelstein’s customary meticulous research with polemical brio, Knowing Too Much sets the work of defenders of Israel such as Jeffrey Goldberg, Michael Oren, Dennis Ross and Benny Morris against the historical record, showing their claims to be increasingly tendentious. As growing numbers of American Jews come to see the speciousness of the arguments behind such apologias and recognize Israel’s record as simply indefensible, Finkelstein points to the opening of new possibilities for political advancement in a region that for decades has been stuck fast in a gridlock of injustice and suffering.
According to the OR Books site, the official publication date for both books is June, but the Gandhi one is scheduled ship in mid-April and Knowing Too Much in late April. They’ll be available in both paperback and e-book format. You get a 15-percent discount if you pre-order now.
“so it’s up to the international community to apply sufficient pressure to Israel to accept this map that is fair, within the parameters of law – and reasonable. And then the conflict can be solved. With the regional changes, there will be pressure applied by Egypt and Turkey however things settle with the Arab Spring, there will be pressure applied by the Palestinians and the international community, that is weary of this conflict, to resolve it on the basis of international consensus.””
OK, I/C, step right up. I’ve been calling for USA pressure since 2008 (http://123pab.com/blog/2008/12/Obama-should-end-illegalities-of-Israeli-occupation-before-pressing-for-an-Israeli-Palestinian-peace.php) and I/C BDS-like pressure since 2010 (http://123pab.com/blog/2010/08/UN-Member-States-should-enact-BDS-Legislation-against-Israel-following-Turkey.php ).
Many others called on the I/C too, no doubt. But there is no sign whatever that the I/C (or the USA) will act to pressure Israel. And the signs that Israel is hardening its position of 1SS-apartheid are conclusive, as Jeff Halper argues here (http://ameu.org/PDF-Archives/vol45_issue2_2012.aspx ).
COMPLAINT to WebMaster: the translation of URLs “eats” post-URL text such as “)” and “.” AND/OR
replaces a trailing blank (” “) with a NEW-LINE.
Another breakthrough?
Connecticut Democrat candidate calls another a ‘whore’ for AIPAC during live debate
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/06/one-dem-candidate-calls-another-a-whore-for-aipac-during-live-debate/
“when Walt and Mearsheimer start generalizing about the influence of the lobby on Iraq, Iran policy and elsewhere – that’s where I think they get it wrong. I just can’t find any evidence for it.”
“Any” evidence? All you would need to do is find a statement by such an advocacy organization supporting the war to find “any” evidence.
I so admire Finkelstein but his claim that American Jews are now “Knowing too Much” is a bunch of hooey. The tripping point is finally admitting what you know and being willing to do something about it. Applying the same standards of human rights and justice that one would apply to crimes against humanity in one place on this earth to the Israeli Palestinian conflict. I think this is what has changed in the larger American Jewish community.
And if he wants to pretend that the majority of signatories to the letters to Clinton pushing for an invasion of Iraq way back when are tried and true Israeli firsters that is his problem and denial.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
January 26, 1998
The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. President:
We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.
The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.
Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.
Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration’s attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam’s regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.
We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.
Sincerely,
Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick
Ross, Pollack, Ledeen, Reuel Marc Gerecht, Micheal Rubin, Ros Lehtinen, Lieberman the list of Jewish Israeli firsters who supported and pushed for thinvasion of Iraq is long. Aipac’s action alert before the invasion was focused on supporting the invasion of Iraq. As well as Jinsa’s website
Soon after the invasion Aipac’s website turned their focus to legislation isolating and focused on Iran. From that point on many of the same individuals starting repeating unsubstantiated claims about Iran. Amazing that Finkelstein would be willing to ignore these facts. Mystery that Finkelstein would ignore Ros Lehtinen and Lieberman etc writing and pushing for legislation that isolates and targets Iran based on false claims. That he would ignore Aipac continually lobbying for military action being taken in regard to Iran. The facts are stacked up against Finkelstein on this one
“International law says people fighting for self-determination can use force in order to achieve their independence….They do not have the right to target the civilian population.”
Targeting civilians is obviously the wrong way to resist. Israel, on the other hand, is not fighting for self-determination and they target civilians as policy. If you look at their ‘war’ history or ‘counter-terrorism’ attacks, you see a disproportionate number of civilian casualties. They might publicly say how they went out of their way to avoid them, the old ‘collateral damage’ excuse. Elsewhere they say they are ‘teaching a lesson’ by using excessive force. Collective punishment. That’s their policy. They don’t go out of their way to avoid civilian casualties. They attack civilian areas that are often unrelated to the alleged perpetrators they retaliate against.
I was reading some of the things that went on during the occupation of south Lebanon and there were several details I wasn’t aware of. Israel not only defied the UN SC (and the USA even) and failed to unconditionally withdraw from Lebanon, they are responsible for killing thousands of civilians. Destroying ancient sites. Targeting suburban areas (they did this again in 2006). And in many cases every time there was an attack against their army, they responded by bombing unrelated civilian areas.