Yesterday before more than 400 people jammed into a hall at the New School in New York, Adam Shatz, Norman Finkelstein, and Anna Baltzer had a fascinating discussion of the American Jewish relationship with Israel. “Romance,” as Shatz put it. Above is part 1, featuring Shatz’s opening and Norman Finkelstein’s presentation. I will get Baltzer’s speech up later today. I was not able to record the often energetic back and forth between Finkelstein and Baltzer over boycott of Israel (she is for it; he says it goes against international law) but I believe the New School recorded the event, and I will post it when I get it. And I will give my report on the event within a day or two.
Update: Here is Anna Baltzer’s speech. I lost the first minute or so due to equipment malfunction…. Oh and I forgot to say, Noam Chomsky had to scratch the event because of laryngitis. He was missed
“If they finally do the right thing, this long dark night may soon come to an end”
Well, yeah. This could be applied to any problem anywhere in the world where someone is taking advantage of another.
What kills me about Finkelstein is that he lives in America and knows how things work here. It doesn’t matter a lick if a majority of American Jews want a change in US policy toward Israel – all it takes is one or two assholes with a ton of cash to keep it just the way it is. And this is not to say that Israel as an issue is the only one worked in this way – if american public opinion was enacted, we would have national health insurance and much more money spent on schools than “defense” – we wouldn’t have the drug wars or the surveillance state. But in each case, there are large concentrations of money and power who oppose such things, so the majority opinion is ignored.
Lastly, don’t help build the fourth wall of the jewish prison shatz mentions – whatever else is true about finkelsteins arguments, they are explicitly for a jewish solution to what he considers a jewish problem. I’m thinking some more people are going to have to be involved in this.
Dan Crowther: “What kills me about Finkelstein is that he lives in America and knows how things work here…”
What kills me about Finkelstein is that I think he’s subordinating considerations of general and abstract justice to his own personal agenda. As soon as he can no longer be the lone voice of righteousness, he goes rocketing off in the other direction — just so that he can keep being the iconoclast.
So now he’s arguing AGAINST boycotting Israel? They’re to be brought to see the light by sweetness and reason? Echoes of South Africa and ‘constructive engagement.’ Was he for that as well?
Was this all only about Norm all along? Israel and the Palestinians be damned — it always was all about what will let Norm stand alone, pure, and fearlessly fighting off the mob?
It all really does strike me as a triumph of pure egoism over any more general conception of what would be just and right. Or maybe he’s just getting old and wants a nice secure slot in academia somewhere — so he’s cooling it. Either way, I’m less than impressed.
Its always when ONE of the Anti Zionist, that suddenly finds the truth and changes his view about Israel , that for you guys……. he becomes ……. and then he becomes…….. and the he wants…….. and he is getting ……….
Wake up, he changes his mind as he found the truth…….. but you can’t accept it…….
yrn, how did norm change his views about israel?
Finkelstein is supporting a two-state solution, which he sees as the international consensus position, conforming with international law; he sees Israel as legitimate within its pre-June 1967 borders and whatever minor adjustments are agreed upon in negotiations with the Palestinians. He has previously attacked the official BDS campaign …….
How did he change his mind…… its called open minded…..
” its called open minded…..”.
Too bad Nuttyahoo and fellow travellers are not open minded.
Then Finkelstein,s support for a 2SS might have some meat on the bone.
“conforming with international law;” how so by what conception of international “law” can people be robbed of rights? and inalienable human rights at that.
Agreed Colin. It should be remembered, Finkelstein’s livelihood depends on perpetuating the fantasy of partition. It’s his bread and butter…
Like many, I long admired Finkelstein for his leonine courage and steadfastness. I think the sad decline in his analysis and views is due to the influence of Chomsky, whom he has cited as a major influence and close friend. The failings of NF are also Chomsky’s failings, and more, because NF makes mistakes NC would not.
See Stephen Sniegoski’s critique of NF’s denial of the neocon origins of the Iraq war.
link to veteransnewsnow.com
Citizen C says: “… due to the influence of Chomsky, whom he has cited as a major influence and close friend. The failings of NF are also Chomsky’s failings, and more, because NF makes mistakes NC would not. ..”
I have to confess I assiduously avoid Chomsky — but I have the impression that while impeccably left otherwise, he’s always reluctant to single out Israel. At worst, it gets lumped in the with the giant American plot to promote evil he seems to eternally detect in all things. Israel is merely one limb of the great American hydra of greed, megalomania, and general satanism.
There’s PEP. Perhaps Chomsky is REP (revolutionary except for Palestine).
u-s-officers-in-israel-for-military-exercise
link to rawstory.com
The US-Israeli exercises will be the most important yet between the two countries, the paper said.
clever timing. obama pushed it back right up until the election.
u-s-officers-in-israel-for-military-exercise
However.
I was intrigued by the following comment
“I was not able to record the often energetic back and forth between Finkelstein and Baltzer over boycott of Israel (she is for it; he says it goes against international law)…”
Phil, can you please provide the exact quote where Norman says that boycotts are against international law? In his voluminous writings, and uncountable talks, never once I have come across this bizarre assertion. So I would be particularly interested in the exact quote. Many thanks.
I was at the debate and believe Phil is mistaken. My recollection is that Norman’s analysis of international law related only to Israel’s existence and not BDS. He repeatedly said that Israel’s existence is a matter of international law. His exhibit number one was a statement made by the ICJ at the end of its opinion on the barrier/wall about looking forward to two states side by side. While he criticized BDS with the same arguments he has previously made, he did not say it was against the law, as far as I recall.
Anna, by the way, was brilliant throughout. Her answer to Norman’s international law argument was that there are conflicting legal principles, and that Israel was required by the partition resolution and by its application for UN membership to provide equal rights to all its citizens, which it has never done. Moreover, the Palestinians’ right of return is guaranteed under international law.
Thanks, David. So what I gather from your response is that Norman did not say that boycotts were against International Law. The only proper thing for Phil to do is to now amend his original text, and undo the damage he has already done. Many thanks.
Sanjeev
So Phil, will you please amend your post, and apologize for misrepresenting Norman? Thanks.
Curious as to whether anybody not on the far-left was invited to this debate.
Most of the people there seem to Americans, so people who are on the left would have been a minority.
Alway amusing to see zionists try to paint people who see the injustice of Israel’s behaviour as “far-left”.
I do know a few university students that are pro-Palestinian and who actually identify as socialists – but the vast majority not. And then there are libertarians such as Scott Horton and Ron Paul who are a long long way from “far-left”, and hugely critical of Israel’s behaviour.
The dividing line is not “left” or “right”. Palestine is about human rights, including property rights, which many Americans understand extremely well.
Curious as to whether anybody not on the far-left was invited to this debate.
Seriously? You’re delusional if you think only people on the far left have a problem with what Israel is doing.
This was not advertised as a debate, but morphed into one. Norman and Anna started out by sincerely and graciously praising each other, but their many differences became obvious during the evening. Norman’s arguments were familiar to anyone who has seen his previous lectures and read his writings. Anna, who I saw a few years ago by herself – and she was great then – was even more impressive here. She articulately answered almost all of Norman’s contentions. At the end, when there had been much more disagreement than expected, Norman graciously said that he had too much respect for Anna to leave as enemies, and I’m sure she felt the same way. As strongly as they expressed their opinions, there was no hostility.
I took no notes, but my recollections: There was disagreement over the term Zionism. Norman argued that it should be avoided, because it means different things to different people, and many people don’t even know what it means. Also, Zionists claim that it is national liberation movement of the Jewish people. Anna responded that we have no business telling or advising Palestinians not to use the word, and it could be useful. I thought Norman was right about the historical fact that there were different strains of Zionism, but wrong on everything else. Zionism has come to mean believing that Israel should exist as a Jewish State. Other lines of Zionist thought (e.g. Magnes) have been lost in history – interesting to examine but without any currency. There may be debates among Zionists over whether the Occupation is good or bad, but not about the Zionist project to create a Jewish State. Moreover, the line about national liberation movements should be answered and exposed for the nonsense it is, but should not deter one from using the term in the first place. To me, the term is very useful and descriptive, and if there are lots of people who don’t know what it is, they have no interest in the whole issue anyway.
Anna had an excellent line about J Street. While expressing her differences with the organization, she called it a “gateway drug,” explaining that Jews who are attracted to its message as an alternative to AIPAC could be persuaded to move further along and leave J Street behind; I completely agree, and have said so numerous times here about “liberal Zionists.” I feel like I made that journey myself over a number of years or even decades.
Like almost everyone, I was disappointed at Chomsky’s late scratch. In retrospect, I would have been very interested to see how he responded and if there were any differences between him and his protege NF. But on the other hand, these two filled two hours with their own perspectives, and with a third person there, even Chomsky, it probably would have been a lot thinner. The moderator was quite good as well, but allowed the other two to be front and center.
Anyone interested will hopefully be able to see the official video shortly. It is well worth watching in full.
Thanks for the report, David.
I think the term Zionism is very useful, because it is neither religion/ethnicity nor polity, but ideology – the ideology behind the colonisation of Palestine and the ongoing violation of Palestinian rights. Sure there have been different strains of Zionism, but they have all called for the colonisation of Palestine in some form or other, differing primarily in their attitudes after the fact. There is already a sizeable Jewish minority in Palestine? Let’s have a single state or a confederation. Israel controls the entire area from the river to the sea? Let’s give up the WB and Gaza (and even East Jerusalem) and preserve a Jewish ethnocracy within the Green Line.
On the question of the legality of the existence of a “Jewish state”, a few brief points (assuming NF’s analysis is correct, of course):
1. Recognition of Israel as a Jewish state was an attempt to strike a balance between conflicting interests/rights, in order to diffuse an explosive situation at a given time. It was not an absolute statement of legal principle. As for the subsequent developments more or less accepted by the international community, I’ll leave it to the legal experts to thrash out the differences between “de facto” recognition and “de jure” rights.
2. The law may allow certain injustices; it does not mandate them.
3. There is nothing in the law that prevents those who have been wronged by it to continue to seek a better solution – particularly since there is no prescribed legal process of appeals that has been exhausted in this case (the implications of the ICJ decision on the wall notwithstanding).
4. The legal “requirement” (if that’s what it really is) of a Jewish state may be satisfied in a number of ways that do not entail the existence of Israel in its current, ethnocratic form – which would, in fact, appear to violate the original principles and conditions of its recognition.
Shmuel, I would add to your list that the ICJ’s opinions aspirational statement about two states, upon which Norman relies heavily, is very unlikely to have any significance in international law. In American jurisprudence, there is a sharp distinction between a holding and dictum. A holding is basically a ruling that decides the subject of the controversy, which was the legality of the barrier. Dictum or dicta is something said by the court that is extraneous to the actual ruling. A holding is considered a precedent, usually binding, for future cases, but dicta only somewhat or even very slightly influential. This particular statement clearly was dictum, and while I have no expertise in international law, I would be very surprised if every sentence in every ICJ opinion is considered law or binding precedent. Yet Norman cites it as Exhibit A in his brief for Israel’s legality under international law; a lawyer would never do that.
Secondly, you discuss the legality of Israel as a Jewish State, and I agree with you completely, but Norman himself is agnostic on the question. He says Israel has a right to exist, but not necessarily to exist as a Jewish State, to which I reply, Huh? Ironically, Norman is very critical of the BDS movement’s “agnosticism” on the question of 1ss v. 2ss, but he himself is “agnostic,” or intentionally ambiguous, on the question of Israel as a Jewish State. However, he has stated elsewhere that the Israelis could never agree to a full right of return, which would “destroy” Israel. Of course, it would only “destroy” Israel’s existence as a Jewish State with an enforced Jewish majority. It seems to me that Norman is guilty of the same ambiguity that he accuses BDS of, and that the verdict is far clearer against him. btw, Anna had an excellent and much-needed refutation of the use of the word “destroy/destruction” to describe the process of transformation from supremacy to equality.
Norman himself is agnostic on the question. He says Israel has a right to exist, but not necessarily to exist as a Jewish State, to which I reply, Huh?
“Huh?” is right. And here I thought I understood (but disagreed) with NF’s position. If Israel’s “right to exist” is not as a Jewish state, the entire argument about strictly adhering to international law – “even the parts we may not like” – makes no sense whatsoever.
Thanks for the distinction between holding and dictum. It seems obvious to a layman, but the law is not always obvious, and it’s good to have names for things :-)
Hey David (and Mondoweiss…).
General info: while the New School may have recorded the event, there was a gentleman there from C-Span as well who told me that it would be up on their site shortly.
I also attended this talk/debate and like you, David, was also very impressed w/ Baltzer.
There was disagreement over the term Zionism. Norman argued that it should be avoided, because it means different things to different people… Anna responded that we have no business telling or advising Palestinians not to use the word…
This awesome exchange brought us the most hilarious soundbite of the afternoon from NF: “For most people, Zionism is a hairspray.” Priceless! While I agree w/ NF about the currently confused nature of the term “Zionism/Zionist,” by no means should anyone be told not to use the term. If you’re speaking w/ someone who uses the word, and you’re not sure what they mean by it, simply ask them, “What do you mean Zionist?” NF should not be in the business of trying to restrict someone else’s language but simply holding them accountable for how they use it. Many words are slippery and broad in meaning – shifting in specifics from context to context. People have different views of the term/word “Jew.” Is it a religion, a race, a culture, a nationality, etc… Should we stop using that word as well? Or should we simply demand clarity when it is needed? I, and it seems Baltzer, side w/ clarity and not the unnecessary narrowing of language. This is particularly personal for Baltzer as she is, from what understand, involved w/ IJAN (Internat’l Jewish Anti-Zionist Network). Somehow this reminds me of an old SNL mock TV commercial: “It’s a floor wax – No, it’s a dessert topping. Wait: It’s both!”
Anna had an excellent line about J Street. While expressing her differences with the organization, she called it a “gateway drug,” explaining that Jews who are attracted to its message as an alternative to AIPAC could be persuaded to move further along and leave J Street behind
While this may have worked for you David, I’m personally skeptical. I had a very negative experience w/ JStreet and feel they may even be harmful. I wrote up a JStreet event I attended a while ago, but it was unfortunately too long for publication here a Mondoweiss. (I’d be more than happy to send my little article to anyone who is interested. Just lemme know). The “Gateway Drug” analogy for me is suspect. JStreet puts itself across as a “Progressive/Liberal” organization representing the majority view of American Jewry. From where I stand, it is no such thing. But American Jews who hear the words “Liberal, Progressive, Majority” and want to start learning about the conflict may join because they consider themselves to be progressives. My fear is that people starting out learning about the conflict from JStreet will be convinced that JStreet’s stance is actually “progressive” because that’s what they’re being told. This contributes to the general deterioration of the true “Liberal Left,” similar to what is detailed in Hedges’ “Death Of The Liberal Class.” JStreet is a very slick scam imo.
The last question selected by Shatz for the Q&A happened to be from me. And, imo, Shatz showed some chutzpah for choosing it. It brought up the issue of the ubiquitous Two State Solution vs. the increasingly proposed One State Solution. For me, this is where I have the biggest issue w/ NF. He is completely and immediately dismissive of even discussing the possibility – to the point of close-minded condescension. Don’t get me wrong: I’ve read a good amount of NF, seen him speak twice and have a HUGE amount of respect and admiration for the man. I don’t see that ever changing. But I feel on this issue he has something of a “You can’t teach an old dog new tricks” syndrome happening. He’s been focused like a laser beam on the Two State Solution for, what, 30 years now? After all that time and professional/emotional energy spent, switching from that to a quite different attitude could be, dare I say, near impossible and maybe too much to ask. Though I disagree w/ him on his dismissiveness of the option, I can understand his inability to wrap his head around its possibility. As for his spoken justifications for the Two State Solution being the only solution worthy of consideration, I may try to write something more on that after the video is published. He has a very specific reason for his argument, and I have a very specific reason I disagree w/ his argument.
Hello Mondoweiss ☺
I’m glad to see some mention of “gateway drugs” in connection with this issue. As far as I can determine, PEP pills are the gateway drug to a full-on Ziocaine syndrome.
Thanks JD for that very thoughtful debut on MW. I think we had mostly the same reaction to this event. On the one issue where you express some disagreement – J Street – we are closer than you think. In fact, even Anna said that she would never align herself with the organization. What she said, and what I agree with, is that anything that gets some people to budge from a knee-jerk defense of all things Israel is a good thing. While J Street might only represent one step in a mile-long journey, it has the capacity to open people’s minds that were formerly closed. Once they are receptive to J Street’s overly mild criticism of the worse Israel has to offer, they might be more willing to listen to more substantive arguments as well. Another thing – while I never attended a J Street conference, Phil and Adam have, and if memory serves, they have reported that the sentiment of many attendees has left the leadership behind in the dust. In fact, Mustafa Barghouti addressed the last conference, and moved hundreds of audience members with his passion. The value of J Street giving people like him a public platform, even if J Street also invited Olmert to speak (gag me with a spoon), should not be underestimated.
That being said, I would be interested to read your longer take on J Street. Perhaps MW could give you my email address (fine with me) or forward your essay to me.
That being said, I would be interested to read your longer take on J Street. Perhaps MW could give you my email address (fine with me) or forward your essay to me.
I’d be more than happy to forward/send you the little essay on my J Street experience. That’s nice of you to be interested. But I don’t know how :( I’m totally new to the board here and it seems there is no way to “private message” another member on the board. Maybe I’m missing something simple? At the moment I’d prefer to not put my private email up here. However, I have listed my little youtube channel address in my personal info here at mondo. If you have a youtube account maybe you could message me over there?
It turns out I’m not the only commentor here who was blown away by Anna’s brilliance.
Norman’s decline into a cookie-cutter “liberal” Zionist continues apace.
Personally, I’d much rather like to see a debate between her and, say, Peter Beinart!
Having just watched the entire discussion: Norman was much more rational and, in my view , much better in the q&a part. Anna faded in that part and avoided a clear answer as to the solution she prefers. She was totally unconvincing.
cool a winner has been declared! its not about picking a preferred solution, its not up to anna norman noam or anyone else, or you, in all this talk of legal this and that i cant help but recall the start of that traditional old song John Barelycorn
“There were three men came out of the west, their fortunes for to try
And these three men made a solemn vow
John Barleycorn must die”
everyone is in such a hurry to write off the Palestinians, and delimit their restoration, and out of mawkish emotionality to recommend their surrender, let me tell you my Israeli military friends have told me a very different story, after 100 years of apalling and escalating abuse the Palestinians not only remain unbroken, even though everything has been destroyed, most preciously their unity, but still they not only abide but can mount resistance with nothing, i still think Noah Cohen is last the word in Palestinian solidarity and advocacy, no one else even comes close, god bless him and the New England committee.
and in the same manner after mounting abuse “John Barleycorn proved the strongest man at last” stevie winwood and traffic did good version of it, it always put me in mind of Palestine.
link to lyricsmode.com
u-s-officers-in-israel-for-military-exercise
However.
Time said Washington had reduced the number of military staff going to Israel, as well as the number and strength of missile defence systems that would be used during operation Austere Challenge 12.
Of the initial 5,000 US troops lined up to take part in the exercises, only up to 1,500 will take part. US Patriot missiles will be sent as originally planned, but not the crews that were to operate the batteries, Time said.
In addition, only one of two Aegis anti-missile cruisers is bound for Israel, and even this is not certain, according to the magazine.
Raw Story (link to s.tt
David Samel says
“ I was at the debate and believe Phil is mistaken. My recollection is that Norman’s analysis of international law related only to Israel’s existence and not BDS. … he did not say it was against the law, as far as I recall.”
So Phil, will you now please amend your text, and apologize for misrepresenting Norman? Thanks.
Sanjeev
Phil,
Is it too much to ask to amend your text that misrepresents Norman and apologize, especially when all kinds of aspersions have been cast on him on this forum because of it?
Sanjeev
Yes it is. I dont agree with David Samel’s interpretation here. Finkelstein said that BDS is silent as to the existence of Israel; and Israel’s existence inside the 67 borders is a principle of int’l law. So in that sense BDS is going against int’l law on this question. You may not like the law, but it’s the law, he said. I’ll try and get a recording of the discussion up before long. If you have better information, you should inform us.
Phil,
You explicitly quote Norman as saying that boycotts are against International Law. Can you provide the exact quote? It does not do to argue speciously as you do and impute positions to him that are quite bizarre. You say
“Finkelstein said that BDS is silent as to the existence of Israel; and Israel’s existence inside the 67 borders is a principle of int’l law. ”
First off, how can abstract nouns such as boycotts, divestment, and sanctions be “silent as to the existence of Israel”, unless you think that Norman believes that boycotts etc are a set of people? Do you really think that Norman has lost his marbles to such an extent that he starts imputing intentions to abstract nouns? So the only reasonable interpretation of the phrase “Finkelstein said that BDS is silent as to the existence of Israel ” is that Norman thinks that the BDS movement is silent on the existence of Israel”. Even assuming for the moment that Norman, each of whose assertions are laser like precise, made such a clunky statement, this already gives the game away, and destroys your disingenuous and inept inference.
Let us analyze your inference a little deeper.
You claim
1) Finkelstein said that BDS is silent as to the existence of Israel
2) Israel’s existence inside the 67 borders is a principle of int’l law
Ergo, you infer that Norman thinks that boycotts are against International law. (As an aside, even assuming the truth of 1 and 2, I am not sure how you derive such a bizarre inference from the two).
I have already shown that 1) cannot possibly be literally true unless you think Norman has lost his marbles. So the only reasonable interpretation of 1) is that Norman thinks that the BDS movement is silent on the existence of Israel. So going by your less than stellar inferential methods, one would have to infer that Norman thinks that the BDS movement is against international law, a far cry from your claim, which you insist on defending, that Norman thinks that boycotts are against international law.
So in sum, my question stands. Is it too much to ask to amend your mischievous text, and apologize to Norman? Be a mensch, Phil, and do what is right.
Sanjeev
” Israel’s existence inside the 67 borders is a principle of int’l law”
It isn’t “a principle of int’l law” Customary International Law demands legal annexation via a referendum of the actual legal citizens of the territories to be annexed (sans the annexing parties citizens) see the US annexation of Texas. The US was instrumental in annexation via a referendum eventually passing into Customary International Law. So the US can only abstain from voting on Chapt VI resolutions and can only veto Chapt VII resolutions against Israel.
That’s why there are numerous UNSC resolutions against Israel’s illegal annexation of East Jerusalem. It’s also why Israel must negotiate to reach an agreement with the Palestinians, because Israel has never legally annexed ANY territory. The alternative is to face the consequences of the Law under which Israel would be sent bankrupt for decades. So Israel MUST protect the precious and only veto vote in the UNSC
Geez, sanjeev, chill out a bit. Your insistence on an apology is a little screechy. Norman said that BDS refuses to take a stand on 1ss v. 2ss, and also that Israel’s right to exist is recognized by international law. Phil’s shorthand that NF claims that BDS “goes against int’l law” is not an egregious misstatement. Norman is indeed saying that BDS does not respect int’l law, not that it is illegal or unlawful itself, but Phil doesn’t really accuse him of that. In fact, you are more guilty of misinterpretation than Phil is. You asked, “can you please provide the exact quote where Norman says that boycotts are against international law?” Phil was clearly talking about Norman’s views on the BDS movement, not all “boycotts” or “boycotts” in general. And you chose to interpret Phil’s phrase “goes against international law” as “is unlawful” rather than “is inconsistent with the law.” I had read it the same way, but Phil’s explanation is reasonable. Norman certainly did criticize BDS as refusing to recognize international law. If you can’t see the difference between that and saying that boycotts themselves are illegal, look harder.
I’m not sure where your insistence on an apology comes from. I think Norman’s body of work, and his courage, are worthy of great respect, but not personal adulation. He can be cranky and rude (though he was neither on Saturday), and his views on BDS and Israel’s existence and international law are sufficiently muddy to cause confusion among well-intentioned people.
Phil,
Are you or are you not going to amend the text and apologize to Norman? Trying to get an answer from you is like pulling teeth.
Sanjeev
Phil,
Are you or are you not going to amend the text and apologize to Norman? Trying to get an answer from you is like pulling teeth?
Sanjeev
David,
I guess I have no choice but to spill some ink on elementary logic. There is a massive difference between claiming that Norman believes “boycotts are against international law” which is what Phil said (a bizarre claim to say the least), and claiming that Norman believes “the BDS movement is against international law”. Since you cannot see the difference, I guess I have to spell it out. When someone says that “boycotts [against Israel] are against international law”, he or she is claiming that, if an individual or an institution boycotts Israel, this constitutes a violation of international law. Only a clinically insane person could make such a claim. To impute such a claim to Norman is to insinuate that he is clinically insane.
On the other hand, the only reasonable interpretation of the clunky claim that “the BDS movement is against international law” is that the people who constitute the BDS movement are in violation of international law. I cannot believe that Norman would even remotely make such a claim, but at least it is a claim that a reasonable person can make, in that the claim has a truth value, that is, it is either true or false, and one could either falsify it or verify it.
you misquote me
How do I misquote you? You said, and here I am quoting you verbatim
“I was not able to record the often energetic back and forth between Finkelstein and Baltzer over boycott of Israel (she is for it; he says it goes against international law) ”
Does that not imply that you are claiming that Norman thinks that boycott of Israel goes against international law. So where is the misquote?
Sanjeev
Phil,
I repeat. Be a mensch, and amend your text, and apologize to Norman.
Sanjeev
sanjeev, you are getting awfully tiresome. First of all, do not use quotation marks unless you are quoting. Phil did not say “boycotts are against international law”; he said “energetic back and forth between Finkelstein and Baltzer over boycott of Israel (she is for it; he says it goes against international law).” As I said before, there is a big difference in interpretation. Let me illustrate. If one says “bank robbery is against the law,” it means that bank robbery is a crime for which you can pay a penalty. If one says that “advocating in favor of acquisition of territory by force goes against international law,” it means that taking such position is contrary to principles of international law, but not that one is committing a crime by doing so. When Norman said that BDS fails to honor international law, he meant it in the second sense, and that is how Phil stated NF’s position. True, Phil said “boycott” rather than BDS (and rather than “boycotts” as you repeatedly and inaccurately quoted), but in context, he clearly was talking about the BDS movement only, as was Norman. Got it? I hope so, because no one is paying my legal bill for this.
Phil,
Trying to get an answer from you is like pulling teeth.
Sanjeev
David,
There is no use avoiding the issue by saying I am “getting tiresome”. I could easily parry the insult, but won’t. Here is what Phil said
“I was not able to record the often energetic back and forth between Finkelstein and Baltzer over boycott of Israel (she is for it; he says it goes against international law) “.
This clearly means that Phil thinks that Norman says “boycott of Israel goes against international law”.
Now you say,
“bank robbery is against the law” means that bank robbery is a crime for which you can pay a penalty
So according to your interpretation, “boycott of Israel is against international law” would then mean that “boycott of Israel is a crime for which you can pay a penalty”. This is even nuttier than my interpretation of Phil’s claim. By your interpretation, Phil is imputing even more insane claim to Norman than I originally thought. Do you really mean to say that Norman thinks that I if I don’t buy Israeli goods or if I start a divestment campaign against caterpillar, the international police will come and impose a penalty on me? If you think that, then you think that Norman belongs in a mental asylum.
Sanjeev
You say
“but in context, he clearly was talking about the BDS movement only, as was Norman.”
If he was talking about the BDS movement, (that is, he meant to say that the BDS movement is against international law, whatever that means), then why did Phil quote Norman as saying that boycott of Israel is against international law. The fact is that this mischievous interpretation of what Norman said was used by Colin Wright who claimed that Norman opposes boycotts.
“Finkelstein said that BDS is silent as to the existence of Israel; and Israel’s existence inside the 67 borders is a principle of int’l law. ”
That right there is a fascinating statement. As far as I know, there ain’t no such animal as the ’67 borders.’ Since they don’t exist, they can hardly be a ‘principle of international law.’
There’s the pre-1967 cease fire line — but that’s not a border, nor did any of the signatories say it was.
As far as I know, the only legal borders Israel has are those laid out in the 1947 UN Partition Resolution. Now, ol’ Norm may have a case that Israel’s right to exist within those is a principle of international law. Of course, there are other conditions she accepted concurrently that she would have to comply with as well.
“Israel’s existence inside the 67 borders is a principle of int’l law.” right i am genuinely confused, a principle of IL would be say the self determination of peoples, the right citizenship in ones customary home, how can the existence of Israel in whatever borders or at all be a “principle” of anything states are adventitious things, was the existence of the USSR a principle of international law, i am not sure i know what you are talking about.
Colin, the boundaries of Israel between 1949 and 1967 were internationally recognized. No country has recognized Israel’s right to annex the additional territory Israel acquired in the 1967 war. What Norman claims is a matter of international law is Israel’s right to exist within the 49-67 boundaries. The legality of the borders under international law is far too complex for me to explain, especially since I do not know myself. However, the borders set by the original partition plan of 1947, which was a Gen Ass recommendation for the Sec Council to implement and that never happened, are recognized by nobody. That plan gave the Jewish State about 55% of the land, and the 1949 cease fire line gave it 78%. There has never been any international movement (that I am aware of) to roll back Israel’s boundaries to the original 55%. I should add, though I made it clear before, that I am trying to express NF’s view on int’l law, which certainly is not mine.
That’s ok, gamal, I’m not sure I know what I’m talking about; this certainly is not my view. I’m trying to express NF’s view, hopefully accurately. I think he has clearly stated that Israel’s existence within the 49-67 border is protected by international law. If you quibble with my use of the word “principle,” you’re probably right. “Protected by” or “recognized under” international law is better.
No, sanjeev, the bank robbery analogy is precisely NOT what is at issue here. It is the acquisition of territory analogy that is. I made that clear. At least I thought so. I said: “When Norman said that BDS fails to honor international law, he meant it in the second sense, and that is how Phil stated NF’s position.” The second sense was territory – the first was bank robbery. Are you misinterpreting everything on purpose? April 1 is many months away.
David,
Is there not a massive difference between saying that “boycott of Israel is against international law” which is what Phil said, or even “BDS fails to honor international law” in your words (I presume this is the second sense you are talking about), and “BDS movement is against international law.”? If Norman said “boycott of Israel is against International law” or even “BDS fails to honor international law”, then he is explicitly saying that if I am an advocate of BDS, I am “taking a position in contrary to principles of international law” in your words. But I doubt that Norman would ever say that, unless he is clinically insane. However it is likely that he said that “BDS movement fails to honor international law”, which would then mean that the set of people who comprise BDS take positions contrary to the principles of international law. But then this has little to do with the BDS strategy. If I say that person X who supports a position Y fails to honor international law, I don’t mean to say that if one takes the position Y, one fails to honor international law. This is so elementary that I cannot believe I have so much trouble communicating it.
So Phil, in sum, it would be best if you amended your text and apologized to Norman.
To be absolutely clear, when I say
If I say that person X who supports a position Y fails to honor international law, I don’t mean to say that if one takes the position Y, one fails to honor international law.
I mean the following
If I say that person X who happens to support a position Y fails to honor international law, I don’t mean to say that if one takes the position Y, one fails to honor international law.
That is, let us assume that X fails to honor international law, and X also happens to support position Y. This does not mean that anyone taking position Y fails to honor international law.
Jeez Sanjeev, you’ve only posted the same thing about 30 times now. We get it.
Phil,
Trying to get an answer from you is like pulling teeth. It is true that I am repeating myself for the umpteenth time, but I find it quite perplexing that you insist on not amending your mischievous text.
Sanjeev
Phil’s rendition of Norman’s statement about Israel’s existence has to be the clunkiest assertion ever made, and knowing Norman, and how everything he says is carefully thought out and precise, I doubt he would ever say such a thing. Here is what I think he meant.
All states are based on violence and are immoral entities, but in the real world, they exist, and as long as they are legitimate members of the United Nations, they have a right to live in peace and security within their borders. Since Israel is a legitimate member of the UN, it has the same rights. It does not matter what Norman thinks or does not think. If one respects International Law, one must also respect every state’s, no matter how odious the said state, right to exist securely within its borders.
sanjeevsemail says: ” If one respects International Law, one must also respect every state’s, no matter how odious the said state, right to exist securely within its borders.”
…and when Israel has returned to its borders, and has honored the other provisions of the 1947 UN Declaration that brought it into being, this consideration would be of some relevance.
I believe the relevant comparison would be when Germany called for peace talks in the winter of 1939-40. Britain replied that just as soon as Germany withdrew from Poland, she’d be happy to enter into talks.
There is no need to discuss Israel’s legitimacy and what provision should be made to protect that legitimacy for so long as Israel herself is in violation of the terms under which that legitimacy was conferred.
We need to review some points here. Israel is the most indiscriminately aggressive state in modern history. She almost monotonously flouts every commitment she ever makes. She ignores international law. She accepted the UN Partition Declaration that brought her into being — and then promptly and grossly violated it and has been in violation of it ever since.
If Israel wants the protection of the laws, let her come into conformity with them herself first.
You say Israel has the ‘right to exist securely within its borders.’ Does she?
Why? Does she respect anyone else’s right to do the same? Doesn’t she almost methodically violate everyone else’s sovereignty to the best of her ability? When Nazi Germany was on the rampage, did people spend their time discussing that state’s ‘right to exist securely within its borders’?
No. They didn’t. They said, ‘we’ll drag that beast down, and once it’s securely tied up, we’ll figure out what to do with it.’
What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Concern for Israel’s ‘rights’ and concern legalities that she herself thoroughly tramples into the mud are absurd.
In a just world, with due and careful attention to the laws, Israel would be placed under a total embargo until she agreed to disarm and accept a UN peacekeeping force, the actual provisions of the actual UN Partition Resolution would be put into force by disinterested third parties, and then we’d have a nice UN General Assembly debate about what further actions to take — with particular attention paid to ensuring no revival of Israeli aggression.
Now you’ve done it, sanjeev. You’ve gotten hophmi and me to agree on something!
David,
If you got what I said, why would you argue interminably with me, and that too on elementary points of logic? And if everyone including Phil gets it, why won’t Phil amend the text and apologize to Norman?
Sanjeev
No David it was not you who said but that i thought, either NF or PW quoting NF, I am puzzled thats all, not as a rhetorical trick, are Egypts recognized borders and its existence within the same a principle of International Law, i wouldnt have thought so but then i know little about such things, International Law as China Mieville argues is pretty much what the powerful say it is, so perhaps it is, it just sounds strange. Sure i get what you are saying, states in existence etc, however other principles of International Law such as the ROR, need to be implemented or the state is in contravention of said principles and should be compelled to adhere to them, if we are going to wield the Law, its blade cuts both ways. If it was you who used that construction i didnt notice, i know what you mean it make sense in that way, but obviously those wronged, in the sense that prior fundamental principles of Law can take precedence, by this process need not feel any obligation to respect International Law, I mean what are we going to do them put them all in an open air prison, expel them from their homes and ignore their unreasonable reasonableness in suing for peace, IL while not necessarily an ass sure is a donkey.
edit function not working so incoherent mess above will have to do, just to say that i have immense respect for NF and PW and your good self whatever differences, they are only little things, really all our troubles are little more than flimsy mental constructions, of course for me that also goes for the Hasbara crew and the Tsahal who are whatever they say and do my sacred bretheren deserving of love and respect, in fact it is my obligation from my point of view and quite natural also, people are wonderful even if they espouse BTK type politics, plain speaking never hurt anyone and if it does it is great opportunity for them to progress, so thanks for taking the time to respond it is very much appreciated, just as with my interactions with Mr. Wright i am quite truthfully honoured, and in no little way blessed.
Beyond the polite , cultured, discussion like the one descibed here, there’s the ugly, thuggish, reality of the boycott:
link to youtube.com
Beyond the polite , cultured, discussion like the one descibed here, there’s the ugly, thuggish, reality of the boycott
Boo hoo. All I saw was civil disobedience in that video. This is the type of non-violent protest that your side has been urging, so it should make you happy.
What I saw was a small crowd of mostly middle-aged and elderly people (who else attends performances of the Givatron?) ,staying in their seats during the disruption, terrified by the gang of young thugs.
I almost hope that promoters of the racist boycott continue to disrupt cultural events, they lose sympathy every time.
jon s October 9, 2012 at 1:36 am
Ah yes, those who want Israel to abide by the law are thugs. AMAZING!
Even more amazing is that anyone should be “terrified” by them. I’d have though the IDF attacking Gaza, when there is no escape from the war zone for civilians would be far more terrifying. BTW it is illegal to prevent civilians fleeing a war zone link to wp.me
“racist boycott ”
Uh? Since when are Israelis a race?
“… Oh and I forgot to say, Noam Chomsky had to scratch the event because of laryngitis…”
Lol. I believe the precise medical condition is ‘mustntbeagainstisraelitis.’
Okay, Chomsky could have had laryngitis. Something of a coincidence, though.
The full video of the Baltzer-Finkelstein debate is up @
link to youtube.com
Finkelstein comes across as a more seasoned and persuasive debater. I don’t think Baltzer, eloquent in her lecture, though somewhat ruffled during the debate, was convincing in her responses or when it came to specifics.
NF never changed his arguments, he was and still an ardent supporter of the two state solution and the existence of the Israeli system as it is ( Jewish and democratic), things that will disappoint him are:
1- the Zionist principle of Jewish and democratic is self destructing and will eventually fail. To maintain this, NF always begins his arguments with 1976 as if nothing happened before and as if the Law only applies after 1976. He specifically ignores the issue of Israeli-Palestinians and the refugees, both of which is a solid reason for the injustice of the Israeli state system as is.
2- the continuous growth of other media resources and the acceptance of the younger generations on both sides of basic human rights principles, will eventually lead to the One State solution -whether NF likes it or not-.
3- The right of return, which is an individual right can only be applied to Palestinians individually and can only be given in the context of One Democratic multi religious state, where equality is the essence not superiority of some over others. NF always had advocated that the Palestinians should only accept the admission of the ROR by Israel with no actual implementation, a foolish notion or correctly a devilish argument.
4- NF always end his speech with specific point, asking Palestinians to accept the two state solutions , with actual dismissal of the ROR and dismissal of Israeli-Palestinians issue. He phrase it as “we have to be principled but Reasonable”. One thing he ignores, that no Palestinian would forget where he was born and his home or his parents or GP, which will render all “two state”solutions as invalid.
NF, actually believes he is saving the State of Israel from a self destruction path. What he does not realise is that Israel has already gone downhill with no return, as a system of injustice and inequality. The whole premise that one nation is more precious than others has no place in the 21st century.