Total number of comments: 6 (since 2012-04-25 19:55:07)
33 years old, german-born, studied law and medicine, interested in the causes and effects in extreme situations like the genocide in rwanda, the so called "war on terror" and the conflict for ages in Israel/Palestine and its perception in social media juxtaposed to the picture which is painted by the mainstream media, working as a doctor in Denmark
link to youtube.com
Another important clip to watch in order to make sense of Finkelsteins view on RoR.
At 34:00 he explains why one has to acknowledge that different players from the same political camp do agree on the factual, moral and legal issue of RoR, while they disagree on the political issue concerning the question of the feasibility of RoR. As an example he mentions Chomsky's view.
Although Finkelstein keeps stating in interviews, that palestinians have no reason to forfeit their rights, he might have shifted his point of view concerning RoR towards Chomsky's pragmatic approach.
Interesting, on that occasion Finkelstein also says:
"People are entitled to their judgements without being written of as the enemy on these questions."
Well said, David. I think, you are dead-on with your assessment of NFs possible motives. I also agree that his thin skin is not a virtue. However, he would be a bit boring had he only gotten these beautiful qualities. Is he BDS' advocatus diaboli?
/Veterans of dissent should know when their contribution has been made and allow history - and new voices - to emerge. New voices have a right to speak and be heard without being accused of usurpation or deviation./
Agreed, new voices have a right to speak and be heard.
But they do not have the right to demand not to be confronted with substantial criticism. It's open to debate whether NF's criticism on BDS is right or not, but I don't think it's unsubstantial.
@DavidSamel
Given (a) that Finkelstein is sick and tired of the endless conflict and seeks a near-term solution and given (b) what he told us about Gandhi's views on politics and nonviolent resistance (apart from what he, you and I think is morally right), I think he doubts that a broad international public is ready to listen to a proposal, which sees all 6 (?) million refugees return and outnumber the jewish ethnos. I think he's right on that - even if BDS continues to thrive, such a scenario won't fly with the broad public in the nearer future.
On the other hand he has also made it very clear that the palestinians have no reason whatsoever to forfeit any of their rights. Which leads us to the conclusion that from his point of view a return of refugees can only be partial while a considerable part of them will have to be compensated by Israel, which thus could preserve their ethnic majority within the June '67 borders.
By no means perfect, but a resolution I personally could live with.
---
Quote from the CJPME- interview 07/2012 on ROR:
/Dr. Finkelstein: My opinion is that a reasonable political solution can be found if Israelis negotiate in good faith. But to date, the official Israeli position is that they don’t accept any historical, legal, political or moral responsibility for the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem. That is a nonstarter.
Negotiations must start from the premises that (1) Israel bears overwhelming responsibility for the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem, and (2) Palestinians have a right of return.
Once these points are acknowledged by Israel, I think a resolution can be found./
Great, we need as much people as possible to be upset about the barbaric regime of Israel's authorities in the occupied territories!
Well I reckon Kimmel gathered a stupefying-narcissistic smile.
Big ROFL for his following statement about, what jews and arabs have in common!