Posts
since Wed, 26 Dec 2007 20:04:17.
by Joachim Martillo (ThorsProvoni@aol.com)
I placed the original announcement of Norman Finkelstein's visit to MIT below after David Rolde's report.
I fixed some minor typos and added two words to increase clarity.
Finkelstein appears to have moved closer to the position of Rabbi Lerner of Tikkun Magazine.
Lerner makes the self-serving argument that Zionism is justified as affirmative action for the Jewish people, who have suffered centuries of persecution in addition to the Holocaust.
Yet, the Polish Jewish revolutionary socialist leader Rosa Luxemburg at the beginning of the twentieth century could discern no specifically Jewish suffering in historic Poland, and generally historians (except those in Jewish studies) identify the Polish peasants as the most oppressed population in post-partition Poland.
In fact, for the last several hundred years the vast majority of Jews have had higher incomes, more education and longer life-spans that the non-Jews among whom they lived while from approximately 1850 until approximately 1950 Central and Eastern European Jews were heavily involved in extremist political movements and often took leading roles in assassination, terrorism, mass murder, ethnic cleansing and genocide. (See Followup (II): Origins of Modern Jewry and Jewish, Zionist War Against Salvation.)
Not only does the Holocaust have the appearance of blowback for the outrageous behavior of far too many Jews in Central and Eastern Europe, but at the beginning of the twentieth century significant numbers of gedolei baTorah (Torah sages) like Rav Elkhonon Wasserman predicted that just such a disastrous outcome would result because of Jewish involvement with Soviet Communism and Zionism. (See Comment about Rav Wasserman.)
No reasonable system of ethics can justify giving license to Jews to steal Palestine from the native population of Palestine, and there is no reason whatsoever to believe that the unrepentant Zionist population will change its behavior even if the native Palestinian population gives up all claims to 80% of Palestine.
David Rolde's disappointment with Finkelstein's speech is completely understandable.
Two States: An International Consensus?
by David Rolde
A few of us went to see Norman Finkelstein speak at MIT last night. There was one guy wearing a yamulke standing at the door handing out anti-Finkelstein fliers that criticized Finkelstein as being a bad scholar and a "Holocaust denier". But the audience was quiet and there were no rightwing Zionist questions.
Finkelstein talked for a couple hours. He didn't say anything new that he didn't say last time I saw him a couple years ago. He did say some good things, but he concentrated more on his Zionistic stances of giving 80% of Palestine to the Zionists for a Jewish state and of discouraging the return of the Palestinian refugees.
Finkelstein claims there is an international consensus for a two-state solution. He went through international law arguments about why the Zionist entity is not entitled to continue to rule over the 1967-occupied territories, e.g., that "states" cannot legally acquire territory through war. He was clear that the Zionist settlements in the 67 territories are illegal.
He also reiterated his stance that Palestinian refugees do have a right to return, but maybe they should give up this right for a negotiated settlement.
Finkelstein compared himself to Palestinian refugees. He said
Finkelstein talked for a couple hours. He didn't say anything new that he didn't say last time I saw him a couple years ago. He did say some good things, but he concentrated more on his Zionistic stances of giving 80% of Palestine to the Zionists for a Jewish state and of discouraging the return of the Palestinian refugees.
Finkelstein claims there is an international consensus for a two-state solution. He went through international law arguments about why the Zionist entity is not entitled to continue to rule over the 1967-occupied territories, e.g., that "states" cannot legally acquire territory through war. He was clear that the Zionist settlements in the 67 territories are illegal.
He also reiterated his stance that Palestinian refugees do have a right to return, but maybe they should give up this right for a negotiated settlement.
Finkelstein compared himself to Palestinian refugees. He said
- that he had a right to tenure at DePaul [University] and could have won his case in court if he had wanted to spend his life in court for years but
- that he settled with DePaul [and]
- that they had to publicly say he is a good professor and also give him some money.
So based on his experience in giving up his "right to return" to DePaul he can understand how it might be possible for Palestinian refugees to give up their right of return too.
Finkelstein also spent some time on pointing out that all the wars that the Zionist entity has been involved in have been wars of aggression on the Zionists' part. He pointed out that the Zionist cluster bombing of southern Lebanon in 2006 was the most concentrated cluster bombing in history. In response to a question he went into some details about the 1973 "Yom Kippur" war - I'm not sure he got the details right, but at least he blamed the Zionists. He also did talk about the ethnic cleansing in 1948.
He also talked briefly about the Holocaust industry and about the myth of "the new anti-Semitism".
When Finkelstein ended the main part of his speech he asked for questions and asked for dissenters to ask questions first. I guess Finkelstein thought he would get rightwing Zionist dissenters. But the first questioner was a young Palestinian woman who challenged Finkelstein about his comparison of himself with Palestinian refugees on the basis that Palestinian refugees don't have as much privilege and options and power to negotiate from as Finkelstein has.
I was the second questioner. I asked Finkelstein basically the same question that I asked Rami Khouri at KSG on Saturday. Finkelstein had told us that "states" can't acquire territory through war. And he told us that the so-called "State of Israel" was established through war and ethnic cleansing. The UN partition resolution did not allot 80% of Palestine for the Jewish state and did not allow for transfer of populations. The partition resolution was not implemented. Instead the so-called "State of Israel" was established by war. So how are the Zionists entitled to 80% of Palestine? Finkelstein cut me off around this point and answered that yes the Zionists used war to acquire more of Palestine in 1948 than they were allotted, and that this is another example of preferential treatment for "Israel" and is the only time that the international community has legitimized territorial acquisition through war. He then tried to move on, but I blurted out the second part of my question which was how can Finkelstein say that there is an international consensus to allow Zionist rule of 80% of Palestine when millions of people in the Middle East and all over the world disagree. Finkelstein answered in a chiding way saying that he thinks it is important for people "on our side" to recognize the victory or achievement of getting the international community consensus on a two-state solution for Palestine.
Overall I was disappointed with Finkelstein's speech. If he would concentrate more on speaking about his work exposing the Holocaust industry and rightwing Zionist propaganda campaigns & the myth of "anti-Semitism" and on exposing Zionist crimes in the Middle East, that would be worthwhile. But this time he concentrated more on his proposal for a "solution" that is itself Zionist.
Original Announcement: Norman Finkelstein at MIT
Finkelstein also spent some time on pointing out that all the wars that the Zionist entity has been involved in have been wars of aggression on the Zionists' part. He pointed out that the Zionist cluster bombing of southern Lebanon in 2006 was the most concentrated cluster bombing in history. In response to a question he went into some details about the 1973 "Yom Kippur" war - I'm not sure he got the details right, but at least he blamed the Zionists. He also did talk about the ethnic cleansing in 1948.
He also talked briefly about the Holocaust industry and about the myth of "the new anti-Semitism".
When Finkelstein ended the main part of his speech he asked for questions and asked for dissenters to ask questions first. I guess Finkelstein thought he would get rightwing Zionist dissenters. But the first questioner was a young Palestinian woman who challenged Finkelstein about his comparison of himself with Palestinian refugees on the basis that Palestinian refugees don't have as much privilege and options and power to negotiate from as Finkelstein has.
I was the second questioner. I asked Finkelstein basically the same question that I asked Rami Khouri at KSG on Saturday. Finkelstein had told us that "states" can't acquire territory through war. And he told us that the so-called "State of Israel" was established through war and ethnic cleansing. The UN partition resolution did not allot 80% of Palestine for the Jewish state and did not allow for transfer of populations. The partition resolution was not implemented. Instead the so-called "State of Israel" was established by war. So how are the Zionists entitled to 80% of Palestine? Finkelstein cut me off around this point and answered that yes the Zionists used war to acquire more of Palestine in 1948 than they were allotted, and that this is another example of preferential treatment for "Israel" and is the only time that the international community has legitimized territorial acquisition through war. He then tried to move on, but I blurted out the second part of my question which was how can Finkelstein say that there is an international consensus to allow Zionist rule of 80% of Palestine when millions of people in the Middle East and all over the world disagree. Finkelstein answered in a chiding way saying that he thinks it is important for people "on our side" to recognize the victory or achievement of getting the international community consensus on a two-state solution for Palestine.
Overall I was disappointed with Finkelstein's speech. If he would concentrate more on speaking about his work exposing the Holocaust industry and rightwing Zionist propaganda campaigns & the myth of "anti-Semitism" and on exposing Zionist crimes in the Middle East, that would be worthwhile. But this time he concentrated more on his proposal for a "solution" that is itself Zionist.
Original Announcement: Norman Finkelstein at MIT
 04.02.2008 Wednesday | | | | Cambridge, MA | | | | NAME OF SPONSORS: Arab Students Organization, Palestine@MIT, Muslim Students Association, GSC Funding Board, Latino Cultural Center, Social Justice Cooperative PLACE: MIT 6-120 For directions see here. TIME: 6pm CONTACT: tanwar[at] mit.edu 617-692-0.495 | | |
| | | | | ||||||
| ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
Next Norman Finkelstein Speaking Engagement in the Boston Area
04.16.2008 Wednesday | | | | Chestnut Hill, MA | | | | Place: Gasson Hall, Room 305, Boston College Time: 4:30 pm Contact: Alexandra, saieh[at]bc.edu, (305) 733-5595 |
Click here for more Norman Finkelstein events.
Sphere: Related Content
3 comments:
I understand your position with regard to your support of the Palestinians, and I agree with that the Palestinians are being oppressed and have been dispossessed unfairly and tragically. But, no "Holocaust" ever is "blowback"; no mass murder ever can be rationalized. That's an inexcusable characterization.
Secondly, the above is nowhere near the position of Rabbi Lerner, who is a Zionist Lite. When NF suggests--and he never dictates--that Palestinians might give up their right of return (which I disagree with), he never denies the right but assesses the situation as nearly hopeless for them and does so sadly. Thus, perhaps, it behooves us to make distinctions between the grounds for two-state positions. Even some Palestinians agree with him. As for your friend's comments about an international consensus on two states, of course there is a consensus: every international solution put forward, beginning with the 194, and all the "plans," are based on a two state solution on the international level. Of course, there have been individuals (myself among them) who have disagreed.
You know, Joachim, your recent lunging at everyone who writes a sentence that you disagree with, regardless of their bona fides, stature as a pro-Palestinian solidarity activist or level of information is disturbing. It is an added distraction: there are plenty of rabbi Lerners to go after. . .
But, no "Holocaust" ever is "blowback"; no mass murder ever can be rationalized. That's an inexcusable characterization.
When Ron Paul said that the 9/11 attacks constituted blowback for years of bad US foreign policy, he was not rationalizing 9/11, but he was trying to understand it in order to develop a plan to prevent similar horrendous events from occurring in the future.
When I characterize the Holocaust as blowback, I do so after years of study and after reading the opinions of scholars that lived through it.
From my research about half of Holocaust victims were killed by someone that lost a relative directly as the result of the actions of a Jewish Commissar or clearly because of policies strongly linked with a Soviet Jewish official.
It is an astounding statistic but might help comprehension of the thought process of the killers so that future genocide can be prevented in the future.
Characterizing as inexcusable reasonable attempts to understand the Holocaust is itself an intellectual atrocity.
Post a Comment
Comments are moderated.