Prof. Norman Finkelstein is a prominent and well-respected scholar of the Israel/Palestine conflict. He has written several books on the topic, most notably The Rise and Fall of Palestine and Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict. His most recent work, Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, is a devastating rebuttal of both Alan Dershowitz’ The Case For Israel and defenders of Israel’s human rights record more generally.
For some reason, Prof. Finkelstein’s views are often referred to as “controversial” or even “radical”. In fact, the position he articulates is supported by international law and such “radical” organisations as the World Court and Amnesty International. Several of Prof. Finkelstein’s talks, and much else besides, can be viewed on his website.
I asked him a few questions about the current state of the conflict (embedded links added by me, obviously).
Israeli PM Ehud Olmert recently declared that “I’ll never accept a solution that is based on their [the Palestinian refugees] return to Israel, any number”, and “I will not agree to accept any kind of Israeli responsibility for the refugees. Full stop.”, on the grounds that the refugee problem was created when Arab countries attacked the newly-formed State of Israel (hence, one presumes, he places the responsibility on the aggressor Arab states). What do you think of this view?
The refugee question is a red herring. It serves the same purpose now as the Palestinian Covenant did in the 1970s-1980s; to divert attention from Israel’s refusal to fully withdraw. Israel knows that the international community will be sympathetic to its stand regarding the refugees but not sympathetic on borders/settlements, so it’s trying to divert attention from the latter, and towards the former.
Israel and its apologists consistently justify such policies as the annexation wall and, indeed, the occupation in general on security grounds. To what extent do you feel they are actually about security, and to what extent do you feel they would be justified even if they were?
There isn’t a scratch of evidence that the occupation has anything to do with security. It’s already widely admitted (Shlomo Ben-Ami, Zeev Maoz, even Dennis Ross) that keeping the Jordan Valley for security reasons is a myth. And the wall could be built on Israel’s border and provide the same security (even more) to Israeli citizens. It’s a land-grab disguised in the language of security. If patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels (Johnson), then security is the last refuge of scoundrel states.
It seems to me that if the Israeli leadership’s underlying objective is to maintain (and possibly expand) the occupation permanently, it would make sense for Israel to welcome a Hamas government, since such a government gives Israel an excuse to avoid negotiating. Instead, it appears that Israel has worked consistently to engineer the toppling of Hamas ever since it was elected. How do you explain this apparent contradiction?
Israel thinks it has a bantustan leadership in place with which it can negotiate a final settlement (Abbas-Dahlan). In fact, that was the purpose of Oslo, and contrary to popular opinion, Oslo was almost a complete success. They got the Palestinian “leadership” they were grooming, but Hamas spoiled it for them.
Do you feel the Geneva Accord offers a good basis for a final settlement?
It’s something, but the fundamental basis of any settlement must be UN Resolution 242 and subsequent UN resolutions calling for full Israeli withdrawal, the dismantling of the settlements and a resolution of the refugee question based on 194.
What do you make of the Israeli government’s apparent sudden engagement with the Saudi peace plan? It seems odd, seeing as they’ve virtually ignored it for years.
It’s another diversion; they can’t very well say they reject it (they do want peace, you know, and it’s the Arabs who are the problem), so they focus on the elements (like the refugees) bound to elicit a rejection.
Prof. Ilan Pappe advocates a boycott of and perhaps sanctions on Israel to pressure it to change its behaviour. Do you agree that this is the best way to force it to respect the law?
I have no opinion on this subject.
[Cross-posted on Blogcritics and on NormanFinkelstein.com]
Filed under: Interviews, Israeli / Palestinian | 23 Comments
Tags: Norman Finkelstein
-
Subscribe to The Heathlander feed
-
Site Meter
Speaking as a fan of Finkelstein and the straightforward way he deconstructs Israeli/US propaganda, this seems like a disappointing interview. I would expect an analysis beyond “the refugee problem is a diversion,” and the answer to the last question is really frustrating. Did you not have a chance to follow up on any of these? What does Finkelstein think those who don’t have his platform should be doing to help the Palestinians if not boycotting Israel?
No, I didn’t have a follow-up. I guess Finkelstein sees his role as more analysing the problem than prescribing action.
Thanks for linking to my blog, Jamie.
It turns out that De Paul is trying to block Finkelstein’s tenure (http://english.sxu.edu/sites/kirstein/?p=670). This might have some influence on how he responds to interview questions at the moment.
I think the position he articulates regarding 242 and 194 is untenable. Someone suggested that he thinks that this is a way to support a secular democratic state through the back door, as it were. Certainly withdrawal to anywhere the Green Line at this stage is inconceivable – W has already endorsed retention of the ‘population centers’. (See http://bureauofcounterpropaganda.blogspot.com/2007/04/land-for-peace.html).
Thanks for writing it.
What do you mean by “untenable”? As in, unrealistic, or incorrect/unjust? If the former, I agree, but then any kind of just settlement looks pretty unrealistic right now. If the latter, can you explain why?
(p.s. sorry about your comment not appearing straight away – WordPress’ anti-spam filter can be pretty arbitrary).
It could be because of the links. I had that problem with Tony Karon’s the other day (but there were nine links in that comment!).
I totally concur that a just solution of any kind is implausible at this stage. What it would take is an unimaginable change of heart on the part not just of the Israeli state, but of a significant majority of Israeli Jews. I won’t put links this time, but a recent post on my blog links to a December 2006 survey that shows Israeli Jews’ racist attitudes have actually hardened over the previous year (‘What racism?’). Sanctions might do the trick, but remember that they took 35 years to work in South Africa and they were very far from the only factor, another thing I’ve discussed before somewhere on the blog. And of course there’s the distinct possibility that sanctions would further harden Israeli attitudes. So, yeah, I agree.
What I mean by untenable is this. I assume that what he means by 242 is a ‘viable, independent Palestinian state’ in the West Bank and Gaza. Actually 242 says nothing about a Palestinian state, but that’s how people always read it. My argument is that a viable Palestinian state has never been a realistic possibility, largely because of the impossibility of securing the corridor between the WB and Gaza (See the ‘Review of My Israel question by Antony Loewenstein’). Be that as it may, implementation of the right of return in the spirit of 194 would erode the Jewish majority in ‘Israel proper’ to the extent that within a short time, if not immediately, it could not sustain its status as a Jewish state. So you would end up with Palestinian states on both sides of the Green Line. That’s a pretty compressed version of the argument. I hope it made sense.
I agree that attitudes within Israel need to change. It is commonly said that most Israelis support the two-state solution, and it’s true in a very general (and pretty meaningless) sense. But in terms of what kind of two-state solution…well, it leaves a lot to be desired. Jonathan Cook and Prof. Ilan Pappe talk about this need for a change in Israeli mindset quite a lot.
242 doesn’t demand the creation of an independent Palestinian state – other resolutions do that (e.g. UNSC 1397 and numerous UN General Assembly resolutions). It does require an Israeli withdrawal.
You’re essentially calling for a one-state solution. I think that’s even less realistic than a two-state settlement (Israelis are far more opposed to a one-state solution than they are to a two-state one).
I don’t think the Gaza/West Bank contiguity issue is such a problem. That’s not what’s standing in the way of peace. There are solutions – a high speed connecting road or railway, for example.
We’re obviously reading the same stuff, but coming to different conclusions.
In my view neither a one nor a two state solution is plausible, at least not where the Palestinian state is actually viable. I think you will find that the majority of Israelis favour a two state ‘solution’ that doesn’t entail dismantling any settlements or the right of return – precisely the sort of thing that Olmert was talking about last week. I think a significant proportion – a large minority, if not a majority, would favour a Liebermanesque ‘exchange of territories’ that would transfer the Little Triangle and perhaps some other areas with concentrations of Palestinian Israelis, along with as many Bedouin as possible, into the rump ‘Palestinian ‘state’. Bear in mind that the Centre Against Racism survey in December found that 50.9% of Israeli Jews thought ‘the State should encourage Arab citizens to emigrate from the State of Israel’, up from 39.5% in December 2005. And 40% said Palestinian Israeli citizens should be disenfranchised.
You dismiss my concern about the corridor very facilely, but I’ve thought about it quite a lot and I can’t think of any arrangement of tunnels or causeways that wouldn’t be vulnerable to Israeli interdiction if they were that way inclined. We know for sure that they ARE that way inclined because they signed the Agreement on Movement and Access in November 2005 and have never complied with it AT ALL so far. What MIGHT work would be an arrangement where the corridor was several kilometres wide and under Palestinian sovereignty, with a big force of international troops guaranteeing no Israeli interference. But of course that would interrupt Israeli territorial contiguity, so is unthinkable.
There are a lot of other practical arguments against the two state ‘solution’, but actually, I’m not so much for a one state solution as against a two state ‘solution’. The principal reason is that a two state ‘solution’ only makes sense if you think that there ought to be a sectarian Jewish ethnocracy in Palestine. As an antiracist and as a Jew, the very idea offends me deeply. That such a thing actually exists and is founded on terrorism and ethnic cleansing and continues to carry out atrocities in my name is intolerable.
I don’t advocate trying to organise around the one state solution as a slogan, i.e. ‘calling for’ it, simply because there are too many people who still entertain illusions in a two state ‘solution’ and the desirability of a Jewish ethnocracy. I want them involved in the campaign where I can have that argument with them while fighting together for Palestinian rights. The group I’ve worked with most has no position on one state or two, which I think is as it should be. It does support the right of return, however, which to my mind implies a one state solution.
Yes, I agree that many Israelis support a ‘two-state settlement’ that is markedly different from the kind of two-state settlement that would be remotely acceptable under international law and for the Palestinians. That needs to change. But what I’m saying is that support amongst the Israeli public for either the one-state solution or the total fulfillment of the Palestinian right of return is even less than for the two-state settlement (the proper version, I mean).
I lean towards anti-Zionism myself, but realistically I’d be more than happy to accept an independent and viable Palestinian state alongside an Israel that abides by the rule of law.
I don’t mean to be blithe about the problem of Gaza-West Bank contiguity, but I don’t see it as one of the main obstacles to peace. You say that you can’t think of a solution that wouldn’t be vulnerable to Israeli interdiction – well, at least for a considerable time, nothing Palestinian can be invulnerable to Israeli interdiction. Israel will remain ridiculously more powerful than the Palestinians for some time, whatever final settlement is decided upon. The point is that if the international community (or, more specifically, the U.S. and the EU) decides that it’s not going to tolerate Israel violating the law and that it will stand firm against violations of Palestinian human rights, then Israel will have to refrain from killing Palestinians, refrain from attacking the future Palestinian state and refrain from attacking the possible future road/rail link between Gaza and the West Bank.
As to the right of return – even if Israel agreed to it unconditionally – which it won’t – only something like 10% of Palestinian refugees (or roughly 5-600,000) would choose to return to their homes inside of Israel. That’s a significant number, but hardly enough to threaten a Jewish majority (at least not immediately).
In any case, I think you’ve got it right – regardless of whether one favours the two- or one-state solution, the most important thing is to stick up for international law and human rights and to stand against the occupation.
Exactly. If Israel and the Palestinians were able to negotiate fairly, and as equals, it would be worth speculating on the ideal outcome. Personally, I prefer the idea of a “one state” solution, a Democratic Republic where Palestinians and Israelis would have equal rights. But that’s just meaningless speculation as long as Israel is omnipotent and unaccountable.
The best we can do is, as you are both doing, challenge that unaccountability, replacing racist myths with common sense, respect, and international law.
Jamie, I think you might like to check out my 27 March post ‘Who ordered herring?’, where you will find a rather more detailed explanation of the often quoted but seldom understood 2003 Palestine Centre for Policy and Survey Research survey findings. As with any statistics, it’s always important to know what the question was and what the possible responses offered were, among other things.
The independent and viable Palestinian state that remains vulnerable to a bloodthirsty neighbour that has always coveted its land and hated its people and is armed to the teeth doesn’t sound like what I would call viable, strictly speaking! The condition you stipulate is ‘if the international community (or, more specifically, the U.S. and the EU) decides that it’s not going to tolerate Israel violating the law’. Now honestly, how likely is that? Israeli Jews will embrace Palestinian refugees first! I’ll walk on Jupiter first!
A particular problem I have with the two state solution is that it relies on making what seems to me an entirely arbitrary distinction between the occupation of 1967 and the occupation of 1948. UNGA Resolution 273 kind of retroactively endorses the latter, so I guess that makes it ok in ‘international law’. But I still think it’s arbitrary and that’s one of my problems with ‘international law’. In ‘international law’ Zionism was racism from 1975 until 1991. So what good is that?
In any case, my understanding of the proper version of the two state settlement includes the right of return. Anything short of 194 is basically rewarding Israel for its defiance of international law. Just like allowing exchanges of territory to recognize those famous ‘facts on the ground’. It sets an awful bad example if anybody were actually serious about international law.
In reality, of course, nobody is or ever has been. It can only be enforced by a stronger military than that of the perpetrator. But even that’s kind of irrelevant because nobody really cares whether everybody in Rwanda has paid holidays or everybody accused of a crime in Paraguay gets a qualified interpreter. Anyway, don’t get me started on human rights!
I try to base my reasoning and my actions on the principle of solidarity. In some respects, it’s not that far from Rabbi Hillel’s ‘What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow’. There is a connection between the ability of the oppressors and exploiters where I am to oppress and exploit me and the oppressors and exploiters elsewhere. A victory for them against those they oppress and exploit is a victory for my exploiters and a defeat for me. A defeat for them is a victory for me. I don’t know how much sense that formulation makes. When it comes to Palestine, I feel that because Israel claims to have been established on my behalf and for my benefit and continues to carry out racist atrocities in my name, I have the right and the obligation to speak out against it.
Dave: Agreed.
Ernie: It’s half past midnight right now, but I’ll check your post tomorrow. In the meantime, you say:
But this condition is necessary for both a two-state settlement and a one-state settlement (or even for simply getting Israel to accept the Palestinian refugees’ right of return). None of this will happen without international pressure. I agree with you that international pressure (at least from those states which count) looks unlikely to come any time soon, but in that case it’s a blow to the potential of any settlement, since Israel won’t do anything unless it’s made to.
I certainly agree that the Palestinians have a right to return. For me personally, I think it is perhaps a bit unrealistic to condition any settlement on the complete fulfillment of this right. But at any rate, that’s for the Palestinians to decide for themselves. It is enough for me to simply recognise their rights.
Indeed you do, and well done for doing so. I feel the same way – apart from me being technically an Israeli citizen, my (British) government is, primarily through its diplomatic support, complicit in the occupation and the oppression of the Palestinians. It is therefore my duty, and the duty of every other British (and American, and Israeli) citizen to speak out against what is going on.
Everyone agrees that the right of return is unrealistic. After all, it would impinge on Israel’s ‘Jewish character’ so it is out of the question. Most of those who speak of it at all treat it as some kind of ambit to be negotiated away for some perceived advantage to ‘the Palestinians’ which always means the PA. If I had spent the last six decades in a camp in Lebanon, however, I’m pretty sure I’d have quite a different view of the matter. I’d consider it of the utmost urgency. Unfortunately, nobody really represents the refugees.
I agree that Israel is unlikely ever to do anything to alleviate the Palestinians’ suffering without considerable outside pressure. After all, they’re pretty deliberate about causing it. In fact, as I read Jonathan Cook, and Ilan to an extent, the pressure cooker atmosphere in Gaza and to an increasing extent in the West Bank is part of the ongoing ethnic cleansing strategy. It’s an incentive to ‘voluntary transfer’. And yes, the US government could almost certainly put an end to it very quickly if it were something they saw to be in their interests. So if that’s what it will take, I’d be utterly pessimistic.
You make an interesting point about UK and especially US citizens taking responsibility, too. I’m not accustomed to holding people responsible for what the governments that oppress them do in their name. But surely you’re right to suggest that it would behove them at least try to build the movement to distance themselves from it.
Right, and what’s interesting is that all the human rights NGOs agree that the right of the refugees to return is an individual one, that cannot be legitimately denied by any government or setltlement. In other words, it’s not the case that collectively the Palestinian refugees have the right to return, and that this collective right and therefore be negotiated or surrendered by their ‘representatives’. It is an individual right, and no one except each individual refugee him/herself can legitimately bargain it away. As Human Rights Watch puts it:
I agree that since what we have in Britain and the U.S. is a system that, really, is only notionally democratic, we are not as complicit in our government’s decision as we might otherwise have been. But there are democratic processes, however limited they may be, and mass sustained public pressure can bring about a change in policy. At the very least, people should work (as you say) to distance themselves from the government’s policy and to do all they can within the system to try and change it.
Agreed. The point about the right to return as an individual right is absolutely spot on, but so far off the radar, I hardly bother to mention it anymore. Obviously, in principle, nobody is entitled to negotiate about the right of return on behalf of the refugees. But I think it’s kind of even worse that the people who are going to do it are about as representative of the refugees as they are of me.
Today’s Chronicle of higher education revealed that it’s Dershowitz who’s behind the moves to deny Finkelstein tenure (http://chronicle.com/temp/email2.php?id=tqyfjnxDdNnvzcffqm3kYcxKjWm3pgDH):
‘Last fall, with Mr. Finkelstein up for tenure, Mr. Dershowitz sent the DePaul law school faculty and members of the political-science department what he described, in a letter dated October 3, as a “dossier of Norman Finkelstein’s most egregious academic sins, and especially his outright lies, misquotations, and distortions.” “I hope that this will serve as an introduction and primer to the so-called scholarship that Finkelstein will present this term as he is considered for tenure,” Mr. Dershowitz wrote.’
Yeh – Finkelstein’s been accusing Dershowitz of harrassing and interfering with the tenure process for a while now. He has the details of it all on his website (apparently Dershowitz keeps demanding that he be allowed to testify at Finkelstein’s tenure hearing, or something like that). The man’s an utter disgrace, an embarrassment even to his own side.
Well, I think it’s clear that the Zionists are not really susceptible to embarrassment. But it is definitely an embarrassment for Harvard that they somehow gave a clown like Dershowitz tenure! Carter came off looking pretty cowardly for refusing to debate him. I’ve seen snippets of debate with him and it wouldn’t be much of a challenge to humiliate him for anyone who had their wits about them. That said, he made mincemeat of Rabbi Lerner.
Finkelstein has a section of his site, updated a few days ago, full of articles explaining how Dershowitz has been interfering in his tenure process:
Dershowitz really is a vindictive little fucker, isn’t he?
Gregory Meyerson, Assistant Professor of English (critical theory) at North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University in Greensboro, NC, has drafted a letter from ‘Scholars for intellectual freedom in support of Dr. Norman Finkelstein’ to DePaul University President The Rev. Dennis H. Holtschneider, C.M., Ed.D. It is now circulating for signatures. Any practicing or former academics wishing to support the initiative to counteract Dershowitz’s pernicious machinations can find further details at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/marxism/2007-April/010890.html
There is now a site for the Finkelstein campaign: http://normanfinkelstein.wordpress.com/
Thanks. It is reassuring to see so many voices of support (both at that site and the previous link you provided).