A perhaps timely crossposting...

Jon Cloke

Norman Finklestein interviewed by George McLeod

September 16, 2007
<http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=43&ItemID=13796>

Israel critic Norman Finkelstein made national headlines
after his tenure was denied by DePaul University .
Finkelstein, an author of five books, had received
outstanding reviews from his students and peers. His
dismissal sparked student protests and sit-ins, and led
top academics to rally to his defence. Many questioned
whether campuses had fallen victim to powerful pressure
groups.

In this interview with George McLeod, Norman Finkelstein
discusses the Israel lobby, his writings and what makes
the Israel issue unusually sensitive in the US.

McLeod: What is unique about the Israel/Palestine issue
that makes it so controversial and sensitive?

Finkelstein: There is nothing unusual about the
Israel/Palestine issue, apart from the fact that there
is a lobby here that prevents any kind of rational
debate and discussion about what goes on there.

The conflict itself is not particularly unusual. And its
main features are fairly well-known, especially outside
the US.

There is no other field where a gang of hoodlums use
their money and their brass knuckles to prevent tenure
appointments, and that's very odd. There are other
politicised fields like Cuba studies or China studies -
but these kinds of jihads and witch hunts - they just
don't go on in other fields.

In Israel/Palestine academia, in the past few years, you
have the Juan Cole case at Yale, you have the Joseph
Massad case, you have the Nadi Abuel-El-Haj case, you
have my case, and you have the Rashid Khalidi case.

But you take other fields that are politicised, like
China studies and Cuba studies where there is a lobby at
work, they just don't engage in these sorts of mafia
tactics.

McLeod: There are many lobby groups in the US with
significant resources at their disposal that have not
been accused of stifling debate. What makes the Israel
lobby different?

Finkelstein: The Israel lobby has money. Money is
important because it can be used to threaten to withhold
donor contributions or alumni contributions, and the
lobby has a lot of clout in the media, so they can drag
your name through the mud.

McLeod: Does your case suggest that the Israel lobby is
growing stronger and that debate over Israel is
narrowing?

Finkelstein: Actually, there is more debate on
Israel/Palestine than ever.

In terms of its strength, the Israel lobby is beginning
to fall apart. The case for Israel is becoming
indefensible. Israel's human rights record, the actual
historical record, and the diplomatic record, are
becoming better known. And the more the facts are
becoming part of mainstream discourse, the more the
lobby has a difficult time defending what is
indefensible.

McLeod: How can the lobby be falling apart if it
controls such significant resources?

Finkelstein: The lobby is strong, but it is weaker than
ever. They had several debacles this last year. There
was the Jimmy Carter book, which ended up as number one
on the New York Times best-seller list and there is the
Walk & Mearsheimer book - these are all signs of the
weakening power of the lobby.

McLeod: Did the lobby have a role in your tenure
dispute?

Finkelstein: Of course.

McLeod: On a practical level, what was the lobby doing
regarding your tenure bid?

Finkelstein: The university doesn't deny that [it was
pressured]. The university has repeatedly said there was
intense outside pressure. They claim to have resisted
it, but they don't deny that it had been exerted.

McLeod: Why were you singled out over other academics
that criticise Israel?

Finkelstein: I am more active. Most other critics
confine their criticisms to academic venues such as
conferences and academic journals - but I am pretty
active. I speak to a lot to audiences; I make my
presence known in the political arena.

McLeod: Does the fact that you lost your tenure bid
suggest that academic freedom is in decline?

Finkelstein: No, I wouldn't say that - I was a bit of an
odd case because I was both an academic and highly
political. Most academics are not involved in politics,
except in the very narrow world of academia. So the
standards of academia remain the same as they have been.

McLeod: One of your most controversial positions has
been your contention that pro-Israel groups and
individuals are using the holocaust for political
purposes. Could you discuss your views on this?

Finkelstein: I've written a whole book on that topic -
The Holocaust Industry, which basically tries to
document and show how the Nazi holocaust has been used
since the June 1967 war as a political weapon to
suppress criticism of Israel.

I argue that it takes basically two forms. First is the
claim of Holocaust uniqueness, which is that no people
in the world have ever suffered the ways Jews have. The
purpose of this doctrine, which has no intellectual or
MORAL foundation, is to basically immunize Israel from
criticism.

That is, if Jews suffered uniquely during the Holocaust,
then they should not be held to the same moral standards
as others.

The second aspect of this Holocaust dogma is the claim
that all the gentiles want to kill the Jews - the thesis
of Daniel Goldhagen Hitler's Willing Executioners. And
therefore, all gentiles are latently or flagrantly anti-
Semitic, so their criticism of Israel cannot be
credited.

McLeod: And what sort of response did the book receive?

Finkelstein: When the book came out, it was the object
of a vicious attack. A lot of name calling, a lot of ad
homonem attacks on me. But now, I think a large part of
what I wrote back then has become mainstream. And the
Holocaust Industry has even been the object of ridicule
by mainstream figures - not my book but the industry
itself.

So, for example the wife of the former executive
director of the US Holocaust museum in Washington, Tova
Reich just published a satirical novel on the Holocaust
Industry and it was quite well reviewed.

McLeod: Why was the book so rigorously attacked?

Finkelstein: Because nobody was saying it at the time,
but things have changed. For example, take my position
of the money that was being extorted from Europe for
what was called needy Holocaust victims. The fact that
the victims never actually got the money has become
commonplace.

McLeod: What do you think about the recently-released
book The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy by John
Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt?

Finkelstein: Parts of it I agree with, parts of it I
don't.

For example, I don't think there's any evidence that the
is lobby was a crucial factor in the decision for the US
to go to war in Iraq and I don't think that there is
evidence that US policy in the Middle East in general is
shaped by the lobby.

However, I do think that the lobby is a crucial factor
in determining US policy towards the Palestinians.

I don't think it determined US policy in Iran, in Turkey
or in Iraq. But on the Israel-Palestine conflict - the
building of settlements and the colonisation of
Palestine, I think it is a crucial factor.

McLeod: You also exposed serious problems with the
popular book From Time Immemorial by Joan Peters, which
argued that Palestine was almost empty of inhabitants
prior to the arrival of western migrants. The book had
received excellent reviews and was a best-seller. How
did you come to realise there were problems with the
book?

Finkelstein: Very simple answer, I read it.

McLeod: But you were not the only one. It was a popular
book.

I am not sure how many people read it back then - I am
not sure how many people actually read books now.

For example, I am not sure how many people who claim to
have read Hitler's Executioners actually read it - I
doubt people actually read Joan Peters. I mean most of
these books are unreadable - they're completely
illiterate. People don't know that because they don't
read them.

McLeod: Do you mean the footnotes, or literally the
book?

Finkelstein: I don't think they read the book. Nobody
reads footnotes.

The fact that it sold well tells you nothing - these
books are good for a coffee table. There is a famous
line by Christopher Hitchens.  Someone asked him: "Did
you read this book?'' To which he answered "Let's put it
this way. I reviewed it.''

Anyone who actually reads the kinds of books that I
expose and has a mind capable of rationally assimilating
information can't help but notice that books like
Peters' are incomprehensible and are completely absurd.

McLeod: Alan Dershowirz has argued that Israel received
a disproportionate amount of criticism. Do you think
other countries with worse human rights records, such as
Saudi Arabia and Myanmar, should be receiving more
criticism?

Finkelstein: Well there are a number of issues. First,
as a matter of language, Dershowitz doesn't argue
anything because Dershowitz doesn't know anything. He's
a complete ignoramus, so I don't agree with the
formulation that Dershowitz argues.

Maybe Dershowitz shouts, but argues? No. He doesn't know
anything.

On the question of proportionality. If you look at the
reports of human rights organisations, such as Human
Rights Watch, there have not been a significantly larger
number of reports on Israel/Palestine than on other
noteworthy places such as Darfur. The numbers have been
tabulated; you can go and check with them, it's simply
untrue.

Number three, the Israel/Palestine conflict does have a
noteworthy feature - it is the longest running
occupation in modern history. So, had Israel resolved it
40 years ago, perhaps it wouldn't receive so much
attention.

But the fact that it has been ongoing for 40 years,
which is probably longer than the lifetime of most
people living on the planet - most people are under 40
years old - means it was going on before most people
were born. Therefore, it's not surprising that it would
be the object of so much attention.

McLeod: Does the failure of your tenure bid make you
regret your vocal stance on this issue?

Finkelstein: No, I'm just glad it's over.

McLeod: What are your plans for the future?

Finkelstein: I don't know, it's too soon to tell. I am
glad that the DePaul nightmare is over and I will surely
miss my students, but otherwise, I want to get on with
doing serious work and put that chapter very far behind
me.

_____________________________________________

Portside aims to provide material of interest
to people on the left that will help them to
interpret the world and to change it.

Submit via email: [log in to unmask]
Submit via the Web: portside.org/submit
Frequently asked questions: portside.org/faq
Subscribe: portside.org/subscribe
Unsubscribe: portside.org/unsubscribe
Account assistance: portside.org/contact
Search the archives: portside.org/archive