 |
 |
                |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Should decent people subscribe to The Progressive?  Editor's note: See also (NEW:) Reader letters, updated 04.13.2006, and The Progressive Magazine's Shame. 06.16.2007: Congratulations Matt Rothschild, Congratulations Ruth Conniff: Job well done. More articles on tenure from 2007 here.  Finkelstein comments: Several listeners to Wisconsin Public Radio informed me last week that The Progressive Political Editor, Ruth Conniff, referred to me as an "anti-Semite" and a "Holocaust denier" on air. I have now had an opportunity to listen to an audiotape of the program on which she appeared. These are Conniff's exact words: "I was talking to a friend of mine who is going up for tenure at DePaul University at the same time as Norm Finkelstein, a colleague of hers who is a Holocaust denier, who is a Holocaust minimizer, sort of a, y'know, he's a celebrity in a certain, a pretty ugly anti-semitic group in the country and he is going up for tenure and I think is on his way to becoming a tenured professor." I requested from Progressive editor-in-chief Mathew Rothschild the evidence to support these allegations or a retraction and an apology. I also reminded him that I come up for tenure this year at a midwestern university and that these statements from a respected midwestern publication can cause me great harm. Many people have written Rothschild. In the replies of his that have been cc'd to me, he's repeatedly stated that:
Rothschild can be reached at: mattr@progressive.org. Conniff can be reached at: 608-239-4746. Reader letters below From: mattr@progressive.org To: normangf[at]hotmail.com Dear Norman, I'm getting back to you on your phone call of July 21 and your e-mail of July 24, concerning fleeting opinions that our Political Editor, Ruth Conniff, was alleged to have expressed on Wisconsin Public Radio on the morning of July 21. First of all, she never called you an "anti-Semite." (Ironically, Ruth herself, who is Jewish like you, was called an anti-Semite on the same show for criticizing Israel's offensive against Lebanon.) Secondly, the other guest who was on the show with her introduced the term "Holocaust denier." While she initially repeated that phrase, she immediately corrected it to "Holocaust minimizer." And she said you were a celebrity of a pretty ugly anti-Semitic group. Both those statements are true. You asked, in your communications with me, for specific statements that back up Ruth's opinions. Here are a few, after the most cursory look, and not intended to be exhaustive: 1. Minimization of the Holocaust--Numeric "Kelly Jane Torrance writes that I 'question whether the Nazis
really killed six million Jews.' . . . In all my writings and public
statements, I quote the figure provided by dean of Nazi holocaust
historians Raul Hilberg in his classic 3-volume study Destruction of
the European Jews that the Nazis killed 5.1 million Jews." "Not only does the '6 Million' figure [that you minimize] become more untenable but the numbers of the Holocaust industry are rapidly approaching those of Holocaust deniers." "If all the world wants the Jews dead, truly the wonder is that they are still alive—and, unlike much of humanity, not exactly starving." 2. Minimization of the Holocaust--by Characterization. "Hitler's war against the Jews, even if irrational (and that itself
is a complex issue), would hardly constitute a unique historical
occurrence." "The claims of Holocaust uniqueness are intellectually barren and
morally discreditable." "The field of Holocaust studies is replete with nonsense, if not
sheer fraud." "A hoax cut out of whole cloth, [the book] Fragments is nevertheless
the archetypal Holocaust memoir." "The larger truth is that the Holocaust industry, built on a
fraudulent misappropriation of history for ideological purposes, was
primed to celebrate the Wilkomirski fabrication." "Consider, finally, the pattern: Wiesel and Gutman supported Goldhagen; Wiesel supported Kosinski; Gutman and Goldhagen supported
Wilkomirski. Connect the players: This is Holocaust literature." "Not all revisionist literature—however scurrilous the politics or motivations of its practitioners—is totally useless. Lipstadt brands David Irving "one of the most dangerous spokespersons for Holocaust
denial" (he recently lost a libel suit in England against her for
these and other assertions). But Irving, notorious as an admirer of
Hitler and sympathizer with German national socialism, has
nevertheless, as Gordon Craig points out, made an "indispensable"
contribution to our knowledge of World War II." "The Holocaust industry has become an outright extortion racket." "The Holocaust may yet turn out to be the 'greatest robbery in the
history of mankind.'" "The holocaust is an ideological club, used to hold Germany in vice-like grip." -- Die Welt, February 6, 2000, translated at rense.com, an anti-Semitic website.
Die Welt: "You call the holocaust an ideology." --as quoted in rense.com
Die Welt's own commentary: "Emphasizing the fact that the '6-million-figure is untenable,' Professor Finkelstein strikes at
the root of the holocaust-lie. When he calls David Irving 'a good historian,' despite Irving's claim that no gas chambers for killing
Jews existed at Auschwitz, he demonstrates his inclination to
support this line of revisionist revelation. Here Finkelstein
signals that the gas-story will be next on the agenda destroying the
holocaust industry's homebase, Israel." --as quoted in rense.com.
3. Celebrity of Ugly Anti-Semitic Group
From the website of neo-Nazi Ernst Zundel: www.barnesreview.org.
Clearly, there is more than sufficient factual material to sustain
Ruth's fleeting statements of opinion.As I'm sure you're aware, you have inserted yourself into a public controversy many times over on this subject, and you are a public figure as relates to this issue. And as I'm sure you're aware, you've been described in much harsher terms by many other people who seem to have a vendetta against you, which Ruth obviously does not, since she has never written one word about you and the totality of her career statements about you consist of one tangential comment on a one-hour radio interview show. Here are a few of the prominent characterizations of your work. --"a novel variation of the anti-Semitic forgery, 'The Protocols of The Elders of Zion." University of Chicago prize-winning history professor Peter Novick, author of "The Holocaust in American Life": ---"deliberate deception" --"trash" Gabriel Schoenfeld, author of "Return of Anti-Semitism": Marc Fisher, writing in The Washington Post, December 3, 2002. Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz: "Mainstream media sources have uniformly dismissed Finkelstein as a Jew-hating crank and he has been fired from several universities for shoddy scholarship and abusive treatment of students." (logosjournal.com) "bigoted falsehoods" (logosjournal.com) Anti-Defamation League: -- normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=12 In conclusion, Ruth's fleeting statements of opinion about you were accurate, they were extremely mild in comparison to other criticism you have received, and she in no way acted with any malice toward you. She did not intentionally misstate facts, nor did she or does she intend you harm. Please let us know if you have additional concerns. All best, Matthew Rothschild Editor, The Progressive The Progressive Magazine's Shame 12.17.2006 | OpEdNews.com By Michael Leon Michael Leon is a writer living in Madison, Wisconsin. His writing has appeared nationally in The Progressive, In These Times, and CounterPunch. He can be reached at maleon64@yahoo.com. Madison, Wisconsin - In mid-December after reading the latest attempt to shut down a critic of Israeli militarism by branding Jimmy Carter as someone with a "Jewish problem" (see Jimmy Carter's Jewish Problem, December 13, 2006), I took the liberty of posting an opposing point of view here by Norman Finkelstein, using his previously published Counterpunch piece (The Media Lynching of Jimmy Carter, December 13, 2006). Just perusing Finkelstein's website this weekend, I came across more similar sliming and branding, but this time by editors of Madison's The Progressive Magazine, from an affair this summer that went virtually unreported. The Progressive Magazine The Progressive Magazine rightfully bills itself as a "leading voice for peace and social justice since 1909." Published in Madison, Wisconsin, The Progressive is a direct descendent of the 20th century progressive movement and its icon Senator Robert M LaFollette, "Fighting Bob," who founded the magazine as "La Follette's Weekly Magazine" in 1909. This last July, the magazine with so storied a history - including heroic opposition to Wisconsin Senator Joe McCarthy in the 1950s and riveting exposes of U.S. foreign and domestic policy in the 1970 and 80's - has disgraced itself, betraying the memory of LaFollette, Sam Day and the great pacifist journalist, Erwin Knoll (editor 1973-1994). On Wisconsin Public Radio this last summer, Ruth Conniff, The Progressive's political editor, had blithely (in response to another guest's comment) referred to Norman Finkelstein as a "Holocaust denier, who is a Holocaust minimizer...," and "...a celebrity in a certain, a pretty ugly anti-Semitic group in the country..." The Jewish Finkelstein The Jewish Finkelstein, whose parents are survivors of the Maidanek and Auschwitz concentration camps, is an outspoken critic of Israeli foreign policy and a prolific writer on what he contends (convincingly) are the misuses of The Holocaust (and anti-Semitism) by defenders of Israeli foreign policy. A brilliant and acerbic writer, Finkelstein writes with the passion one might expect from someone whose parents were brutalized by the Nazis and those Germans who did nothing to prevent the Holocaust. As innocent Palestinian families and Palestinian communities are destroyed by Israel (supported by the U.S.), Finkelstein is not one to remain silent and do nothing. He feels passionately a personal responsibility to speak out and furiously challenge militarism, especially that violence committed in the name of Judaism. Finkelstein has never denied or minimized the atrocity that brutalized his parents. He just says it's obscene to use the atrocity to support militarism and state violence, among other misuses. For his work, Finkelstein, predictably, is a primary target of American and Israeli right-wingers and others dedicated to a militaristic Israeli foreign policy. The Progressive Channels McCarthy But I was shocked that the editors of The Progressive would join in this chorus, rather through accident or reaction. Finkelstein had phoned and e-mailed The Progressive's editor, Matt Rothschild, and Rothschild, rather than knock down Conniff's comments and affirm that Finkelstein is no Holocaust minimizer, leapt to Conniff's defense in a long e-mail. In part, Rothschild wrote, "...Ruth's fleeting statements of opinion about you were accurate, they were extremely mild in comparison to other criticism you have received, and she in no way acted with any malice toward you." So, apparently it's okay to brand someone a "Holocaust minimizer," provided others have also done so in a more vituperative fashion. Rothschild never actually grabbles with Finkelstein's well-supported arguments that are laid out in his several books. What Rothschild does instead is present dangling, out-of-context sentences that purportedly support his conclusion. Matt Rothschild writes an excellent column entitled "McCarthyism Watch." But as no retraction has been made in the some five months since this affair, I have to suggest that Matt Rothschild look in the mirror. On his website, Finkelstein asks: "Should decent people subscribe to The Progressive?" Absent a retraction, I cannot answer "yes." As Israeli and Bush militarism in the Middle East continues unabated, with an even more horrific prognosis, any journal that lets stand this sliming of a man of conscience deserves no more support from the progressive community. I think Joe McCarthy would be smiling approvingly these last few months. Reader letters Sent : Saturday, June 30, 2007 8:36 PM To : mattr@progressive.org Subject : Accusation Dear Matthew Rothschild I have been an advocate of your publication, a leading voice for peace and social justice, until now. You have demonstrated very poor judgment by falsely accusing Prof. Finkelstein of being anti-Semite! He is a shinning light for justice, in these dark times of our country’s history. I was under the false impression that you were beyond reproach, I am sorry for being so naïve. Prof. Finkelstein has been a primary target of the Israeli lobby because he opposes their unjust treatment of the Palestinians. I am sorry that you have succumbed to their pressures. Regards, ..... Sent : Monday, June 18, 2007 7:58 PM To : mattr@progressive.org Subject : Regarding Norman Finkelstein Hi Matt, I've been horribly disappointed to find out Ruth Conniff's comments in regards to Norman Finkelstein, and your support of her position. I'm an Israeli-American peace activist, and can testify that Finkelstein's books and articles have been of enormous help to me - both in terms of educating myself on the Israel/Palestine conflict and related issues, and in terms of informing and educating others. I cannot imagine that you're not aware of the fact that the issue at hand isn't "only" about Finkelstein himself, but that it has to do with a vicious silencing campaign against anyone who dares criticize Israel's policies (or dares expose the ugly underbelly of the Holocaust and pro-Israel industry). I found especially irresponsible your accusations regarding how the antisemitic crowd makes use of Finkelstein words and work. Don't you imagine that they might be making use of your criticism of Israel, or mine, or anyone else's? -- In what way is this Finkelstein's (or your, or my) fault?! I think you (and Ruth Conniff) need to own up to your mistake, and offer Finkelstein a public apology. Unless you do something along these lines, I'll have to cancel my subscription to your magazine. With sadness, ..... Tucson, Arizona. Sent : Friday, June 15, 2007 3:28 PM To : "Matthew Rothschild" mattr@progressive.org Subject : The Slander of Norman Finkelstein Matthew Rothschild, Editor-the Progressive: The attitude shown in attempting to defame Norman Finkelstein equate you with JDL, AIPAC, the rest of the Israel firsters and neocons running the country. This slant on reporting and writing brought me to let my subscription lapse after a number of years. Unfortunately, Norman is a great target for all those talking of 'balance' in the discussion of any of the brutal operations Israel involves itself in. Of course, 'balance' means no discussion of reality. As long as you persist in taking the Zionist line to the exclusion of progressive there will be more and more readers getting fed up with the masquerade. The time is approaching when those such as Alan Dershowitz et al (the sickness of whom would make a great story!) will no longer have anyone to listen to their idiocy. It is too bad that we have so few liberal venues in this country today and yours makes it 1 Less! ....., former subscriber From: carolynbn[at]earthlink.net To: mattr[at]progressive.org> CC: normangf[at]hotmail.com> Subject: Norman Finkelstein Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:00:15 -0600 Dear Matt, As a long time subscriber to the Progressive I’m very disappointed by your response to Norman Finkelstein’s concerns about Ruth Conniff’s comments (which I just learned about yesterday, although I know this happened a few months ago). I can understand your defense of Ruth Conniff’s right to her opinions (though I strongly disagree with her), but I cannot by any means understand why you have gone to the lengths you have to bolster her statements and discredit Finkelstein in your response to his letter of concern. The first thing that is disappointing is your distortion and taking out of context quotes from Finkelstein’s books. I have read all of the Holocaust industry and about half of Beyond Chutzpah and rather than take his works as a whole, you taken certain quotes which can easily be misunderstood. misconstrued and misused, and use them to prove your case that Finkelstein is a Holocaust “minimizer”. Finkelstein has done an enormous amount of research and has very ample documentation to make the case that the Holocaust has been misused by certain Jewish organizations for personal benefit and to quiet any criticism of Israel. This very cynical abuse of Jewish suffering by these organizations clearly evokes a negative reaction in Finkelstein (which is totally understandable, as any feeling person would be disgusted by this kind of cynicism), but that’s doesn’t mean that he is saying that the Holocaust didn’t happen or that he is minimizing its impact. If you read the whole of The Holocaust Industry you would understand why Finkelstein talks about numbers—because the inflation (and deflation) of numbers was used over and over again by certain Jewish groups to extort money from banks and countries –which then flowed into the coffers of these groups and wealthy individuals. Meanwhile, true holocaust survivors got little or nothing of the money that was intended for them. You quote statement after statement of Finkelstein’s that proves for you that Finkelstein is a Holocaust minimizer, even though each statement when looked at does nothing of the sort. I could go through every statement of Finkelstein’s that you pick out and discuss each one separately, but I won’t do that.. But I will ask you to look at each quote yourself and examine whether your interpretation is what Finkelstein is actually saying or if you’re just trying to prove your case, regardless of Finkelstein’s intent. I would also like to know if you have actually read his books in toto. It also seems that you have also gone out of your way to prove your point by blaming Finkelstein for the fact that some anti-semitic groups have quoted or promoted his books, as if that’s his fault. Just because someone distorts an author’s materials or uses it for his own malicious purposes, doesn’t prove anything about the author or the author’s intentions. Of course malicious people are going to use whatever they can to make their racist points. Have your statements ever been misquoted or used out of context or for purposes you haven’t intended? I know mine have. Finally I want to know what the point was of the list of quote after quote of “prominent characterizations of your work” by people who hate Finkelstein and distort his work? Are you saying that because they distort his work and intentions, somehow this discredits his work? People hated Martin Luther King, Gandhi and all kinds of lovers of humanity. As you know people who are willing to step outside the mainstream and challenge orthodoxy will be attacked. And on the topic of Israel, anyone knows that criticism of its policies immediately brings a flood of distorted and malicious critiques and accusations by certain groups. I’ve lost my faith in your magazine, not so much because of what Ruth Conniff said, but because of the lengths you’ve gone to bolster her statements. Norman Finkelstein deserves the support of progressives and of people who search for the truth. In a world where speaking the truth about Israel is hazardous to people’s careers, Norman Finkelstein has refused to compromise his principles. Hs career has suffered because of attacks by people who don’t want the truth about Israel’s harsh mistreatment of Palestinians to come out. I think you owe Finkelstein a public apology and a letter of support for his tenure process. Please refund the remainder of my subscription. Carolyn Bninski From: ptracy_4[at]yahoo.com To: normangf[at]hotmail.com Subject: Progressive magazine, Dershowitz Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2006 23:14:38 -0800 (PST) Hi, Professor, It always strikes me as odd when liberals who complain about McCarthyism (such as those at the Progressive magazine) use the same techniques against people to their political left (and without any sense of irony). As for Alan Dershowitz, I think he is interested in debating people who have a sufficient level of celebrity status (President Carter, Noam Chomsky). He is a lawyer engaged in self-promotion (Harvard's knockoff of P. T. Barnum). Regards, Paul Tracy Dear Mr. Rothschild, As a former subscriber of the Progressive, I read with great concern our propagation of slurs against Professor Norman Finkelstein, originally aired on the radio by your magazine's editor Ruth Conniff. I also read your laundry list of out-of-context quotes in support of your decision to stand by the slurs against Professor Finkelstein. While they did not convince me of the veracity of your claims against him, they did convince me that you either lack understanding of anything Finkelstein has ever written or are deliberately obfuscating what he has written with "Holocaust minimizing" in order to discredit him. While such deliberate obfuscations are nothing new, they are truly disturbing to hear from editors of a "progressive" magazine who ought to know better. I am glad I have not renewed my subscription, and have informed my colleagues who are current subscribers about this affair. Please keep me informed if you take any further actions on this issue, such as a well-publicized retraction, that current subscribers to the Progressive should know as they contemplate if they would like to continue supporting your slurring of an important scholar's character and work. Suzanne Nguyen PhD candidate Massachusetts Institute of Technology December 19, 2006 Matthew Rothschild, editor The Progressive 409 E Main Street Madison WI 53703 Mr. Rothschild, My subscription to The Progressive expired just now. It's unusual for me to write to a magazine to explain why I'm not renewing; ordinarily it's because I have limited funds and wish to rotate my subscriptions. But this is a special case, not least because I had intended to renew this time. I learned about Ruth Conniff's offhand smear of Norman Finkelstein just before I got the latest renewal notice. That was a relief: I'd have been annoyed if I'd discovered this only after I'd mailed in a check. Your defense to Finkelstein of her remarks confirmed my decision that I would not renew my subscription this time. Not just because they were unconvincing, but because they seemed cheerfully irrelevant and even snotty. So, Ms. Conniff "in no way acted with any malice toward" Finkelstein, nor did she intend him any harm? That makes me feel much better, but I can't see the point of making these "tangential" and "fleeting statements of opinion" about him, which just happen to mention that "he's going up for tenure" and that he's "a Holocaust minimizer" (whatever that is supposed to mean). Granted, I didn't hear the full one-hour radio program, so I have no idea how the subject came up. But while "Holocaust minimizer" might be a statement of opinion, "going up for tenure" is not, and "he's a celebrity in a certain, a pretty ugly anti-semitic group in the country" is dubious. It seems much more like a smear, reminiscent of the smears one reads of Noam Chomsky and other critics of Israel. (Or even of the late Steven Jay Gould, whose modifications of Darwinian theory were sometimes taken up by Creationists who didn't understand them; but that didn't make him their ally, let alone a Creationist himself.) It's one thing to express disagreeable opinions; Molly Ivins's recent weirdly pointless column on Fidel Castro, for example, annoyed me but didn't drive me away. Ms. Conniff's remarks and your justification of them are something quite different. Now, Norman Finkelstein has published some important scholarship on Israel and the Holocaust. Perhaps you and Ms. Conniff have not read his work, or having read it you disagree with it. In either case, it would be possible to criticize him responsibly, by addressing the matter of his opinions, rather than by disingenous personal attacks. An abject apology on both your parts would be in order, instead of the derisive self-justification you offered Finkelstein. I don't expect to see that, of course; so I'm taking my money elsewhere. In her latest column in The Nation, Katha Pollitt scolds the left for seeming to "think its magazines can live on air, then slaps its collective forehead--oh noooo!--when yet another publication gasps its last." I share her concern, which is one reason I have maintained my subscription to The Progressive, among others, for so many years, and I'll be subscribing to other left journals in your place. But I think that the same concern applies to people as well as magazines. There aren't that many left scholars or other public figures in the US, yet the left feels free to slime them, often ignorantly as Ms. Conniff did with Norman Finkelstein. (Ms. Pollitt is not innocent of this sort of thing herself, in other contexts.) If Norman Finkelstein does not get tenure at Northwestern University, The Progressive will not be responsible for that in the same way as Alan Dershowitz, for example, nor are you likely to become celebrities in the pretty ugly group that seeks to silence reasoned debate on the Middle East. No doubt, judging by your response to Finkelstein, you will be able to distance yourself from them quite neatly, at least in your own minds. After all, you meant him no harm. But you have added your voice to that chorus of disinformation and intimidation, and that's not innocent. Sincerely, Duncan Mitchel Dear Mathew Rothschild, editor-in-chief, "Progressive" I have just read on Norman Finkelstein's Blog "Should decent people subscribe to The Progressive?" http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=3&ar=67 What you and "Progressive" Political Editor, Ruth Conniff have done has nothing to do with journalism, with free speech or with politics. As a human being I am ashamed to see so much dishonesty and unprincipled tactics just to harm personally the academic career of someone you disagree with. It's not enough to call yourself "progressive" when your tactics smell of Stalinism. I have a couple of times advertised my documentary XXI CENTURY on your publication. I won't make again this mistake in the future. I will also delete all the links to your publication on my website. I also hope that the many people writing on your publication will stand up to this new low. To answer Finkelstein's question, "Should decent people subscribe to The Progressive?", the answer is, No, they shouldn't. Nor should they write for it. Kind regards, Gabriele Zamparini http://thecatsdream.com More articles on tenure denial:
SHARE THIS POST:     |
|
|
|
  What we can do:
Video: On the place of civility in academic life (10.18.2007) Finkelstein's talk at the academic freedom conference Tenure Denial Letters (June - November, 2007) On How Actual Survivors Were Cheated by Jewish Organizations:
Communication for Middle East Journal. (02.19.2006) Alleged Errors in Beyond Chutzpah. (2005) MEMRI NAZIS (again) (10.23.2006)  New evidence of old lies (2005) Under the heading DIABOLICAL PLOTS, I stated in Beyond Chutzpah...    Articles and Reviews Related to The Holocaust Industry  Preface to German edition of The Rise and Fall of Palestine Postscript to German edition of The Rise and Fall of Palestine The Dershowitz File:
|
|