 |
 |
                |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Reply to Michael Young Editor's Note: Finkelstein's response to this article appears at the bottom.  Listening to Norman Finkelstein December 15, 2001 | Daily Star (Beirut) By Michael Young Norman Finkelstein packed them in at Beirut Theater on Monday evening. There was much talk of the American University of Beirut’s craven decision not to receive Finkelstein for a lecture later in the week, after it had initially agreed to do so. But it was all good feelings at the Tora Bora of the Lebanese intellectual Left. For many in the audience Finkelstein was the ideal guest: an American Jew speaking the same language as they on Israel. Here was someone whose family went through the worst of the Jewish experience (both his parents survived the Holocaust), which, the listeners accepted, shielded him, and them, from accusations of revisionism or anti-Semitism. The authorities showed rare acumen in allowing Finkelstein to come to Beirut. One recalls that a few years ago three anti-Israeli Arab Jews, among them Selim Nassib and Abraham Serfaty, postponed visits to Lebanon after a locally celebrated intelligence service anonymously directed threats against them through a daily newspaper. Finkelstein is undeniably courageous in his autonomy. And one can only ridicule AUB’s behavior, so typical of academe in its efforts to cover intolerance with a sham veil of evenhandedness. However, what Finkelstein said merits to be reviewed, if only because the ambient mood on Monday did not invite criticism, but only more dogmatism. There is no equivalent term for the Stockholm syndrome when describing the phenomenon of intellectuals’ identifying with their hosts in foreign countries. In several instances Finkelstein seemed to cross the line, abandoning his critical faculties when “honoring” Hizbullah, which provided him with a tour of Khiam prison, since last year the party’s private ideological theme park. That Finkelstein denounced the Israeli occupation was to his credit. However, did he have to so wantonly throw himself in the arms of an organization impatient to manipulate his visit for its own ends? The problem, of course, is that Finkelstein and his host, Samah Idriss, are not Hizbullah material. Rather, both are products of a left-wing tradition that, particularly in southern Lebanon, has been repeatedly brutalized by Hizbullah. The gist of Finkelstein’s talk was this: Israel, since its inception, has pursued two strategies when dealing with the Palestinians. The first was a transfer policy, where the Israeli leadership sought to encourage or compel Palestinians to leave their land. The second is a Bantustan model, where Israel, after it accepted that transfer was unfeasible, aimed to establish a Palestinian state dependent on and vulnerable to Israeli influences. Finkelstein continued that the US-Israeli relationship was essentially one between an imperial sponsor and a regional client. Just as Zionism saw itself early on as an extension of the West in the Arab world, the US, since 1967, has regarded Israel as the paramount custodian of its regional interests, particularly its access to oil. Finkelstein noted: “The US does not want an Israel at peace with the Arab world because it will no longer be as obedient a slave.” Given such a framework, Finkelstein concluded, what was required from the Palestinians was that they transform their intifada into something similar to the Arab Revolt of 1936. Its aim would be to induce the US to look upon Israel increasingly as a liability in the region, much as Great Britain did after 1936. Only then would Washington abandon the Jewish state. The argument is intriguing, but full of holes. It is unclear how Israel enhances US oil interests. If anything, Washington’s support for Israel has jeopardized the flow of oil in the past, as in 1973. The US did favor Israel because of Cold War calculations, but this attitude persisted after the demise of the USSR. Finkelstein seems unaware that Israel already is a liability to the US in the Middle East, but that the US-Israeli relationship endures for other reasons. It must have been a shock to Finkelstein’s audience to hear him dismiss the notion that it is the pro-Israel lobby in the US that maintains the relationship. After all, Israel cannot be both America’s slave and master. Yet it was odd that Finkelstein did not broach the subject that has earned him notoriety, namely how the rapport between the US and Israel is sustained by the Holocaust, which pro-Israel groups have manipulated to fortify the bond between the two countries. Finkelstein’s call for a new Arab Revolt is peculiar. Surely the intifada qualifies as such, but where is it leading? It is also doubtful the US would abandon Israel if the Palestinians started winning a prerequisite to exposing Israel as a liability. Nor does Finkelstein’s invitation to total war offer a political endgame. If the Palestinians have a choice between transfer and Bantustan status, then why should they stop at the 1967 borders? Why not fight for Haifa, Jaffa and Acre? The difficulty in Finkelstein’s argument is this: he posits that Washington is forestalling a regional settlement to increase Israeli dependency and serve US imperial interests. Then he implies the Palestinians should pursue their intifada to convince the US that Israel is a liability. So, we presume, the US seeks the continuation of a conflict that might undercut its regional satrapy. How exotic that the Arabs have spent a decade moaning that peace would only strengthen Israel. The intifada has lost political direction, and has brought the Israelis back into Palestinian areas. Anyone who favors the Palestinians should point that out. Finkelstein had the chance to do so Monday evening, but ideology stood in his way. At the end of the evening he merely preached to the converted, the worst form of immobility. Michael Young, a contributing editor at Reason magazine, writes a weekly commentary for The Daily Star Finkelstein replies Dear Editor: Most of the criticisms Michael Young levels against my first lecture at Beirut Theatre on Monday evening (“Listening to Norman Finkelstein”) were addressed in the second lecture on Thursday. Young is not only dismissive of the arguments in my first lecture, however. He also takes to task my political judgment. I am initially accused of having “preached to the converted” at the “Tora Bora of the Lebanese intellectual Left.” A couple of paragraphs down, however, he reports that my central thesis that the pro-Israel lobby doesn't control US foreign policy “must have been a shock to Finkelstein’s audience.” On Wednesday evening I spoke elsewhere to an audience of predominantly left intellectuals. The next day’s headline in An-Nahar read: “Finkelstein attacks the Left.” (For the record, I think the audience that evening misunderstood me. I deplored recent tendencies in the intellectual life of the Left generally, not the leftist movement in Lebanon.) In the lecture on Friday afternoon at AUB I put aside my own opinions and sketched an objective - even sympathetic - account of Zionist theory. Indeed I noticed that the AUB administrators sitting in the front row frequently nodded agreement with my remarks. Does this sound like the record of a leftist who “preached to the converted”? Young claims that due to my leftist ideology I did not criticize the “political direction” of the new intifada. Yet, I didn’t miss an occasion to publicly denounce the PLO ‘s wretched leadership and the squandered opportunities this past year. In fact, I could justly be accused of exactly the opposite: overstepping the bounds of an outsider’s right to criticize. Young’s main criticism, however, is that I “seemed to cross the line” with Hezbollah: “Did he have to so wantonly throw himself in the arms of an organization impatient to manipulate his visit for its own ends?” It would appear that conspiracy theories have gotten the better of even sane voices in the Arab world. The editors of al-Adab along with several secular activists accompanied me to Khiam prison and provided my three guides, former prisoners but not members of Hezbollah. Although I certainly wouldn't have objected if it did, Hezbollah played no role whatsoever in organizing the visit. I did make a point of publicly honoring the heroic resistance of Hezbollah to foreign occupation. Why not? The Communist parties throughout Europe organized the downtrodden and led the resistance to Nazi occupation. Probably, I wouldn’t have fared very well under Communists, just as I probably wouldn’t very well under Hezbollah . Their historic contributions are, nonetheless, undeniable. The shock and shame are that Young apparently doesn't respect the tortures Hezbollah (and others) endured at Khiam to liberate Lebanon. Hezbollah asked to interview me on its television station. Initially I hesitated, not from principle, however, but from cowardice. If I’m willing to appear on CNN – the main propaganda organ for America’s terrorist wars – why shouldn’t I appear on al-Manar? After finally agreeing I was equally forthright during the interview in my criticism and my support of Hezbollah. Even if al-Manar ultimately decides not to air the full interview, it bears notice that Hezbollah accorded me the maximum respect - which is much more than I can say for the AUB administration. To paraphrase Juvenal: Who will enlighten the enlighteners? To my thinking the honorable thing now is to show solidarity with Hezbollah as the US and Israel target it for liquidation. Indeed, looking back my chief regret is that I wasn’t even more forceful in publicly defending Hezbollah against terrorist intimidation and attack. Sincerely, Norman G. Finkelstein 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:
|
|