<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><a href="http://dissidentvoice.org/2015/11/finkelstein-weighs-in-on-salaita-settlement/" class="">http://dissidentvoice.org/2015/11/finkelstein-weighs-in-on-salaita-settlement/</a><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I think Norman Finkelstein is probably correct on his rejection of</div><div class=""><br class="">(1) the full BDS program (more carefully set out by Noam Chomsky: <<a href="http://chomsky.info/20140722/" class="">http://chomsky.info/20140722/</a>>);<br class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">(2) the Mearsheimer-Walt argument (again, Chomsky is clearer: <<a href="http://chomsky.info/20060328/" class="">http://chomsky.info/20060328/</a>>); and<br class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">(3) the 'one-state solution' (the right of return will have have to be transferred into reparations).<br class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">(These views are characterized by Ira Glunts as "incompatible with pro-Palestinian activism and solidarity … [Finkelstein’s] characterization of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) advocates as cultists, his view that the pro-Israel lobby does not influence U.S foreign policy, and his deriding of advocates of a one-state solution for Israel/Palestine, as hopelessly politically naïve.”)<br class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">And Steven Salita's “Dershowitz and Finkelstein: comrades at heart?” is at best uncivil, to coin a phrase: </div><div class=""><<a href="https://electronicintifada.net/content/dershowitz-and-finkelstein-comrades-heart/12574" class="">https://electronicintifada.net/content/dershowitz-and-finkelstein-comrades-heart/12574</a>>.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">—CGE<br class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><br class=""></div></div></body></html>