[Peace-discuss] Finkelstein on the Israeli lobby

Tue Sep 18 23:58:59 CDT 2007

[The craven behavior of the administration at DePaul University in 
regard to Prof. Norman Finkelstein illustrates the rather narrow limits 
of allowable debate within American universities -- most would have 
acted as badly as DePaul did -- but here Finkelstein discusses the more 
important issue of the Israeli lobby: "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."  --CGE]

     Finkelstein Interviewed
     by Norman Finkelstein and George McLeod; September 16, 2007

         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.

	###