February 17, 2006
Norman Finkelstein challenges the conventional line on Israel
Ilan Pappe in Bookforum:
Why is the history of modern Palestine such a matter of debate? Why is it still regarded as a complex, indeed obscure, chapter in contemporary history that cannot be easily deciphered? Any abecedarian student of its past who comes to it with clean hands would immediately recognize that in fact its story is very simple. For that matter it is not vastly different from other colonialist instances or tales of national liberation. It of course has its distinctive features, but in the grand scheme of things it is the chronicle of a group of people who left their homelands because they were persecuted and went to a new land that they claimed as their own and did everything in their power to drive out the indigenous people who lived there. Like any historical narrative, this skeleton of a story can be, and has been, told in many different ways. However, the naked truth about how outsiders coveted someone else's country is not sui generis, and the means they used to obtain their newfound land have been successfully employed in other cases of colonization and dispossession throughout history.
Generations of Israeli and pro-Israeli scholars, very much like their state's diplomats, have hidden behind the cloak of complexity in order to fend off any criticism of their quite obviously brutal treatment of the Palestinians in 1948 and since. They were aided, and still are, by an impressive array of personalities, especially in the United States. Nobel Prize winners, members of the literati, and high-profile lawyers—not to mention virtually everyone in Hollywood, from filmmakers to actors—have repeated the Israeli message: This is a complicated issue that would be better left to the Israelis to deal with.
More here.
Posted by Abbas Raza at 05:33 PM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c562c53ef00d83474dd1453ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Norman Finkelstein challenges the conventional line on Israel:






Comments
More on the topic debate
Norman Finkelstein on the "Not-so-New New Anti-Semitism" and Shlomo Ben Ami on Terror, Torture, and Peace
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/02/14/1518240
Posted by: Norm | Feb 17, 2006 8:04:13 PM
Whenever someone says the Israel-Palestinian issue is simple, you know he has consciously chosen to blind himself to most of the complications driving it. In Finkelstein's case, he has chosen to turn a blind eye to the pervasive Muslim attitude of an entitlement to exercise complete supremacy over Jews (and Christians, Zoroastrians, ...), something that has driven enough "Arab Jews" into Israel that they comprise half if Israel's Jewish population. Care to find a parallel to this niggling little detail in any other colonialist instance?
In the case pro-Israeli idealogues, they blind themselves to the other side of the coin.
Posted by: Omri | Feb 17, 2006 11:04:47 PM
The Israeli Arabs are at least one reason why the story of Israel/Palestine is not simple. After all, if the Israelis "did everything in their power to drive out the indigenous people who lived there", why are there any Arabs in Palestine at all? Whatever else Israelis had, they had the power to deport all the Arabs in the areas they controlled in 1948 and 1967, but they did not do so. They of course did deport many, but compare with other modern cases of expulsions, like the Soviet expulsions of Germans from East Prussia, or what surely would have happened in Kosovo had the bombing campaign there ultimately failed.
There is also the problem of Arabic-speaking Jews whose origins in Palestine predate the arrival of kibbutzim. They didn't go anywhere. In fact, there were also large-scale expulsions of Jews from most Arab countries after the founding of Israel.
This view is too simplistic, but sometimes it is helpful to have a wide range of simplistic views on offer so one can get a better view of the whole. It seems this is especially true when looking at something where propaganda is so widespread.
Posted by: Hektor Bim | Feb 18, 2006 7:19:40 AM
I've read and admired Finkestein since his New Left Review writings in the 80s, and I've never had much respect for Dershowitz, especially his writings on Israel. Yet I found the Pappe's review to be unsastisfying and thin in several respects. Making a case for the relative simplicity (moral, historical, or political) of the Palestinian Israeli conflict strikes me as tendentious as best, misleading at worst. I've never been to Israel and don't claim to know anything about Israeli society. My Judaism is the secular, stateless, Ashkenoz Judaism of the European ghetto: citizens of the world, people of the book. But I know enough about the world to know that arguments for simplicity are almost never right. In this case, Pappe represents the history of Israel as exactly the same as all other colonial ventures. That just seems intuitively wrong, if only because nothing is the same as everything else, especially when caught up in the vortex of twentieth-century atrocity. Pappe writes of a monolithic Israeli media, academy, and judiciary, all of which serve something he calls "powerful Jewish interests." Again, this just doesn't seem right to me, at all, especially as it begins to sound like something out of the mouth of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Posted by: Jonathan | Feb 18, 2006 12:32:51 PM
Post a comment