Norman Finkelstein: America is to blame for the Lebanon war, not his beloved Zionist State.
Professor Norman Finkelstein was someone who had gained my trust, especially after he wrote his book, 'The Holocaust Industry', a highly recommended book, a must read for everyone. My problem with Professor Finkelstein begun to emerge with the realization that he was indeed a Zionist, and an emotional one at that! He does in fact admit that he is a Zionist. When asked what his thoughts were on the Zionist state, he replied:
DF: How do you get along with your pro-Israel students?
NGF: Very well because they know I am not anti-Israel in the great scheme of things. I only care about what is just. I never defined myself as an anti-Zionist, because for me Zionism is not the issue. The issue is justice.
Zionism is not the issue? The issue is justice?
I wonder if Finkelstein would have made that statement had the colonizers of Palestine were any other group of people besides members of Finkelstein's tribe? Can anyone imagine Professor Finkelstein saying:
I am not anti-colonization in the great scheme of things. I only care about what is just. I never defined myself as anti-colonization, because for me colonization is not the issue. The issue is justice.
The above statement does indeed sound ridiculous, because the word 'justice' and 'colonization' are mutually exclusive, as are the words, 'slavery' and 'justice'. The colonizer arrives upon the land of the colonized not to render justice to the colonized, but to plunder, to murder, to destroy and to steal the resources of the colonized. The colonizer comes to the land of the colonized with the belief and attitude of superiority. Zionism by any other name is 'colonialism'. But Finkelstein also knows that the vast majority of the world's population has been programmed into believing that Zionism is something else! It is God's Chosen people coming home, or European Jews seeking refuge. The last time I had observed people under peril, they go helter skelter in all directions, wherever they could find refuge. The best example are the Katrina victims. They have been scattered around the vast regions of the United States. But the European Jews zeroed in on one specific land: Palestine! They stampeded in one direction! Why? Because they knew what they were doing! That was their gold rush! They knew that time was of the essence, that most colonized countries at that time were gaining their Independence from their European colonizers and establishing their defenses. So the European Jews' stampede to Palestine had to begin before the Palestinians had that opportunity to build up their defense system. Palestine was like a basketball; it was thrown from the British colonizers to that of the Jewish colonizers. The Jews came to build an exclusive Jewish nation at the expense of the Palestinians.
Surprisingly, Finkelstein does have his moments of candor, and in one of his books, 'Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine conflict', he did write:
But if expulsion is 'immoral and unjust' and expulsion of the Palestinians was 'inevitable' in creating a Jewish state, how can Zionism be moral and Just?
Good question Professor Finkelstein. But that was way back in 1995.
Well, there you have it. But are all Zionists the same? The answer is clearly, no! You have a Zionist like Alan Dershowitz; his statements are totally devoid of logic and reality. However, with Zionists like Dershowitz, the public is aware where their loyalties stand. But the Finkelsteins are a different matter. They do indeed attempt to disguise their emotional attachment to that piece of Arab land, which now goes by a biblical name. Finkelstein in recent times has been making so many blunders, uttering some outrageous statements based on no fact or logic. Why? The only answer is because he is a Zionist, albeit, the kinder and gentler type.
Below are two quotes, one from his speech to University students and the other one from his debate with James Petras. I will first let you read them and then I will proceed to give you my analysis of them.
January 26, 2007 - giving a speech at Stanford University
"Professor Mearsheimer is a distinguished chair at the University of Chicago and basically they argued that Israel is a liability for the United States, the US national interest. And that this liability remains so effective because of the Israel Lobby. In a nutshell, that's what they were saying. I don't agree with that on many counts. Just to take the case of this past summer. Walt and Mearsheimer subsequently said that Israel's disastrous war in Lebanon and all of its awful repercussions for the United States prove once again that Israel is a liability for the United States. (But) I agree with the analysis of the head of Hizbullah, Mr. Nasrallah. During the war he repeatedly said,
this is not an Israeli war, this is an American war. This is American financed, American planned, American executed and Israel's just doing the bidding of the United States. I think that's a more accurate depiction. It is not the tail that's wagging the dog; it's the dog that's very much wagging the tail."
During a debate with James Petras on April 18, 2007:
"I would say that I situate myself (regarding AIPAC) on the spectrum somewhere towards the middle. I don't think it is just the Lobby which determines the US relationship with Israel. And I don't think it is just US interests that determine the US relationship with Israel. I think that you have to look at the broad picture and then you have to look at the local picture."
There you have it! In a span of less than 3 months, we see Norman Finkelstein swinging all the way from total denial that AIPAC does influence American foreign policies to sliding to; 'somewhere towards the middle'. The problem for Finkelstein is when do we know when he is telling the truth and when he is not if he is prone to such dramatic shifts in his position on very crucial and significant matters regarding the Zionist state? Like George Galloway said when debating Hitchens, was Finkelstein lying the first time? If so, how then do we believe that he is telling the truth the second time around?
Why the sudden shift by Finkelstein from absolving his Zionist state in his address to the Stanford students, to willing to acknowledge some responsibility that the AIPAC's do indeed steer American policy when debating James Petras? My opinion is that when Finkelstein was facing the Stanford students and when he told them that America alone is to blame and not his precious little stolen Zionist state, he was betting on the relative ignorance of the students, the students attending one of the Ivy League schools notwithstanding. He made so many blunders during the question and answer session, but the Ivy League students did not seem to catch them. Judging from the applause, it was quite apparent to me that the students of Stanford did not seem to question some of the amazingly convoluted stories Finkelstein was peddling to them. Ironically, Finkelstein told the students that they were not just ordinary people, that they (being Ivy League students) could read and reach their own conclusions. Once again, I will reiterate that the Stanford Students did not seem to notice the shredding of logic to pieces by Finkelstein during that speech. Perhaps some did, and I can only hope so. I will be dealing with the 'shredding of logic' of that speech at a later time in more detail, hopefully soon.
So there you have it, Ladies and Gentlemen. Let me assure you that I do not derive any pleasure from coming so hard on Professor Finkelstein. He used to be someone I genuinely used to like. A dear friend of mine with whom I shared my displeasures with Professor Finkelstein asked me to please not say anything negative about him publicly, and I was almost ready and willing to oblige. But after hearing his question and answer session at Stanford, the only word that comes to mind to describe what I felt is, 'livid'. He was telling many deliberate lies and getting away with them. Once again, only you, Ladies and Gentlemen, can judge if I am justified in my harsh critism of Finkelstein.
Btw: I must not forget to address Finkelstein's attempt at leaning on Hassan Nasrallah to help him shift the blame from his beloved Jewish state to the United States. It just happens that I am in the process of compiling 'Nasrallah Quotes'. And I do indeed know what Nasrallah said and what he didn't say. He did in fact say that America was heavily involved in the last devastation of Lebanon. But in way, shape or form did he absolve Finkelstein's Zionist state.