Actually, it's not clear which side of the next debate Finkelstein will take, because he has always supported the Chomskian position that Mideast policy is shaped by the imperialist elites, not by Zionist elites.
This argument has been a crucial split in the American Left, with the Chomskians and most of the Jewish-American left on one side, and most of the Palestinian solidarity activists on the other.
It's probably more than most people here will find interesting, but here's a spirited debate between Finkelstein and another hero of the Left, James Petras, which captures it pretty well--
https://palestinechronicle.com/story-04170775251.htm
Doha Debates - The Palestinian Right Of Return
MAJORITY OF OXFORD UNION STUDENTS SAY PRO-ISRAEL LOBBY STIFLING DEBATE
https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 57,00.html
https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 57,00.html
I imagine the video will be up at the Debate site soon.A series of heated exchanges marked the arrival of the Doha Debates at the Oxford Union Tuesday night, where two-thirds of the student audience approved a motion claiming that Israel’s supporters are stifling western debate.
...
Norman Finkelstein, a leading academic critic of Israeli policies, argued in favor of the motion claiming that the Pro-Israel lobby sows confusion to avoid being held to account:
"They claim that the (Arab-Israeli) conflict is so complicated that it would require rocket science to penetrate its mysteries," she said.
Finkelstein maintained that the American people are ignorant of solutions to the conflict that have been available for 30 years due to the "misinformation, disinformation, and sheer fraud which masquerades as scholarship that is validated by mainstream media."
The journalist and writer Andrew Cockburn supported this view, claiming there are "red lines" in discussing Israel that no politician or journalist in the US would dare cross for fear of being demonized or driven out of public life.
Dr Martin Indyk, former US Ambassador to Israel, and Director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, argued strongly against the motion, saying that last night’s event in Oxford was proof of a lively debate on the subject.
He said controversy over a recent book by former US president Jimmy Carter -- branded anti-Semitic in some quarters -- was further evidence that criticism of Israel was not being stifled.
His fellow panelist David Aaronovitch, the journalist and broadcaster, dismissed accusations of conspiracy around the lobby, insisting that Americans naturally identified with Israel, a country surrounded by autocracies, because of their belief in democracy: "It wasn’t the Israeli lobby that made Egypt, Jordan, or Syria dictatorships," he said.
-
major.tom
- Macho Business Donkey Wrestler
- Posts: 1970
- Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2007 7:07 pm
- Location: BC, Canada
I think we see a suggestion of "the other side" in the quote provided by DavidGig.
At its logical (?) conclusion, the argument seems to be, "there isn't much criticism of Israel because reasonable people know they're in the right. They're surrounded by blood-thirsty killers and if they have to take some of them out from time to time, that's just self-defense."
Like all good arguments, there's a grain of truth to it. Israeli's are vulnerable to attack. But the cause of the animosity and the one-sidedness of the conflict remain largely unspoken.
At its logical (?) conclusion, the argument seems to be, "there isn't much criticism of Israel because reasonable people know they're in the right. They're surrounded by blood-thirsty killers and if they have to take some of them out from time to time, that's just self-defense."
Like all good arguments, there's a grain of truth to it. Israeli's are vulnerable to attack. But the cause of the animosity and the one-sidedness of the conflict remain largely unspoken.
If you mean this new one, I'm uploading it now - I'll post the link here as it's not featuring Galloway.
edit: here you go, https://www.sendspace.com/file/27xe8o
It was a pretty interesting debate for sure.
edit: here you go, https://www.sendspace.com/file/27xe8o
It was a pretty interesting debate for sure.
i was really looking forward to it aswell! it was a really good debate, i found aaronovitch's personalising the debate quite irritating, and finkelstein should have had more time but he made his points brilliantly and succintly enough for people to know he's serious on the topic, he got a good applause aswell!
He's rather like a poor man's Christopher Hitchens just minus the wit. You are right about Finkelstein, he didn't seem to get a fair amount of time to speak. Alex Cockburn was good though 