Author engages in academic
bickeringBy Ben Newhouse

By Ben Newhouse

Norman Finkelstein departed from the topic of his scheduled talk titled “Israel and Palestine: Roots of Conflict, Prospects for Peace,” to discuss legitimate and illegitimate sources of disagreement over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict Thursday.

Finkelstein is the author of “Image and Reality in the Israel-Palestine Conflict” and “The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering.” His talk was sponsored by Students For a Free Palestine and co-sponsored by the Oberlin Peace Activist League and the Women Studies, History and Politics departments.

“I want to address three artificial, contrived and concocted sources of disagreement,” Finkelstein said.

Finkelstein began his talk by addressing “From Time Immemorial,” by Joan Peters, which he read 20 years ago while writing his thesis on “The Theory of Zionism.”
Finkelstein said the book claimed that Palestine was empty on the eve of colonization, and that Arabs only fabricated their genealogy as Palestinian after Jews cultivated the land. Finkelstein spent the beginning of his career debunking this book.

Before addressing the sources of dispute he called illegitimate, Finkelstein described what people could agree upon.

“Scholarly literature has mostly reached consensus over the factual history of the last 100 years,” Finkelstein said. “A consensus has been reached on human rights issues as well. People in a normal moral universe can agree on injustices that have occurred, and can agree that Palestinians have a legal right to return to their homes.”

Finkelstein said that legitimate disagreement arose over the politics of the Israeli-Palestinian situation.

“Some say it isn’t feasible to implement the right of return,” Finkelstein said. “Chomsky said it was immoral to sow illusion among the Palestinians about a right of return in peace agreements.”

Finkelstein then said that America and Israel are alone among few countries such as Palau, Nauru, Tuvalu, and the Federated States of Micronesia in opposing a two-State solution within the UN General Assembly.

“The votes are consistently 160 in favor to four or five or six against,” Finkelstein said. “We shouldn’t inflate the level of disagreement on the issue.”

Finkelstein said that the first reason disagreement persisted despite nearly global consensus was “an attempt to mystify people with biblical enmities, ancient hatreds, and clashes of civilizations.”

Finkelstein said that American scholarly work has attributed Arab resistance to the formation of Israel to “fear of territorial dispossession and displacement.”

“This isn’t complicated at all,” Finkelstein said. “Native American resistance to American settlement was brutal, but anyone would laugh if our history textbooks said this resistance was due to anti-white, anti-European, anti-Christian sentiments.”

Finkelstein said the second artificial argument came from “playing the Holocaust card” to justify Israeli actions.

Finkelstein said the most recent manifestation of this argument was “The New Antisemitism,” which he said was claimed to arise roughly every 15 years.

Finkelstein cited a 1974 book by the leaders of the Anti-Defamation League, a leading American Jewish advocacy group, titled “The New Antisemitism,” which defended Israel’s position amidst pressure to withdraw from Egypt. He also cited a book from the same group in 1982 entitled “The Real Antisemitism,” defending Israel from pressure to accept a two-state solution supported by the Palestinian Liberation Organization.
Finkelstein said this argument could be observed today in the media’s reaction to “The Passion of the Christ.”
“Who could possibly care what Mel Gibson thinks about anything,” Finkelstein said.
Finkelstein said the third “most disturbing” argument was a “breathtakingly vast proliferation of fraud within the academic community on the conflict.”

Finkelstein said that Peters’ book was reissued in 2001 and that disproving the book’s thesis had failed to affect sales.

Finkelstein then devoted the rest of his talk to criticizing Harvard Law Professor Alan Derschowitz, who recently published a book titled, “The Case for Israel.”
“It came from an excellent publisher and it got excellent reviews, but it’s a sheer fraud,” Finkelstein said.
Finkelstein may have changed the topic of his talk because he said he’d received a letter on Wednesday that Derschowitz had sent Finkelstein’s publisher.
“He told them that I was defaming him,” Finkelstein said. “He basically said that the book I’m writing was libelous before I’ve even written it.”

Finkelstein closed by criticizing the lack of sources in Derschowitz’ book.

“He doesn’t cite any mainstream, credible sources,” Finkelstein said. “If he did, the title would have to be called ‘The Case For Palestine.’