I like reading columns and books written by Norman Finkelstein. I like listening to him in interviews. He's brilliant, he has an incredibly deep historical understanding, and he's one of the best, if not THE best, critics of Israeli propaganda ever.*
All that being said, I do not agree with Finkelstein 100%. I never have. And even then I may have missed a lot of things.
I find him convincing on historical facts but not on current politics and strategies. From the moment I heard him denouncing BDS on Democracy Now! a long time ago (perhaps 2016) I knew we disagreed on that. And he held up the two state solution as an "achievable" international consensus. I had long thought that impossible and even misconstrued. It has seemed to me that the Zionist movement was committed to ethnic cleansing from the very beginning. They wanted every else to leave Palestine so they could have it for themselves. Zionists even often claimed there was nobody there. Anyone with access to books, old movies, or Wikipedia can see that is not true. The history of Palestine is fairly well known going back over 2000 years. There was never a time when it was not occupied by not just one but many groups. It has always been a very busy and popular place centrally located to the world.
Finally, and worst of all, Finkelstein has consistently from 2012 onwards denounced the Palestinian refugee's Right to Return as being impractical, or politically impossible as long as there is an Israel. He says that this being impossible, it should not be demanded either. (Which all suggests he chooses not to imagine a time past the defeat and dismantling of Israel. IOW, he is giving this a 'liberal Zionist' frame. Most people now believe the defeat and dismantling of Israel is a prerequisite to peace in the middle east if not the world.) Finkelstein doesn't defend his view in principle, except the principle of practicality, which he then claims all successful radical movements have all followed. Well, I say this time is different in many ways. Similar to global heating and mass non-human extinction, Israel is an issue to the entire world. It is a partner to US Imperialism in bringing the entire world to war. (Which ironically was a basis of crackpot Christian Zionism.). Therefore, and for many reasons actually, there is only one solution, "practical" or not, the defeat and dismantling of Israel. (Another solution might be the defeat and dismantling of USA, which would probably achieve the same effect on Israel too.)
Though Finkelstein often sounds like the fiercest anti-Zionist I've ever heard, but you have got to listen very carefully to a few of his words which give the game away, as Tony Greenstein has shown in several masterful deconstructions over the years.
Tony Greenstein admires Finkelstein books the way I do, but has written several scathing critiques of Finkelstein's appearances and commentaries for the last 15 years based on the above and similar issues. This is the latest one I could find:
https://azvsas.blogspot.com/2024/12/norman-finkelstein-was-so-stung-by-my.html
When Finkelstein calls Israel a "lunatic state" that sounds to me like he has now accepted that the reform and/or existence of Israel is unacceptable and that that only a single non-discriminatory state is possible.
But Tony sees this differently. He sees Finkelstein refusing to call Israel a Zionist state, and therefore suggesting that Zionism is or at least at one time was possible and not "lunatic."
Both Tony and I see Zionism as genocidal from the time when it was being conceived in 1897 at the first Zionist conference. Zionists could only imagine ethnic cleansing the current inhabitants, not somehow cohabiting with them, and devoted much ink to defending what we now call "ethnic cleansing." Tony and I see present day "Israel" as the embodiment of the original Zionist vision, not a pathological deviation from it. It was pathological from the outset.
A neat distillation of Tony's 20 page post (!) is in his one one comment to the above:
The problem with Norman F, besides the lack of any serious class analysis of the forces behind the Israeli state or imperialism, is that he is extremely mercurial and lacks judgement. It was obvious to anyone who had any understanding of Zionism and he should have done since his Ph.D thesis was on Zionism, that there was no way Israel would ever allow a Palestinian state to emerge.
Anyone with any sense of judgement would not have called BDS a 'cult' when it is clearly the chosen strategy of the solidarity movement. There are arguments as to how effective it really is etc. but there is no doubt that BDS activities in themselves help build the solidarity movement.
And why he chose to attack the slogan of the movement 'From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free' is beyond me. The fact that the British Government and Sue Braverman don't like it is reason enough to chant it. To say it leaves room for doubt and 'what about Israel' calls into question just what Norman's politics are really about.
As for no-one having read my book well of course I'd like it if far more people did but it has certainly played a major role in people seeing that Israel originated in the acceptance of anti-Semitism and that Zionist claims to inherit the memory of those who died in the holocaust are bogus and false.
Tony takes this personally perhaps, but we can't blame him. Tony has written a much needed history book on how Zionist cooperated with Nazis in various ways even up to and during the Holocaust. Finkelstein, an authority on Zionist books and seems to have read nearly everything about Zionism, dismisses Tony's effort as a non-book that nobody has read.
If Finkelstein has any issues with the facts in Tony's book, he should state them rather than smearing Tony as a non-author. We should be comrades in the liberation of Palestine. And why is Finkelstein smearing Tony in the first place? Aren't they on the same side? Well, no, as it turns out. Only Tony is the true anti-Zionist. Finkelstein is the practical man who refuses to imagine a world beyond Zionism, still clinging, by the longest imaginable thread now, to liberal zionism, and the usefulness of interational agencies, agreements, etc. (all of which have proven futile). The present govnerment is insane, all the Jewish Supremacists in Israel are insane, but somehow sanity will be achieved, as in many other cases, first by being sure to make properly targeted demands and slogans.
[Satire: We demand no rape of Palestinian prisoners after 6 PM.]
Greenstein's denunciations of Finkelstein go back to at least 2012 when he wrote this post which is actually more thorough and principled, and less personal, so perhaps I should have linked it first. (This is the one where he says Finkelstein was different 5 years prior.)
https://azvsas.blogspot.com/2012/02/tragedy-of-norman-finkelstein-time-to.html
[More should be added here]
The latest flap concerns something far less important. Finkelstein suggesting (I don't hear him actually saying it, but suggesting it) that Tucker Carlson's newfound critical voice against Israel is driven by antisemitism.
I think it's good that Tucker Carlson has taken this turn. He has been doing a good job in his commentary on Israel and interviews of key observers. I appreciate those as good things. Meanwhile I do not endorse Tucker Carlson's worldview in toto. He is a pro-capitalist and in my view a bigot. But I can't much believe he is antisemitic per se. He never says purely antisemitic things. He was on Jewish Supremacist owned TV networks! I think he like others is seeing the cost of Israel to the US. And that it a good thing. All sides need to unite to remove the Zionism from the government of USA.
Meanwhile, there is another thing which bugs me much more than Tucker Carlson's "conversion" on Israel. And that is Conspiracy Theories.
Conspiracy Theories
When Finkelstein does engage the belief that Israel was behind the JFK assassination, he does so only derisively. He points out that Kennedy ran on being more anti-Communist than Nixon.
No theorists deny Kennedy's famed anti-communism, they typically say Kennedy had a change of heart after the Cuban Missile Crisis and/or The Bay of Pigs. They point out that Kennedy signed order NSAM 263 on October 11, 1963 which would begin a phased withdrawal of US forces from Vietnam. This order was reversed by LBJ immediately after the assassination. Some claim it was "political," but it was classified Secret and not known to the public until after his death.
JFK demonstrated that he was not a committed cold warrior in two acts: refusing to send US bombers after the failed Bay of Pigs invasion by CIA, and making a deal with the USSR to end the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Kennedy also gave many impassioned speeches regarding making peace with USSR. It is true that by themselves, such speeches mean little. But then we have the facts above which give them more weight.
I can see in the press conferences that Kennedy made after the Bay of Pigs that he is being attacked from the pro-war side by the press. It's "why didn't you do this" and "why aren't you going to do that" and "how is this going to work." In late 1963, Kennedy is widely seen as weak and especially on Communism to the point where in the still Cold War thumping USA it is widely believed he will lose the election in 1964.
Many conspiracy theorists and even the great Oliver Stone who made two movies about the Kennedy Assassination, didn't mention Israel. Stone's JFK movies were funded by a well known Jewish Zionist.
And here we begin to see an issue with the Chomsky/Finkelstein critiques of JFK assassination theories. A capable secret agency like Mossad would indeed produce limited hangout theories that point to everyone and everything but the one thing they want to remain most hidden.
It's actually much more logical that Israel had JFK assassinated than the CIA/MiC had him assassinated, for several reasons.
1) The MiC could simply 'wait out' Kennedy's eventual defeat. JFK's tiny steps could be thwarted all the way until then. Israel was on a roll and needed to get the bomb done now, no time to waste. Kennedy was demanding inspections (and more I have heard, but that he was demanding inspections is well known) and was outspoken about preventing Israel from having the bomb.
2) A successor like Goldwater might be as disinclined to let Israel have the bomb as JFK. LBJ was a long time proven Zionist supporter and currently owned too, probably the most Zionist owned of all, and especially after the election it seems, as proven by his non-response to the Numec thefts and the USS Liberty incident. His last girlfriend is said to be a well known Zionist in Hollywood (after having separated from his Austin, TX girlfriend over the Vietnam War).
3) Ruby, a nightclub owner, was not CIA connected but he was Jewish Mafia/Lanksy connected. As Oswald's assassin, Ruby was clearly involved. It is said that Ruby himself once said he did it, "So the Jews wouldn't get blamed."
4) At least one Lansky mob shooter in prison for life has confessed to the job (I have the tapes from the most famous one, and he makes no mistakes from the known record). Well known CIA clandestine operator E Howard Hunt made a deathbed confession (after a lifetime denial) that he was "there" (not specified) but not the actual shooter. Meaning it likely was the mob guy, not the CIA guy, who made the shot. EHH was probably there as backup shooter (among many), in case all the previous failed, he could take the worst angle. Likely from the grassy knoll.
5) Lansky himself was barely mentioned in many pre-2006 accounts (as we'd expect from their being limited hangouts). But he was The One who lost out biggest in Cuba, having reinvested his Las Vegas winnings, as "The Mob Accountant," in a new hotel in Havana. (Played mostly historically as Hyman Roth in Godfather 2 and 3.). For that alone, he's be the biggest mob boss most likely to be involved. PLUS, he had been well known to be involved with Zionists ever since shipping weapons to Zionist gangs. Almost certainly he'd been in touch with Mossad ever since. And he emigrated to Israel subsequently, though it didn't last. One thing never mentioned in this is that he could never be worshipped as a hero in Israel for helping bring the bomb to Israel for many reasons, including that Israel (and the US officially) has never recognized that Israel even has the bomb.
6). I have heard that at least one early conspiracy author mentioned Israel if not as the key organizer. But nearly all conspiracy theories have mentioned James Jesus Angleton, who was at none other than the Israel deak at CIA.
7). The official story could hardly need more debunking at this point. Johnson's committee was created by Johnson--himself a key actor--to give himself cover. Warren begged not to be on it (and probably got favors for doing so and threats if not, in the Johnson fashion, Johnson needed a credible committee chair). A likely conspirator committee member was the CIA director who had been fired by JFK a year before over Bay of Cuba--Allen Dulles, who famously had lunch with many witnesses before they spoke. One, curiously, was Gerald Ford, a later President. Nixon, GW Bush, and E Howard Hunt are all implicated as having been in Dallas. GW Bush had ties to the Bay of Pigs Invasion--his rig for 'Zapata Oil Company' very close to Cuba was the platform for the invasion. Four future Presidents and a known CIA fixer were there.
Oswald was not a professional shooter, he was a professional spook asset and FBI informant, an issue never addressed once even evaded (it was mentioned that Oswald was getting checks from the FBI), he had a infamously terrible gun bought more for pranks, a terrible vantage point, and personally failed a nitrate test for gun use. Nitrate tests are no longer used because they tend to produce false positives, not false negatives. Oswald himself said he had not used a gun at all and was a Patsy that the murder was being pinned on. He was never allowed to testify in his own defense, and his one allowed call (to a likely CIA contact) was intercepted and blocked. He was killed after being in custody after only one day, by a Jewish Mafia connected, friend of Meyer Lansky, nightclub owner who should never have had access to Oswald but was well regarded by the corrupt Dallas police. Much of the original after death photos of JFK in the Parkland Hospital were lost, some of the key ones appear to be fabrications. Parkland staff all believed Kennedy was struck from the front, to explain this away 'confusion' is alleged by the Warren Commission and their defenders. We only have the third coroners report, written a day after the first, with the first destroyed and the second burned. The chain of command of the body of JFK was suspicious, it went with Johnson. The final "autopsy" was done in secret under military command. Congress itself declared in the late 1970's that a conspiracy was most likely involved, and they didn't have much of the information now public, especially some photos which are clear fabrications. While USSR officially recognized LBJ, in secret they told all embassies that LBJ was a likely JFK conspirator, and USSR intelligence was among the best in the world. Many witnesses said they heard many shots. Many readings of the Zapruder film identify more than 3 shots, and the fatal one from the front (grassy knoll). One of Oswald's best friends, and a longtime known CIA asset Russian emigre George de Mohrenschildt, who suggested the Book Depository job to Oswald (then in New Orleans) said Oswald liked JFK. George was to testify before Congress for the committee investigating the JFK assassination, and was found suicided that morning. He had testified a lot before the Warren Commission but only after talking to Committee member Allen Dulles. Most reasonable explanation is that Oswald was an informant investigating assassination plots. Several of Oswald's reports went straight to J Edgar Hoover as unclassified under a twisted name (Harvey Lee) to avoid suspicion. Hoover loved to keep tabs on everyone. Kennedy also was fond of mentioning the Palestinian Right to Return (or be compensated) as fundamental. LBJ did not.
More thinly sourced: Oswald had met and talked with Ruby--who was seeking a Kennedy assassin at the time. Oswald refused the deal after Ruby refused to pay the money up front. A Lansky associated prisoner serving life sentence for multiple shooting murders confessed to the murder of JFK, getting no known detail wrong.
Finkelstein didn't mention these things. But). He mentions that Muammar Gaddafi said Israel did that (very derisively, as if nobody should believe Gaddafi, while frankly Gaddaffi is seeming more and more credible and as victim of US Imperialism until his death from a US attack).
Finkelstein doesn't mention where Gaddafi got this idea. He got it from none other than Mordechai Vanunu, the Israeli whistleblower who also revealed the Israeli nuclear program. Vanunu revealed that Israel was behind the JFK assassination shortly after he was released in 2004, and since then hardly a credible theorist has not mentioned Israel.
Vanunu is seen as pitiful liar by Zionists, virtually ignored by Western Media, but anyone who knows anything believes at least his original claims that Israel had created Nukes and was elaborately hiding the nuclear weapons program from US inspectors. Why then not believe he was correct also that Israel was, because of the bomb, behind the JFK assassination?
Well, Finkelstein like Chomsky hides behind the academically and mass respectable (liberal) media mantra that conspiracy theories are crazy talk or foreign disinformation.
And it's sad, I think. Especially when it is well known that Israel assassinated many other well known figures. Assassination conspiracies are far smaller and easier to hide than say, conspiracy theories about the anti-usefulness of covid vaccines or faked moon landings.
It's interesting that while (known to FBI) many early conspiracy theories about the JFK assassination included Israel, few books made much of it, pointing in other directions. (As I've said, we'd expect limited hangouts.) when key bits, Lansky being the big loser in Havana and a fellow Jewish mobster and night club owner with Ruby, were obvious as hell. Just too Jewish to be mentioned. THAT was the problem.
According to some Jews, even on the lefter JVP side, we should have theories about bankers controlling the world because that implicates Jews even if Jews aren't being mentioned and don't even control a majority of banking (though a very disproportionate amount).
I suppose the same thing could be said about concentrated ownership in big media, we can't think about media controlling minds for nefarious purposes, since that would implicate Jews, who included most Hollywood media owners, producers and stars. Hollywood is mostly Jewish and always has been. Jewish Mafia too. And much promotion was infamously through nepotism and mob-o-tism.
Which gets to the point. Excessive concern for the image of Jewishness inhibiting even our ability to think about wide pictures, and connect dots. That's unacceptible to me.
I don't blame Jews in general for Zionism, though it's the crime of most Jews. But I don't want fear of implicating Jews stand in the way of understanding how things work in general, and oppressive banking and media in particular.
And we know the bourgeoisie have many pow wows and perks. It's a big club... And Billionaire Jewish Supremacists and their courtiers have a big section in that club worth being aware of.
Even Tony Greenstein is derisive of conspiracy theories. He denounces David Miller both as a conspiracy theorist and more as a plain old antisemite (I agree that some of Miller's statements quoted by Greenstein were antisemitic, but I agree with Miller that power networks do need to be understood and dismantled, and the term Jewish Supremacist is not antisemitic, it doesn't have to apply to all Jews any more than White Supremacist applies to all whites. It's curious that Finkelstein views the term Zionist as mostly being used incorrectly (as if it could include some good people) and that he prefers the term Jewish Supremacist for the insanity of Israel and Israel supporters, as if he doesn't want to give Zionism a bad name.
I do see a lot of antisemitic comments on X. But not people I follow, and I've never myself seen David Miller make an actual antisemitic comment except as quoted in Greenstein's blog. Likewise I have never seen Tucker Carlson make an actual antisemitic remark.
*Some say that Finkelstein's debunking of In Time Immorial (ITI) and Dershowitz is too technical. In Dershowitz for example he found plagary. In ITI Finkelstein found a few key falsified numbers. Finkelstein is laser focused on such details and not the big picture ideas. So for example he dossn't criticize Dershowitz for opposition to the Right to Return. In my view, any thinking person ought find the ideas in ITI ridiculous to the point of insanity. Endless evidence including documentary footage shows Palestine full of people going way back. It was never "empty," and it has always been one of the world's most venerated places. It only makes sense that the people there, the Palestinians, were the descendants of people who originally lived there at 0CE, their intermediate ancestors had just changed their religion a couple of times. Only some of the people were in the levant were ever expelled by the Romans, and some converted to Jewish Christianity (or already were), (Roman) Christianity, and then Islam when it was convenient. One doesn't need to prove the lack of a mass expulsion, that's the presumption for which considerable evidence is necessary for the contrary to be believable. Though that threshold has long been passed by the Nakba and Gaza. Jews today aren't even all the descendants of the original Jews as many Jewish descendants converted away from Judaism (and vice versa). And intermarriage and false paternity. Jewish Judeans were never the only ones in the Levant either, except during the era of the Maccabees when most were forcibly converted to Judaism, then you could say all of the Hasmonean Empire was Jewish by religion, but only part of it was Judean Jews, and the rest weren't much committed to it (either). Jews were a sect that emerged among late Bronze age Canaanites who were not Samaritan or Phoenician. As late as the 1950's mainstream Jewish organizations insisted that Jews were a religious group, not a 'Nation.' Many Orthodox still do.
