Yes. He has explained his reasoning as being based on upholding international law insofar as it holds Israel accountable for its crimes but also with the right that it grants Israel to exist. He then criticizes BDS for having their cake and eating it too, since some leaders in BDS have said that they don’t want Israel to exist anymore, while BDS generally upholds international law to justify their criticism of Israel.
AFAIK his criticism of BDS wasn’t that they rejected Israel per se, but rather that they upheld one aspect of international law but not the other. I disagree because I think international law is already largely worthless, but I think it was “if you lean on the law that says X, you have to accept that the same law says Y”, rather than “Israel has a right to exist and I don’t like that you’re undermining it”. I could be misremembering this, though.
Yeah that’s exactly what I mean, but the sticking point is that applying his rule means anyone who says “Israel should stop existing and Palestine should be the only state in that territory” is out of line. Sure, it’s because of his respect for international law (which is what makes his work as an academic rock solid) but it’s still a rule that is incompatible with the realities of imperialism.
is that applying his rule means anyone who says “Israel should stop existing and Palestine should be the only state in that territory” is out of line
I think his point is that it’s out of line if the same person also calls for respect of international law, because that’s an inconsistent position (international law supports Israel’s right to exist, so calling to respect it means also calling for that). As I said before, I think international law is already worthless, but I see the logic of the argument even if I disagree with it. I might have been misremembering his position, though.
He alluded to it on TrueAnon like 3 years ago. Basically lamenting he lost faith in the Palestinian cause for a while, feeling like people could not be made to care about their brutalization, and regretted advocating for nonviolence because the March of Return was a failure. I can’t recall if he mentioned BDS. I don’t have sources.
I don’t know how much accountability he has taken. I have a lot of respect for Finkelstein, but the man does have serious blind spots.
Yes he is a Zionist, just a different type that knows it has to resolve the Palestinian question for israel to continue. Notice the dismissive language towards resistance fighters
Anarchist by ideology, Zionist by solution. Probably a bad idea to link an article where he claims there’s no apartheid in israel, that right of return isn’t possible, etc if you’re trying to convince the reader he isn’t in favor of the existence of Israel (even as a practical matter). In that very article he says he can’t support bds because they don’t acknowledge Israel’s “right to self determination.” I am glad all his arguments are compiled in one place, so much appreciated
It’s possible you are both arguing over opinions that Finkelstein no longer holds here.
The article you linked is from 2008, while the introduction to the piece @TheBroodian@hexbear.net linked to ends with “His forthcoming book is Gaza: An Inquest into Its Martyrdom (University of California Press)”, and that book was apparently published in January 2018 meaning the piece is at least about a decade old at this point.
Here’s a more recent article, where he speaks on his choice to tone police “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” at the Columbia encampment (plus a nod to cancel culture at the end)
As in he thinks Isntrael DOES have a right to exist??
Yes. He has explained his reasoning as being based on upholding international law insofar as it holds Israel accountable for its crimes but also with the right that it grants Israel to exist. He then criticizes BDS for having their cake and eating it too, since some leaders in BDS have said that they don’t want Israel to exist anymore, while BDS generally upholds international law to justify their criticism of Israel.
AFAIK his criticism of BDS wasn’t that they rejected Israel per se, but rather that they upheld one aspect of international law but not the other. I disagree because I think international law is already largely worthless, but I think it was “if you lean on the law that says X, you have to accept that the same law says Y”, rather than “Israel has a right to exist and I don’t like that you’re undermining it”. I could be misremembering this, though.
Yeah that’s exactly what I mean, but the sticking point is that applying his rule means anyone who says “Israel should stop existing and Palestine should be the only state in that territory” is out of line. Sure, it’s because of his respect for international law (which is what makes his work as an academic rock solid) but it’s still a rule that is incompatible with the realities of imperialism.
I think his point is that it’s out of line if the same person also calls for respect of international law, because that’s an inconsistent position (international law supports Israel’s right to exist, so calling to respect it means also calling for that). As I said before, I think international law is already worthless, but I see the logic of the argument even if I disagree with it. I might have been misremembering his position, though.
He’s also talked about making several mistakes, I wonder if he ranks that as one of them
Where has he talked about this? I’m curious how much accountability he’s taken
He alluded to it on TrueAnon like 3 years ago. Basically lamenting he lost faith in the Palestinian cause for a while, feeling like people could not be made to care about their brutalization, and regretted advocating for nonviolence because the March of Return was a failure. I can’t recall if he mentioned BDS. I don’t have sources.
I don’t know how much accountability he has taken. I have a lot of respect for Finkelstein, but the man does have serious blind spots.
Yes he gave up on Palestine after the great march of return, I was wondering if there was any other reflection. Thank you!
Yes he is a Zionist, just a different type that knows it has to resolve the Palestinian question for israel to continue. Notice the dismissive language towards resistance fighters
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/may/26/israelandthepalestinians.usa
He is not a Zionist, please see: https://wheredowestand.org/normanfinkelstein/
Anarchist by ideology, Zionist by solution. Probably a bad idea to link an article where he claims there’s no apartheid in israel, that right of return isn’t possible, etc if you’re trying to convince the reader he isn’t in favor of the existence of Israel (even as a practical matter). In that very article he says he can’t support bds because they don’t acknowledge Israel’s “right to self determination.” I am glad all his arguments are compiled in one place, so much appreciated
It’s possible you are both arguing over opinions that Finkelstein no longer holds here.
The article you linked is from 2008, while the introduction to the piece @TheBroodian@hexbear.net linked to ends with “His forthcoming book is Gaza: An Inquest into Its Martyrdom (University of California Press)”, and that book was apparently published in January 2018 meaning the piece is at least about a decade old at this point.
Here’s a more recent article, where he speaks on his choice to tone police “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” at the Columbia encampment (plus a nod to cancel culture at the end)
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/17/university-protests-gaza-norman-finkelstein
If you’ve heard him posit contrary opinions, please post them. As far as I’ve seen, he has not engaged in self crit.
I have no idea, just pointing out that neither of you contributed anything recent.
deleted by creator