OT: More on Norman Finkelstein
Ian Pace
one, I will do so in future)
"SG" <SGG...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1126208978.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Who Is Norman Finkelstein?
> Alan Dershowitz writes who he is. Ian Pace is about as imaginative and
unpredictable as a Hanon exercise so I can tell you he will ignore the
plethoras of quotes (with attributions and footnotes at the original
link
http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/dershowitz/Chapter_16.pdf
> and attack Dershowitz personally, as an alleged plagiator or as a
proponent of torture against terrorists or else. Whatever. Read the
content and especially the revealing quotes about Finkelstein's true
profile. The truth is that the essay excerpted below offers not such a
rosy view of Norman Finkelstein, one of the handful of Jewish persons
Ian Pace actually does not hate. If it came to that that a reputed
German historian accuses Ian Pace's historical "authority" of
antisemitism, that speaks for itself. (By the way, Peter Novik, who
calls Finkelstein's work garbage, is by no means a "Zionist" or a
pro-Israeli himself, on the contrary. Even him, who Finkelstein claims
inspired his work, described Finkelstein's "glory"-bringing book as "a
twenty-first century updating of the 'Protocols of the Elders of
Zion'".)
A vast number of replies to Dershowitz can be found on Finkelstein's site -
www.normanfinkelstein.com . Do read the sections on Dershowitz's plagiarism
( http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=1 - explored in more
detail in 'Beyond Chutzpah') and see how plausible they look. It's not
surprising that Dershowitz isn't best disposed towards him, about
three-quarters of 'Beyond Chutzpah' is devoted to a comprehensive refutation
of the claims made in Dershowitz's 'The Case for Israel'. Finkelstein's book
is heavily researched and footnoted, mostly using reports from Amnesty
International and Israel human rights groups. One might also watch the now
legendary debate between Dershowitz and Finkelstein on Democracy Now in late
2003 - that can be watched online here -
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/24/1730205&mode=thread&tid=38 .
It should also be remembered that Dershowitz is the lawyer who has written
that 'most of my clients are guilty', advocates torture and the retributive
demolition of Palestinian villages, and also defended the actions in Abu
Ghraib.
As for Novick on Finkelstein (one might consider Novick's motivations
considering that part of Finkelstein's work is a critique of Novick), here
is Finkelstein's reply:
A Reply to Peter Novick
To Debate or to Defame? A reply to Peter Novick
by Norman G. Finkelstein
A notable feature of British discussion of The Holocaust Industry (hereafter
HI) is the strident and shrill denunciations of my book as strident and
shrill. Professor Peter Novick of the University of Chicago has now entered
the fray. He told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency that HI is "trash" (Richard
Allen Greene, "Critic of Holocaust groups creates controversy in London," 29
July). In his Jewish Chronicle review ("A charge into darkness that sheds no
light," 28 July), Novick is no less hysterical. He maintains that my book is
replete with "false accusations," "egregious misrepresentations," "absurd
claims," and "repeated mis-statements." To answer these charges, there's no
alternative except to juxtapose the respective claims of Novick and myself
against the source material I cite in the footnotes. Tedious as this
exercise may be, it nonetheless sharply illuminates the intellectual
standards of my critics. Before doing so, however, I want to take note of a
curiosity in Novick's review.
Nearly the whole of chapter one of HI is devoted to a critical examination
of the central thesis in Novick's book, The Holocaust in American Life. In
line with mainstream interpretations, Novick argues that the fears American
Jews harbored in June 1967 of a "second Holocaust" in Israel first awakened
memories of the Nazi holocaust; and Israel's international isolation after
the October 1973 war exacerbated those fears, moving the Holocaust center
stage. If this were the case, I asked, why didn't American Jews remember the
Holocaust after the 1948 war when Israel confronted a much greater threat to
its survival, or after the 1956 war when Israel was much more isolated
internationally? Nowhere in his review does Novick even attempt to answer
these objections. Indeed, rather than enter a debate he opts to defame.
Apart from my alleged misrepresentations of Novick's own book which he never
clearly identifies, I count five specific charges of "absurd"
misrepresentation against me:
"Absurd" claim #1: During the debate on Hitler's Willing Executioners,
Daniel Jonah Goldhagen initiated a libel suit against Canadian historian
Ruth Bettina Birn and the Cambridge Historical Journal on account of her
critical book review, and ferociously denounced me for situating the success
of his book in a political context. Professor Charles Maier of Harvard
University posted a lengthy intervention on the H-German website. In HI, I
report - falsely, according to Novick - that Maier "ultimately" only found
the criticisms of Goldhagen "really distasteful and reprehensible." The last
paragraph of Maier's posting reads in full:
Finally, I would like to say that I find two aspects of this unfolding
situation really distasteful and reprehensible. First, "The Historical
Journal" cited the upcoming Birn review in its advertising with language
which suggested that the Birn review would demonstrate (and did not merely
argue) that DJG's scholarship was woefully deficient. I do not believe that
a scholarly journal should exploit the potentially sensational value of a
piece that will discredit an author even for what might be the worthy end of
encouraging subscriptions. This action, it seems to me, would give some
support to a subsequent finding of malice. Second, and more serious, the
explanations being resorted to that DJG's book was to be understood as the
work either of an Orthodox Jewish community or a Zionist lobby or in any way
related to the political or public goals of American Jews (or a segment
thereof), is a fanciful and inflammatory speculation. It makes no sense, but
even if it were thought to be true, it is irrelevant to the judgment we make
about the work.
Nowhere else does Maier mention anything "distasteful and reprehensible."
"Absurd" claim #2: In HI, I report - falsely, according to Novick - that the
American Jewish Committee (AJC) "endorsed the death penalty for the
Rosenbergs." My footnoted source is Shlomo Shafir, Ambiguous Relations: The
American Jewish Community and Germany Since 1945 (1999). Turning to the
cited page, we read:
The AJC's cooperation with right-wing anti-Communist groups such as the
All-American Conference to Combat Communism was strongly criticized by
liberal groups in the Jewish community. In 1952-53 the Committee went as far
as actively endorsing the death penalty for Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who
had been found guilty of spying for the Soviet Union. (p. 136)
"Absurd" claim #3: In HI, I report - falsely according to Novick - that
Daniel Goldhagen was the "main academic champion" of Holocaust hoaxer,
Binyamin Wilkomirski. Goldhagen's comment for the Wilkomirski book reads in
full:
Fragments is a small masterpiece. It conveys in sparse, rhythmic prose, the
shattering effects of the Holocaust upon one child's life, human relations,
and capacity to use language. Even those conversant with the literature of
the Holocaust will be educated by this arresting book. All will be deeply
moved.
To judge by the promotional material of Wilkomirski's publisher (Schocken),
Goldhagen was the only Holocaust historian to provide a comment for the
book, and no other Holocaust historian was excerpted in Book Review Digest
1997 for Fragments.
"Absurd" claim #4: In HI, I report - falsely, according to Novick - that
Edgar Bronfman recently acknowledged that the World Jewish Congress had
amassed no less than "roughly $7 billion" in compensation monies. My
footnoted source is "Holocaust-Konferenz in Stockholm," in Frankfurter
Allgemeine Zeitung (26 January 2000). The relevant passage reads in full:
On Tuesday, the executive committee of the WJC met in Stockholm to discuss
the disposition of the accumulated funds for persecuted or murdered Jews. In
recent years, the WJC has primarily confronted Swiss banks with claims on
relevant accounts that had long been dormant. Part of the deposits also
consisted of fortunes resulting from gold looted by the Nazis from occupied
territories and Jews, and which had been used for payments abroad, again
primarily in Switzerland. The president of the WJC, Bronfman, said that the
sum of the funds to repay and compensate survivors and dependents so far
amounted to about $7 billion. A large part was supposed to go to living
survivors or their heirs, and the rest for educational purposes.
"Absurd" claim #5: In HI, I attribute - falsely, according to Novick - "dark
motives" to Holocaust compensation organizations like the Jewish Claims
Conference. Turning to the relevant page of HI, we read:
According to the Jerusalem Report, the [Claims] conference has "plenty to
gain by ensuring that the survivors get nothing." Israeli Knesset member
Michael Kleiner (Herut) lambasted the Conference as a "Judenrat, carrying
out the Nazis' work in different ways." It's a "dishonest body, conducting
itself with professional secrecy, and tainted by ugly public and moral
corruption," he charged, "a body of darkness that is maltreating Jewish
Holocaust survivors and their heirs, while it sits on a huge pile of money
belonging to private individuals, but is doing everything to inherit [the
money] while they are still alive." (p. 124)
The cited sources for these quotes are Netty C. Gross, "$5.1-billion Slave
Labor Deal Could Yield Little Cash for Jewish Claimants," in Jerusalem
Report (31 January 2000), Zvi Lavi, "Kleiner (Herut): Germany Claims
Conference Has Become Judenrat, Carrying on Nazi Ways," in Globes, Yair
Sheleg, "MK Kleiner; the Claims Conference Does Not Transfer
Indemnifications to Shoah Survivors," in Haaretz (24 February 2000).
The above items exhaust Novick's specific charges of "false accusations,"
"egregious misrepresentations," "absurd claims," and "repeated
mis-statements." No further comment seems necessary.
gggg gggg
Ethel Rosenberg new book by Anne Sebba