Chris Hedges interviews Norman Finkelstein (3/3)

Hedges and Finkelstein reflect on how to settle the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

[@408Magenta]

The usual very interesting and erudite discussion we have come to expect from Norman Finkelstein. Remarkable individual.

[@j.boucher1412]

For his part, Hedges is one of the fiercest critics of the American empire. His articles on the subject are powerful stuff.

[@ojprice]

Norman on top form here

[@RezaSyedIslam]

Norman, if you're reading this, why dont you get your own channel?! Its so hard to find your videos. With so many 'duplicate uploads' I'm afraid I'm going to miss one!

[@humper9]

"playstation II" classic

[@donluchitti]

I wish I could ask Fink about his analysis of the claim that Cheny and Rummy were totally void of interests (wolfiwitcz, etc) for Israel. At the end he admits that Israel would benefit from this orchestration on Iraq, but I think he gets myopic."You will never trick Rummy" OK. But simply being in the war dept while plans are being devised with a couple of guys who have ties to Israel (the utmost ally) invariably, the choices made will be considerate of Israel than if they weren't there.

[@madmiguelh2o]

Id love to meet Cheney and Rumsfeld in a dark ally.

[@ramonalejandrosuare]

Dr. Finkelstein seems to ignore the impact of evangelical Christian politicians in Congress who ideologically support the Israeli annexation of the Occupied Territories as part of their religious agenda. Its not just the Israeli lobby pressuring this issue in Palestine.

[@Zatzzo]

@TheMrMongolia write him an email. i did once and he replied withing 24 hours.

[@graniteminerman]

Agree with the good doctor Finkelstein that Cheney and Rumsfeld waged war of aggression against Iraq because they thought it would be easy and because it would be a good demonstration of US imperial power. But I also think General Smedley Butler's point very much applies: they did it because it would also be very profitable for them and their friends, which it was. If it was going to be a huge personal sacrifice for them, meaning they would make no money and quite possibly lose their lives or eyesight or an arm or legs, or their kids, then no, they wouldn't have done it. They did it because of all of the above, and because it would make them money, and the people dying and losing eyesight, arms, legs, etc., would be poor people they didn't know or care about.

[@robmoffit4970]

Finklestein forgets the largest criminal neocon - Richard Perle

[@missysummertime]

@sooperfukker Being a Jew does't mean you have to support Isreal or have to have loyalties to a country that is supposedly the "Jewish homeland". And even if you were Isreali it doesn't mean you have to blindly support Isreal and its war crimes.

[@bearcat648]

Sorry, I don't buy at all what Norman is saying here, and I usually agree with his analysis 100%. First, it's odd that he paints Cheney as incorruptible, given his controversial association with Haliburton. But let's get to the heart of the issue, and that is that the close alliance of the United States with Israel is not in any ways a security asset to the United States - it is a liability. Since Rumsfeld and Cheney were involved in the Nixon presidency, they would know firsthand that the 1st OPEC oil embargo was a response to the United States closely supporting Israel during the Yom Kippur War in 1973, and so much of history following, such as 9/11, was in part a response to that same unwavering support of what the Israelis have been doing to the Palestinians.