The Making of Norman Finkelstein - Reality Asserts Itself (8/8)

[@musopaul5407]

"These are my principles and if you don't like them...I have others!" That is the position of most academics, intellectuals and journalists, but NOT Norman Finkelstein. And when you learn about what has happened to him, you can understand why most people opt for moral "manoeuvrability". Norman is an inspiration to all of us; an iron resolve to tell the truth combined with profound scholarship. A rare thing at any time, but especially now. He may be poor and rejected by the mainstream, but his soul is intact. How many of us can honestly say the same?

[@yarweiss]

The Real News Network is too damn real. At first, I found it a bit hard to watch, because it is so raw. No sparkle, no trim, just pure unadulterated new content. I've grown to love it. Paul Jay is the man!

[@castelodeossos3947]

Not only is Mr Finkelstein an outstanding interviewee, but also Mr Jay is an outstanding interviewer. They strongly disagree but he still allows Mr Finkelstein to be heard. Fantastic series of interviews.

[@mmendi1114]

Dr. Finkelstein ... Iron man ... after watching this news piece on his life, I come to conclude that it's as if enduring pain is in their genes....how they do it is beyond my fathom...plus he compares it with other people's struggles and he counts it as nothing...lots of respect to you and your family.

[@kokoriko8110]

I have always enjoy listening to Dr Finkelstein, after watching series of 8 interviews I come to love him more

[@the81kid]

Good host kept his cool. Not sure I totally agree with Dr. Finkelstein, but he makes his arguments well and I can't fault his commitment to the Palestinians. He shouldn't be blacklisted - especially not by the BDS.

[@TheSECRETeam]

Disagreements on opinion/perspective or facts?

[@Zeckellin]

A great interview. Thank you, Norm and Paul - excellent job.

[@dauharryrahman3398]

Norman, you are a character and a very great one. I want you to know that I admire you.

[@antonioromano9963]

Thanks Paul for the interesting interview of Norman Finkelstein

[@jerrybriardy]

Fantastic interview! I just finished watching 8 of 8. I knew little about Dr. Finkelstein prior to this. It is nice to have his views clarified. Perhaps even more interesting to hear his life story. I look forward to following his work more closely.

[@pilots71]

This guy knows his shit!!! Well done good interview.....

[@iamwell5654]

I support BDS. I’m doing everything I can to divest from and boycott them. God bless Profession Finkelstein! We may be spilt on BDS but still love him

[@jawadkazmi5327]

thanks for this series of interviews. learnt so much from it. Much appreciated.

[@brehgankage6242]

Great debate. I learned so much from Prof. Finkelstein.

[@paulgibby6932]

A man of principle.

[@bhar11190]

Loved every bit of it...

[@EclecticSceptic]

Brilliant interviews between Norman Finkelstein and Paul Jay.

[@DD-fe2xw]

Stay strong and stay blessed norman finkelstein

[@Vandai2000]

Professor Finkelstein. I respect and admire you and your work. I agree with most of your ideas and I thank you for them. I've learnt and still learning from your writings. I disagree with you on BDS and I don't understand why no body in BDS has accepted to debate you. I would debate you on BDS and it would be a privilege and an honor.

[@monnajoyan463]

How ugly we human beings made this world for each others imagine if we never knew that we are one day dying and leaving this world and face creator and we will be accountable for what we did during life. Infinite thanks that God exist.

[@villageidiot8661]

Please have Norman back for the BDS debate. I love him to death. And I find all of his arguments reasoned, and well thought out. I don't understand the BDS argument. I literally do not understand the position. Academically, I can understand the position that it may be hypocritical to not afford Israel the same rights under international law that one may want for Palestinians. But I don't understand how that's important, because Israel is really not losing any "real" rights, just because BDS doesn't want to say this or that. To me, it seems that Norman gets emotional on the BDS issue and actually loses his intellectual scalpel, and starts talking about "cult." And I' don't get it. They're effective. They've been more effective than anyone else, as Paul pointed out. I read, I can't recall where, Phil Weiss making a point, that maybe Norman is emotional about this issue because of his family history, and I sympathize with that sentiment. But Norman, BDS needs you. Max Blumenthal, is literally out on his own. Please let's have a proper debate on this issue and let's sort things out on what the best strategy is. You can't be hanging out on the sidelines my friend. You're more than an academic. I learned more about Israel / Palestine from Norman Finkelstein than from anybody else. And now Max Blumenthal of course is carrying the torch quite well. But c'mon Norm. Let's get back in the fray. And fuck Barghouti. Let's have that debate. RN, please arrange it.

[@ramonalejandrosuare]

I think moral hypocrisy is a major impediment to any moral argument, so the issue is more than just whether or not Israel loses "real rights". Finkelstein has a major point here. If BDS is really making the claim that Israel is a human rights violator based upon international law it has to remain consistent on the issue of recognizing what the legal consensus says. If its advocates don't then they run the risk of looking self-contradictory and outside public consensus. Such an appearance would only serve to marginalize the boycott and divestment movement's aims in the long-run.

[@villageidiot8661]

I certainly didn't mean to be unfair to Norman. And your comment about the BDS people you've met is interesting. I've never met any. I'm more of a news consumer than an activist. But Max Blumenthal has also met these people. I certainly can't believe that Max would be okay with 1948.

[@segasys1339]

+Graeme Walker Finkelstein has addressed your concerns in depth in various videos available on youtube, including videos with Mehdi Hassan and Frank Barat. In sum, Finkelstein believes the problem with BDS is that it's umbrella covers people that flat out reject the state of Israel as a Jewish state. As Norman stated here in this video, that position is fine in and of itself, but it makes no sense in the context of the legal track of the BDS movement and, more importantly, is a non-starter in terms of reaching a broad public. If your position, however just it may be, precludes reaching a broad public, then Finkelstein is simply not interested. The first time I heard Norman refer to BDS as a cult I laughed it off as classic Finkekstein hyperbole. However, the more I study and debate with one state proponents, the more this label seems appropriate. I support one state in principle but the odds of it being successful are long at best. The one staters never even begin to explain how it could work, it's simply taken as a given in all of their proposals. If you have a rational explanation for how one state could work and be a likely success, I'm all ears. In the absence of that, I'll have to side with Finkelstein.

[@certaintonic8403]

+Eitan Ben Dor I'm gonna say one thing. Living alongside with people who bomb you for god knows how long now won't be in the interest of either.

[@GazaFloatilla]

paul jays a good guy, calm and intelligent from what I can tell

[@EclecticSceptic]

He's an oustanding journalist.

[@Doyadance]

how you can be a politician and honest at the same time!! that's so overwhelming

[@redalert2u]

VERY INFORMATIVE, LOVED IT

[@jazzvec]

Finkelstein is absolutely right on BDS.

[@37Dionysos]

Great program in every part TRNN!

[@lamaddussa]

I believe that BDS must apply to all Israeli products, as that will bring the necessary pressure on the state to end it's ethnic discrimination and abuse. I don't believe in limiting BDS to products produced in the occupied territories.

[@andrewhigdon8346]

These questions on immigration such that a new demographic will push out the preexisting demographic is merely a question of force. If immigrants find a land and culture into which they can assimilate without the use of force or even psychological terrorism, and that group ends up making the preexisting demo a minority, then so be it. The boundary where this demographic inversion is by choice or force is the greater concern. In the current Palestinian/Israeli conflict, the reality is clearly going to favor Palestinians as being far less guilty of such use of force. To claim that Israel only answers unrest with like force is a lie worthy of damnation. It would take a few decades of similar behavior by Palestinians to meet what Israel has wrought. Facts are facts, and I’ve been observing this since I moved to Riyadh as a child, and have been watching with as much self-checked lack of bias as possible the entire time. If Israel had adhered to the rules set forth upon the establishment of that land, none of this would ever have needed to happen. Period.

[@blackapecitychannel1125]

Shoutout to norman finkelsten

[@mambaman9363]

Finkelstein must be really loved in Israel. Nobody would believe he’s a holocaust survivor.

[@JuliusGalacki]

Norm is so often right and brave, but he's his own worst enemy. He is combative when he doesn't have to be, talks over people and gets very stubborn over minor details.

[@mmendi1114]

You know why... I think, and it is the case for most researchers and academia like him, they have thought it out so much... played with these issues and vigorously looked at them and approached them from all possible angles, all nooks and crannies, to an extent that they have reached a near-perfect stance ... its as if they feel they know everything about it because they have not left a stone unturned in the process...it becomes part of their identity so they defend their notion as such.

[@Recep007]

@@mmendi1114 nice response. You are absolutely right and I like that thought of yours, it makes a lot of sense.

[@sunny_zeddy_cy]

i definitely support isra*ls right to exist but i also support boycott divestment and sanctions in the context of violations of international law in their continued gen*cide and beseigement of Pal*st*ne generally i don't understand the issue that Norman is raising, i don't believe i've ever heard people say that isra*l should not exist and if there is an oddball who says this, i'd say its just an odd fringe perspective

[@astrixmatrix75]

Piers Morgan must watch this, for sure.

[@antonioromano9963]

Norman puts the finger on the wound

[@youretoopolitical8611]

Where is part one?

[@MrMathjo20]

I would like to apologize to those who felt that 1 of my comments in a previous interview with Mr. Finkelstein sounded too vain. That was not my intention at all. If a similar series of interviews (such as the ones above) were done with Noam himself, maybe you would all understand what I was trying to say.

[@ParrhesiaJoe]

I have a lot of respect for Noam. Noam often sounds a bit vain to me, in the same way as Finklestein. No one's perfect. I enjoy them both :). You might like James Corbett.

[@Danielle-zq7kb]

I think you can boycott divest and sanction Israel as an apartheid state while still holding the opinion that Israel has the right to exist when it ceases to be apartheid in nature. That holds to international law.

[@johnydiala2492]

Finkelstein is quite right that, under international law, Israel is a state. However, it is just that - a state. Not a _Jewish_ state, or an ethnic state, as it defines itself. BDS is opposed to Israel's existence as an ethnic state, because it's for the right of return. That is the fundamental difference. BDS is opposed to Israel's _ethnic_ existence, not its _legal_ or _political_ existence [in fact a hypothetical one-state can exist in which, under international law, Israel maintains its existence in a legal sense. It's just not, however, a Jewish state]. Its ethnic existence is the primary concern among Zionists, which is why they believe the Palestinian right of return is synonymous with the destruction of Israel. I also find that Finkelstein is somewhat hypocritical when it comes to the issue of international law. Is Hezbollah rocket fire not also illegal? Yet he supported that in 2006. International law is not relevant. They are these stringent, arbitrary rules created by powerful people to deny oppressed peoples their rights. They are not absolute. This conflict should be resolved on the basis of peace and justice, not what some documents say.

[@mmendi1114]

thanks for the info, I suppose it would be better to think that he supports Rocket fires in the context of retaliation and defense... when being offended and attacked through gunfire and ammunition then you don't exactly let the rockets rain on you. I mean he has studied Gandhi's views on non-violent movements and ahimsa and etc.

[@TheGodlessGuitarist]

I didnt like Norm's condescending tone in this one. He was making it hard for Paul to even ask a question at one point.

[@neilcomley7057]

I found Finkelstein highly bombastic in the way he argued in this part. In the earlier parts I admired his sometimes painfully honest self scrutiny and apparent attempts to reform himself intellectually and personally - by the end I was thinking he had a hell of a long way still to go! The problem as I see it is that he believes that he has progressed/reformed intellectually because he has given up the ideological certainties of Maoism and embraced methodological honesty and consistency (along with accepting the rule of international law!); in fact though all he's done is swap Maoist dogma for a rigid, dogmatic, black and white notion of intellectual consistency which we wields like a bludgeon if he is challenged. I didn't find his arguments - or his manner - convincing or appealing (unfortunately).

[@ramonalejandrosuare]

Neil Comley I did find his arguments convincing but agree with your take on how bombastic he looked in this last exchange. He lost his cool by the middle to the end of this part of the interview.

[@michellespiritual7729]

+Neil Comley - Ummm, b/c he DOES know this subject more than most of us do, so YES, he has the right to think he knows more. He studies it day & night. How much time do YOU spend studying this topic & over how many years? STOP judging people & look in the mirror. He's NOT a robot, he has every RIGHT to lose his temper every once in a while. I forgot, YOU are PERFECT!

[@TheSECRETeam]

Checkmate. Checkmate. Checkmate.

[@menschkeit1]

just wish he would help himself a bit more. The BDS criticism is valid but how much mileage is he getting from being so belligerently contrarian in this case? There are other options that wouldn't alienate him so much from the movement.

[@nash984954]

He IS the scholar of 30 years here. I'm not sure exactly, if whether BDS refuses to see Israel as a state because they won't define their borders as if when they do, they won't be able to expand and landgrab the surrounding half of Iraq and Saudi land and all of Syria, Jordan etc.especially in the manner they have done historically by rape, massacre, intimidation, mayhem, and general disruption and destablising of the area, whereas if they don't then BDS can then say Zionists are there illegally from the start, squatters who just made themselves at home in their country. Prof Norm gets frustrated I think, because so few understand the actual consistency in his stand. If the ICJ says the Wall is illegal, and that same wall is constructed in the legit state called Israel, then the State of Israel is a state, but BDS hasn't wanted to accept both rulings, it's in their document. Personally everyone who isn't indigenous who lives in Palestine now, should leave. That means the Jews who lived there before Zionism was created by Theodore Herzl, can stay, they are indigenous to Palestine. No ancient book determines demographics of populations 1000s of years ago. Unlikely as that is, the Ottoman Empire didn't take land of the Palestinians. Palestinians(the local peoples of the area before the European pisson the Middle East fest)have been a culture since before Islam. Zionists can't be Jews, their behavior is not like any Jews, who I was friends with from the Jewish Center School in the south. And I had 2 similar friendships 3 decades ago who were Arab and Persian. And no sense of hostility by any of them towards Americans, even in the time of an oil embargo that started USA's hateful f**ks to seep from the woodwork.

[@vulfranovasquez7357]

I still don't understand why Norman does not support BDS movement in general if it is a good try. He is not being realistic. the fact that BDS is agnostic on Israel doesn't mean that Israel is going to disappear. In the end BDS will force to negotiations for a two states agreement. Norman I really don't understand you, don't make me think that you are part of the conspiracy to keep the status quo. Yes, I know you have written books and study a lot this issue and there is no more qualified person than you on the Israel-Palestinian conflict, however, you are fighting only in the intellectual arena and bds is a fact, it deals with the real world. Therefore my two premises are: -BDS movement should accept Israel's right to exist. -Israel should accept Palestinians right for their own state to exist too and start negotiations asap. And without boycotts, diversity and sanctions none of that can happen. Am I crazy to think this way?....come on Norman whats wrong with you now. ???

[@generalruntime657]

>BDS movement should accept Israel's right to exist. That was Norman's whole point

[@seroccoprime2774]

I read that as the BDSM movement.

[@dawoodbatozai]

Let me respectfully disagree with Norman here because asking to be treated according to international law by default means Israel will definitely have a territory much more than it is entitled to. It will also have rights but the point is; did we expect the people of color in apartheid South Africa that they should first recognize the rights of white people? Last but not least, taking no position does not mean that you don't recognize a real entity with nuclear arms.

[@JuanWild51]

Finkelstein comparing 'cult of Mao' to' cult of BDS'? get real..

[@ResistEvolve]

It's interesting how when Finkelstein is asked about either BDS or Zionism that he deviates from the "Chomskian-style" that he learned at the master's knee!

[@the81kid]

I think he's getting p***ed off that people don't understand that he wants to do the thing that has the most chance of helping Palestinians. I don't know if I agree, but I definitely understand. Most people are stuck in their broken record groove, and don't seem to want to understand. He's being consistent. Maybe that's wrong, but it's commendable and he's doing it for the right reasons. He makes his case well.

[@FA8T]

+the81kid more that people have to get honest with themselves; there are only two options for BDS; you either recognise Israel or you don't, if you want your movement to be anchored in international law, or to hell with international law. There are lots of other things that weren't talked about. This is practical, a one state solution whatever you may think of them, the Israelis won't accept, or accept at this juncture, and the BDS movement could keep working towards that idea but there is one problem with that; there is a solution taking place as we talk, Israel annexing the West Bank, routinely massacring Palestinians and continuing it's expansions, the appalling horrendous blockade and on and on. That and it doesn't end have to be the end, but the most viable and achievable resolution is a two-state solution, it's a matter of time as much as anything. This is normally where inaccurate arguments about there being too many settlements come in, the settlements unless I am incorrect amount to 20 percent of the occupied territories, and a large number of them of are economic settlers and can be paid to go back to mainland Israel, and yes there are the loons but I doubt they would be soo cocky if they did not have the IDF to protect in a Palestinian State. That and they can be simply removed, despite what people say on both sides, settlers were removed in 2004, or how the French removed the pied noir settlers from Algeria when they left. People can't afford to prevaricate or be ambiguous if they actually care about these people's lives. With a heavy heart having been involved with BDS I just get the impression that people have given up on any solution unless it is all or nothing; that isn't surprising after everything that Israel has done and what happened with Oslo. But that just isn't good enough whilst people are being massacred.

[@smytheeboi]

FA8T I agree. I first got informed about this conflict by fairly hard-left, one-state opinions that seemed very powerful and convincing. But after more research, and more importantly after listening to Finkelstein's talks, it became clear that one-state is not something that could ever happen politically, regardless of the likelihood of two-state ever happening. I don't think there will ever be a point where two-state is out of reach, because people won't stop fighting for Palestinian statehood and the international community is involved to the point where they won't allow them to be exploited by getting a bad deal later on.

[@freshhug]

Why doesn't my 'thumbs up' count on this video?

[@paulgibby6932]

Paul Jay does a great job of handling a difficult interview. Finkelstein has a bad habit of domination, not necessarily required in arguing.

[@jorgeferreiro9783]

Not a whole lot of facts. A more detailed coverage of the Swiss banking settlement would have been useful

[@ResistEvolve]

Finkelstein seems to want to be agnostic on Zionism, the basis/impetus for all of these issues! So he can be agnostic on critical questions, apparently, whenever he chooses! And not a position is a position (Finkelstein appears to an opponent of the one-state no second-class citizen solution and thus a Zionist), although with regard to BDS it makes sense. With significant bending from Israel two-states may still be possible, but with the status quo that they've created it just doesn't make any sense!

[@nash984954]

It is BECAUSE he wishes to be consistent, that he takes the stand he does. He said he's for BDS. What BDS must do is to stop being contradictory. Either you agree with the ICJ, then you must go with Israel being recognised as a state, however Israel lied and became a state. This is the first time I have understood his argument. Before now, I didn't quite see his point, but it is a matter of saying yes to the wall by ICJ, which ICJ has said also there is a State called Israel. Truman recognised it as a state. Israel is going nowhere and Zionists are not going to leave. It's as if saying to solve the Native Americans so they are made equal the USA must decline being the USA, and allow all of the country taken by the USA to be returned. If BDS wants Israel to dissolve it won't just as the USA won't.

[@sunny_zeddy_cy]

i definitely support isra*ls right to exist but i also support boycott divestment and sanctions in the context of violations of international law in their continued gen*cide and beseigement of Pal*st*ne generally i don't understand the issue that Norman is raising, i don't believe i've ever heard people say that isra*l should not exist and if there is an oddball who says this, i'd say its just an odd fringe perspective

[@DividedLine]

lol that was lively.

[@MQB-dz8wr]

I’m not sure I understand Dr Finkelstein’s argument here? I don’t see how one can recognise the state of Israel and accept its right to exist while also recognising the need for liberation of the Palestinians. Genuine question, how can both exist? That would mean completely ignoring the nakba and displacement of 6 million Palestinian refugees around the world and their right to return? How can both exist at the same time?

[@Libbathegreat]

Finkelstein's been fairly clear on this. He supports a two-state solution because that is what is spelled out by international law and ignored blatantly by the state of Israel. You can agree or disagree with that. Here, I'm just presenting Finkelstein's views on this matter as I've come to understand them, and he has been pretty consistent. The right of return for descendants of the nakba exists as a fact of law. Israel is also a recognized state as a fact of law. That means there must be negotiation and that includes negotiation on right of return. In negotiations, no side gets everything they want, but each side should come away with something. The problem is that Israel prefers an all-or-nothing stance, and some of their opponents do as well. As evidenced by the past 75 years, it's clear that this posture will not produce a peaceful or equitable outcome. Every time there have been serious settlement talks, Israel has insisted upon the refugees of the nakba forfeiting their right of return as a condition, basically as a poison pill. That is bad faith negotiation. In other settings, Finkelstein has been unequivocal on this point: _no one_ has the right to deny their right of return. What he has said is that if Israel will not accept them returning to their lands, then Israel is obligated to offer a fair and equitable settlement that the refugees are willing to accept. That means some sort of reparations, whether monetary compensation, special privileges or other considerations. Israel has refused to do even that. Instead they manufactured the "making the deserts bloom" myth, which claims that this particular section of the Levant was basically a wasteland until the Jews came in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and that the Palestinian Arabs only showed up once the Jews switched the lights on. This is nonsense, of course, and Finkelstein was one of the first to publicly expose this claim for the fiction that it was. But some of the zero-sum people on the pro-Israeli side still cling to it regardless 🤷🏻‍♀

[@blackapecitychannel1125]

Im a god

[@LadyBug1967]

Actually i have decided: One State. Full stop

[@OneBlurryLens]

Lol. Paul is just asking questions. Lol.

[@numbersix8919]

...and he was never asked back again... (JK)

[@johnellis7614]

Norman states that to end this War on Palestine, which started by the invasion of 1948, that we cannot discuss the root cause, as the international public, the white Western public, only recognizes white international law. Problem is, the white Western world, including white Turkey, it is not part of the Middle-East, in fact, since BC 1405 when the white Hebrew race from Turkey did a genocide on the Promised Land, the white race has maintained a state of war in the Middle-East. And so, as white Europeans settlers invaded Palestine in 1948 to create a white Western state called Israel, where is the logic of justifying such a crime against humanity by passing judgment based on white international law? Just because white settlers stealing land at gunpoint is legal in the Western world, as evidenced by what happened to the native American Indian, why should such an immoral act be declared legal in Palestine?

[@goedelite]

I think Dr Finkelstein insists that BDS cannot be "agnostic" on Israel's statehood, because BDS proclaims itself in support of international law, and by that standard Israel was granted statehood in 1949 by the UN. To be agnostic and claim so support international law is, according to Finkelstein, inconsistent - a contradiction. Further, Finkelstein claims that in order to reach and hold a broad public in the US, BDS has to assert Israel's statehood as legitimate. Whether that is true and will continue to be true, we shall see, because - regrettably - the policies of Israel are alienating increasing numbers of Americans, including Jewish Americans. I find the discussion about BDS's "agnostism" pedantic. What matters is the effectiveness of divestment in changing Israel's policies. I should have preferred to have heard Finkelstein on this question.

[@blackapecitychannel1125]

Shoutout to the devil

[@rambo123uk]

He's turned into a bit of a coward in his old age. Defending international law instead of morality.