Mission & Name
US Foreign Policy (Dr. El-Najjar's Articles)
A Few Comments on Recent Norman Finkelstein
Interview with Frank Barat
By Gilad Atzmon
Al-Jazeerah, CCUN, February 20, 2012
Norman Finkelstein has recently bought himself a few
enemies within the Palestinian solidarity movement for openly and
enthusiastically advocating the Two States Solution. In the last interview
it seems as if Finkelstein defends Israel’s right to exist.
From an academic point of view, Finkelstein has a point.
He argues that in order to win we have to operate within the parameters set
by international law. However, some points should be made here.
It is far from being clear who sets the parameters of
international law. Is it really the international community? Or is it just a
few powerful Western countries looking into their own particular
It is also far from being clear whether the international law is either
ethically or sensible. Is it ethical to let the Jewish State celebrates
its exceptional symptoms at the expense of the indigenous people of the
land i.e. the Palestinians? Is it sensible to maintain an, aggressive,
expansionist, racist, and exclusivist, nuclear Jewish State in Middle
East? Is it safe? Is it good for world peace.
It is far from being transparently obvious to me why an American Jewish
academic or any other Western solidarity activist should have a say
about the way or manner in which Palestinian should live on their land.
I, for instance, have never come across a Palestinian academic preaching
Britain to divide its island by resurrecting the wall at the Scottish
border. The meaning of it is simple, there is something fundamentally
pretentious in the solidarity discourse and in resolution discourse in
particular. We, for some reason, like to tell others what is right or
Do we need to discuss resolution for the conflict? Israel is already a
one State, it has a single electric grid, one sewage system, one
international pre dial number. Yet Israel is dominated politically by an
oppressive and racially exclusive Jewish political philosophy. This has
to be changed and it will be changed by means of resistance with our
solidarity or without it.
Yet, Finkelstein’s criticism of the solidarity
movement is largely valid. The recent expulsion of Palestinians and academics from
the UK PSC, proves that we aren’t just dealing with a ‘cult’ discourse
as Finkelstein suggests, far worse, we are actually dealing with a
rabbinical operation that exercises the most repulsive Judaic
Finkelstein is correct when he suggests that the
achievements of the solidarity ‘cult’ operations are pretty limited.
However, he may fail to realise that solidarity with the Palestinian
doesn’t end in the West, in NYC, London or Paris. The recent political
triumph of Muslim parties in the region is fuelled by Hamas and
Hezbollah victories. It is more than
likely, that the Palestinians and the Aabs will liberate themselves.
Unlike Finkelstein, I believe that the solidarity
movement is already a mass movement. More and more people out there
grasp that the continuum between Israel, AIPAC and the Conservative
Friends of Israel (CFI) is the biggest threat to world peace. More and
more Brits are astonished to find out that all the British political
parties are controlled by the Israel Lobby (Friends of Israel), CFI,
LFI, & LDFI . How many British politicians are as friendly with
Hartlepool or Penzance? More and more Brits and Americans grasp that
their politicians are for sale. They realise that on the Israeli
shopping list, a Western politician comes out much cheaper than a tank.
More and more Brits and Americans come to realise that in this crucial
battle for elementary freedom ‘We
are all Palestinians.’