The State of "Palestine" Quiz

[gimmesometruth27]

and dershowitz is not a prick?

any man that can make such an impassioned defense of one o.j. simpson has zero credibility in my book. it means he would be willing to sell his soul and his integrity to prove a lie that simpson was innocent...and in dealing with this issue, i believe that integrity is very important.

[Byrnzie]

It's not bullshit at all. The man doesn't give a shit about other people's sensitivities. There's video of him reducing a college girl to tears in front of a college audience. Whether or not you think he's right (in that particular instance or in general), most people, I think, would consider the manner in which Finkelstein often addresses himself to others to be "dickish."

He didn't reduce her to tears. She was already weeping when she stepped up to the podium. The girl was pathetic, and attempting to use emotional blackmail and the memory of the holocaust to excuse and justify Israel's crimes against the Palestinians, and Finkelstein was right to put her in her place.

[yosi]

You do understand that this was a book review. It's supposed to sum up the reviewers opinion of the book. It's not a legal brief. You can't fault the man for not writing an essay picking apart Finkelstein's book. That's not his job. His job is to write a review.

As for Finkelstein being supported by the facts, no less than the late Peter Novick, of the University of Chicago, whom Finkelstein himself cited as the scholarly inspiration for writing the Holocaust Industry, said in his own review of Finkelstein's book that:

"No facts alleged by Finkelstein should be assumed to be really facts, no quotation in his book should be assumed to be accurate, without taking the time to carefully compare his claims with the sources he cites.”

[Byrnzie]

I don't get what the point of your last post is. It makes exactly my point. Finkelstein wrote a sensationalist book about holocaust profiteering, off of which he has profitted greatly. There is an irony there.

Would you have been happy if he had refused to accept any royalties for a book that he spent at least a year writing?
Your argument is pathetic.

Bartov never reversed himself. He never denied that there is holocaust profiteering. He simply thinks that Finkelstein's assertion, that the entire manner in which Jews relate to the holocaust the world over is some sort of conspiracy to extort money and shield Israel from criticism, is a crock of shit.

Except that isn't what Finkelstein said, and it isn't the purpose of the book at all. His assertion isn't that Jews, the World over, are guilty of this extortion, but that certain people and organizations are. But then you know that already. That's just an attempt on your part to trivialize and denigrate the book instead of addressing any of the facts contained in it.

[yosi]

Yeah Dershowitz is also a prick (don't know why we're talking about him now too), although as a law student I firmly believe that everyone is entitled to a competant defense, so faulting him for defending O.J. isn't really fair.

B, whatever, the girl isn't the point. The point is that Finkelstein is not a nice, caring, person. He treats other people like shit.

Whatever, I posted the review. It can speak for itself. People on here can make their own decisions whether on this subject they want to place more trust in you or in the expert scholar from one of the best universities in the world.

[Byrnzie]

You do understand that this was a book review. It's supposed to sum up the reviewers opinion of the book. It's not a legal brief. You can't fault the man for not writing an essay picking apart Finkelstein's book. That's not his job. His job is to write a review.

Your desperation is telling.
So now we're led to believe that it's beyond the remit of any review to actually provide any evidence supporting the criticism's it makes. We're just supposed to take the reviewers word for it, are we?

"No facts alleged by Finkelstein should be assumed to be really facts, no quotation in his book should be assumed to be accurate, without taking the time to carefully compare his claims with the sources he cites.”

So what? This critical thinking should be applied to any book, or article, should it not? In fact, I'm sure Finkelstein would agree wholeheartedly with Peter Novick's comments.

[Byrnzie]

B, whatever, the girl isn't the point. The point is that Finkelstein is not a nice, caring, person. He treats other people like shit.

I disagree.

I've seen many of his debates and public talks, and also the documentary 'American Radical', and I've never once seen or heard him treat anyone like shit, unless, like Dershowitz, they fully deserved it.

Your attempt at character assassination, whilst failing to actually address any of the points Finkelstein has made, says more about you than it does about him.

Someone who has dedicated the better part of his life to trying to relieve the suffering of an entire people, by highlighting the lies and obfuscations put forth by those apologists of ethnic cleansing, is, in my opinion, a nice, caring person.

Here's a question for you: Have you actually read any of his books?

[yosi]

Really? Now you're pretending that Novick's comments aren't a criticism but just a friendly reminder to read critically?

I abridged a little. Here's a more complete version of Novick's quote:

“As concerns particular assertions made by Finkelstein concerning reparations and restitution, and on other matters as well, the appropriate response is …examination of his footnotes. Such an examination reveals that many of those assertions are pure invention. … No facts alleged by Finkelstein should be assumed to be really facts, no quotation in his book should be assumed to be accurate, without taking the time to carefully compare his claims with the sources he cites."

But yeah, you're right, he's just making a general appeal for more critical reading.

As for Bartov's review, I'll be sure to let him know for the future that when he publishes a 800 word book review in a general interest publication he should provide a detailed point by point rebuttal to all the claims made in the work he's reviewing just in case his review is ever cited on an obscure band fansite internet thread.

[yosi]

I have not read his books. Scholars I put a great deal of faith in have left me with the impression that his books are not worth reading, so I've found better uses for my time. That said, I've also watched many of his debates and read many of his articles. I don't generally find them convincing, and unlike you I do find him to be a dick towards others. This is not an attempt at character assassination. I am not trying to say he's wrong because he's a dick. I'm saying that I think he's a dick, and he also happens to be wrong.

[Byrnzie]

Really? Now you're pretending that Novick's comments aren't a criticism but just a friendly reminder to read critically?

I abridged a little. Here's a more complete version of Novick's quote:

“As concerns particular assertions made by Finkelstein concerning reparations and restitution, and on other matters as well, the appropriate response is …examination of his footnotes. Such an examination reveals that many of those assertions are pure invention. … No facts alleged by Finkelstein should be assumed to be really facts, no quotation in his book should be assumed to be accurate, without taking the time to carefully compare his claims with the sources he cites."

But yeah, you're right, he's just making a general appeal for more critical reading.

That's very clever of you. You now accuse me of 'pretending' something?
The part of his quote you posted previously made no mention of Finkelstein indulging in pure invention, so I was perfectly right to take the quote for what it was.

Was this just a little trick you decided to play in the pursuit of one-upmanship?


Anyway, as far as Peter Novick's claim that Finkelstein has indulged in 'pure invention', I couldn't care less. Finkestein's book has been independently verified and supported by other scholars, as I pointed out above.


RAUL HILBERG: And I was struck by the fact, even as I, myself, was researching the same territory that Professor Finkelstein was covering, that the Swiss did not owe that money, that the $1,250,000,000 that were agreed as a settlement to be paid to the claimants was something that in very plain language was extorted from the Swiss. I had, in fact, relied upon the same sources that Professor Finkelstein used, perhaps in addition some Swiss items.
...I was saying the same thing, and I had published my results in that three-volume work, published in 2003 by Yale University Press, and I did not hear from anybody a critical word about what I said, even though it was the same substantive conclusion that Finkelstein had offered. So that’s the gist of the matter right then and there.
...It takes an enormous amount of academic courage to speak the truth when no one else is out there to support him. And so, I think that given this acuity of vision and analytical power, demonstrating that the Swiss banks did not owe the money, that even though survivors were beneficiaries of the funds that were distributed, they came, when all is said and done, from places that were not obligated to pay that money. That takes a great amount of courage in and of itself. So I would say that his place in the whole history of writing history is assured, and that those who in the end are proven right triumph, and he will be among those who will have triumphed, albeit, it so seems, at great cost.

AVI SHLAIM: His last book, Beyond Chutzpah, is based on an amazing amount of research. He seems to have read everything. He has gone through the reports of Israeli groups, of human rights groups, Human Rights Watch and Peace Now and B’Tselem, all of the reports of Amnesty International. And he deploys all this evidence from Israeli and other sources in order to sustain his critique of Israeli practices, Israeli violations of human rights of the Palestinians, Israeli house demolitions, the targeted assassinations of Palestinian militants, the cutting down of trees, the building of the wall — the security barrier on the West Bank, which is illegal — the restrictions imposed on the Palestinians in the West Bank, and so on and so forth. I find his critique extremely detailed, well-documented and accurate.

[Byrnzie]

I'm saying that I think he's a dick, and he also happens to be wrong.

And just what is he 'wrong' about?

[yosi]

It wasn't a trick. It just happened to work out nicely for me. I thought the meaning of the bit I quoted originally was clear (I suspect it was, even to you, but whatever).

And many scholars have criticized him as a hack. It all depends on who you choose to put your faith in. I will continue to put more faith in the people who don't seem, to me, to be driven by bias, and who are therefore capable of perceiving the complexities and nuances of the world we live in (which is not a quality that I've found in Finkelstein).

I think he's wrong about many things. I think he's right about a few things as well. It was a general statement.

[Byrnzie]

And many scholars have criticized him as a hack. It all depends on who you choose to put your faith in. I will continue to put more faith in the people who don't seem, to me, to be driven by bias, and who are therefore capable of perceiving the complexities and nuances of the world we live in (which is not a quality that I've found in Finkelstein).

Yep, I suppose it's only to be expected that a Jewish son of holocaust survivors would be 'biased' in favour of the rights of Palestinians.

I think he's wrong about many things. I think he's right about a few things as well. It was a general statement.

Conveniently vague reply.

[yosi]

What, do you expect me to list every thing he's ever said I disagree/agree with?

[Byrnzie]

What, do you expect me to list every thing he's ever said I disagree/agree with?

No. Just one thing will do.

You said above that:

he also happens to be wrong

So you must know what it is he's wrong about, right?