Norman Finklestein's and Noam Chomsky's stance on right of return puzzling.....

[RadioRaheem84]

I've heard Jewish-American activists Norm Finklestein and Noam Chomsky argue for the Palestinian right of return into Israel but after the whole BDS campaign came out, I've heard Norman Finklestein in an interview say some puzzling things.

First off BDS demands three things:
1.) End the Occupation
2.) Right of Return
3.) Full equality to Arab/Palestinian minorities

Now when grilled about his stance, Norm says that he thinks the right of Palestinians from the occupied territories to return all at once would destroy Israel as a Jewish state. Why is he making an obvious opposite argument?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASIBGSSw4lI

I don't understand how he vocally supported the right to return before but now just completely did a 180 and starts saying that he think if all refugees come back to Israel and were given equal rights that the Jewish State of Israel would not exist. I don't get this? What was he supporting before?

I am just confused on the whole subject. He supports a two state solution but what if half the population of the refugees wanted to return to their homes in Israel?

Can someone explain to me exactly what Norm is talking about. Same with Chomsky, who seems to think along similar lines.

[adipocere]

What I gathered is that he thinks BDS is impractical as any means to an end, especially considering the extreme violence of the Zionist Israel and the legitimate question of how would ordinary Israelis deal with an antagonized and angry Palestinian population that wanted to return it's former land. He seems to think that BDS is disingenuous on the use of a legal argument for only Palestinians while omitting the entire legal problem of Israel where both are recognized under international law. Underneath that he is implying that nobody will believe that the Palestinians would go into Israel peacefully.He also seems to think that the BDS movement is deliberately disingenuous on the question.

It seems that he is saying that BDS is a lot of naieve (or idealistic) hot-air that appeals to populist youth but that falls apart both legally and practically. The narrow framing of the interview and his combativeness make it slightly confusing but his opinion seems fairly clear by about 19:15.

[blake 3:17]

He's arguing for an imperfect settlement. It's a very good interview.

[blake 3:17]

After sleeping on it and thinking about all day, I tend to think Finklestein is at least half right. I was a supporter of a two state solution, got won over to a one state solution, haven't cared much in the past few years.

When I say it's a good interview above, I should clarify -- the interviewer seems to mean well but has the same incoherence much of the far left does. IAW is great and BDS is great but in terms of real accomplishments they're very limited. Finklesteins perspective is both principled and pragmatic.

I'd recommend it to both supporters of BDS and those sympathetic to the Palestinian people but who have reservations about BDS. It's a stimulating half hour!

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

I havent watched the video but as far as I know, his opinion on the topic is that a one state solution is ideal but that it's simply impractical with the social and political divides and disputes between Palestinians and Israelis. The problem of course is that those same issues make a two state solution similarly difficult - where would settlers deep within the West Bank move to? Would they need to take on Palestinian citizenship or would they get deported? How could any Palestinian government sit in East Jerusalem with so many major settlements surrounding it which Israel would demand annexation rights over? What should be done with control over the Jordan river?

A one state solution with equal rights for all is really the best way to ensure that the rights of Palestinians and Jews alike are respected politically (Aside of course from the "no state solution", though a "one state solution" seems to be practical within modern political confines) but IMO it is fair to bring up the practical issues in how that would be brought into being with there being not much push for that among the Israeli people who aren't far left - except for those who simply want to drive the Palestinians across the Jordan river, or who want a unified, truly apartheid state with an Arab population that has no rights at all. And that clearly isn't the kind of "one state solution" that we would want. (Also many Israelis, with justification, fear that many Arab proponents of a "one state solution" would like a similarly homogenous, unified Arab national state.)

I don't necessarily agree with his POV but he's certainly no Zionist.

[blake 3:17]

@SCM -- watch the video!!! I'm not saying he's necessarily right about everything -- and towards the end he's starts to totally lose patience with the dude interviewing him who has the usual half hearted sorta rational lefty "answers". Finklestein's saying that the movement can't be agnostic on the legal right of the state of Israel to exist and frigging for the 67 borders.

I was annoyed by the video the first few minutes and then got caught up in it. The dude is as sharp as they come, and he doesn't talk shit. I found reading his Holocaust Industry very painful in many ways, and the stuff on the Swiss banks really sorta weird, but if it's true, it's true, so fuck it.

But yeah do watch the interview in its entirety. It's well worth it.

This is an interesting memoir piece by Finkelstein from the North Star about his previous Maoism which includes a few superstars of that milieu: http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=10510

From that article:


Lies have an eddying effect; their ripples cannot be contained. Some decades back a controversy swirled around the authenticity of Anne Frank’s diary. “Even if she didn’t write it,” a Vietnamese communist friend lectured me, “she did write it.” He meant that a lie in the service of a noble cause isn’t really a lie. At the time his argument impressed me. It no longer does; in fact, it disgusts. The Bigger Truth can only grow out of little truths. Lies cannot contribute to a Bigger Truth, they contaminate it. If one starts tolerating little lies, they quickly multiply and the Bigger Truth metamorphoses into a Big Lie. The inevitable exposure of the little lie throws into question the Bigger Truth. When new evidence surfaced confirming that Julius Rosenberg had indeed been a Soviet spy, no amount of rationalization—“But he didn’t steal the secret of the atomic bomb”… “But Ethel Rosenberg was innocent”… “But he didn’t deserve the electric chair”… “But it was better that the Soviet Union did get the bomb”—could allay my deeper turmoil: if those who professed Julius’s innocence were either liars or dupes, then perhaps all the struggles that inspired me in my youth, of which the Rosenberg case was exemplary, had been a sham. Inversely, the Big Lie can smother little truths. When the foundational lies upon which the Soviet Union was built finally gave way, the Russian people went along with scrapping everything from the Soviet experiment, even what was perhaps of value—replacing it, alas, with a new platform of lies, as many belatedly rued.

[RadioRaheem84]

I'm still confused. Was Finkelstein making the argument that the full right of return for all Palestinians would be the end of Israel as what the other side would counter or was he actually making that argument himself? Because that's what it sounded like. He sounded as though Israel had to be majority Jewish in order for it to be Israel and the full right of return, with equal rights for all would destroy the Jewish state of Israel. That to me sounds like a bit of a Zionist argument. Towards the end he changed his tune a little but in the very beginning he sounded adamant about it.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I'm still confused. Was Finkelstein making the argument that the full right of return for all Palestinians would be the end of Israel as what the other side would counter or was he actually making that argument himself? Because that's what it sounded like. He sounded as though Israel had to be majority Jewish in order for it to be Israel and the full right of return, with equal rights for all would destroy the Jewish state of Israel. That to me sounds like a bit of a Zionist argument. Towards the end he changed his tune a little but in the very beginning he sounded adamant about it. He's arguing for a solution that's possible in the current political climate dominated by the US, EU and Israel. From the ruling political class's view, an Israel without a majority Jewish population is the same thing as there being no Israel at all. With that in mind, the right of return for every Palestinian abroad is off the table in his view. Which is probably right given that it's pretty damn unlikely that the US or EU would ever force something like that on to Israel, and those are exactly the two powers you'll need on your side if a bourgeois Palestinian state is ever to come into existence. Instead he would rather stick to defending something that can't really be argued against by any of the usual opponents, because it falls clearly within international law, but this requires him and anyone else to basically drop any real radical demands from Israel.

He's kinda giving up, but it's not hard to understand given how badly his person life has suffered from the political stances he's taken over the years. Also, this is really old why is it only coming up now?

[newdayrising]

Finkelstein's and Chomky's position is absolutely consistent with what they are, liberals.
People get puzzled because they're regarded as radicals, which they're not.
The thing is, if you defend the return of all palestineans, you're defending a one state solution, which is the same as defending the end of Israel, which is an impossibilty under the current capitalist system. If you defend the end of particular countries nowadays, you might as well be for international proletarian revolution. Which we might be, but they're not.
The working class has been weakened and capitalism has become such a freaky thing ideologically speaking that consistent, honest bourgeois liberals are perceived as revolutionaries by most, including people who consider themselves communists and anarchists.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I don't think that's necessarily true, Finkelstein has been and as far as I know, still is a marxist. He's bad mouthing the political cults that happen to get shit on in this forum all the time as well, not marxism. but yeah he's not a revolutionary I guess if thats what you mean.

[argeiphontes]

As for Chomsky, he believes that Israel/US are basically stalling while they consolidate a Greater Israel with a Jewish majority. Hence the one-state/two-state debate is becoming irrelevant.

http://www.zcommunications.org/the-one-state-two-state-debate-is-irrelevant-as-israel-and-the-us-consolidate-greater-israel-by-noam-chomsky.html

(Finkelstein had some good points in the interview about consistent legality.)

[newdayrising]

I don't think that's necessarily true, Finkelstein has been and as far as I know, still is a marxist. He's bad mouthing the political cults that happen to get shit on in this forum all the time as well, not marxism. but yeah he's not a revolutionary I guess if thats what you mean.

He used to be a maoist as far as I know and still claims to be "a communist" in the sense that if he could magically choose, he'd prefer some sort of stateless classless society.
But his actual politics have not been maoist, let alone really communist for at least as long as he has been in the public eye.
Whether he's a "marxist" in the sense that he subscribe to some kind of materialist conception of history (as, for instance Christopher Hitchens used to claim to be one while openly supporting capitalism) I don't know, but he's definitely not one as in defending class politics.
His whole thing has zero to do with the working class, or any particular class for that matter all he does is provide legal and historical research to support Palestinian nationalism, including cheerleading for all sorts of reactionary anti-working class organizations.
So it depends on what you consider a "marxist" to be...

[blake 3:17]

I'm still confused. Was Finkelstein making the argument that the full right of return for all Palestinians would be the end of Israel as what the other side would counter or was he actually making that argument himself? Because that's what it sounded like. He sounded as though Israel had to be majority Jewish in order for it to be Israel and the full right of return, with equal rights for all would destroy the Jewish state of Israel. That to me sounds like a bit of a Zionist argument. Towards the end he changed his tune a little but in the very beginning he sounded adamant about it.

He is echoing Arafat's and the PLO/PNC's position adopted in 1988.

If they do want an ethnically pure or ethnic majority, let them have it within limited borders and with compensation.

As for purist class politics? They're out the window on this one.

[newdayrising]

That to me sounds like a bit of a Zionist argument. Towards the end he changed his tune a little but in the very beginning he sounded adamant about it.

It should be noted that Finkelstein doesn't have a particular problem with the word "zionism" and doesn't even use it word very often, and considers it to be superficial and not very meaningful anymore.
And Chomsky goes as far as claiming to be a zionist, because he believes in Israel as an idea at least.

[blake 3:17]

Ok, here's a sound tactical/strategic use of defense of international law, which includes the right of Israel to exist, from CJPME (Canadians for a Just Peace in the Middle East). They disinvited the leader of the Green Party from speaking at a gathering of theirs because she called them anti-Israel.


CJPME CANCELS ELIZABETH MAY’S SPEAKING ENGAGEMENT AT OTTAWA FUNDRAISER
– FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE –
Montreal, Dec. 2, 2013 — Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME) has withdrawn its invitation to Green Party leader Elizabeth May to speak at its Ottawa fundraiser Dec. 5th. The decision was taken following the release of the full transcript of an interview May gave to the Jewish Tribune. “When we invited May, we had assumed that she would present a position that was closely aligned to the official Green Party position on the Middle East and Israel-Palestine,” stated CJPME President Thomas Woodley. The Green Party’s ‘Vision Green’ policy document on Israel-Palestine is clear in its intent to uphold international law, to promote the creation of a Palestinian state, and to seek to end the blockade of Gaza. “Unfortunately, May’s comments to the Jewish Tribune indicated that she intended to stray surprisingly far from the ‘Vision Green’ platform in her speech at our event,” continued Woodley. “As such, we felt it would be inappropriate to host her as a keynote speaker.”
May had accepted CJPME’s invitation to speak at its fundraiser earlier in the fall, and had not indicated any discomfort with CJPME’s policy focus on upholding international law in the Israel-Palestine conflict. Nevertheless, the Jewish Tribune article published November 19 – following an interview with May – quoted her as stating that CJPME maintained an “anti-Israel stance” that she wanted to distance herself from. CJPME immediately contacted May and asked her to correct the article if it misrepresented her stances. In response, May issued a statement on the Green Party website November 27th denying, among other things, that she had called CJPME “anti-Israel.” Nevertheless, two days later the Jewish Tribune published the full transcript and audio recording of the interview, which reveals that May’s “correction” was actually false.
The full transcript of the interview also revealed several other things, among them 1) that May was taking all her cues about CJPME from CJPME’s political opponents; 2) that May berated and belittled CJPME’s work for justice, peace, international law and human rights, and 3) that May had planned to use her speech to publicly oppose “a lot of the policies” of CJPME. “Naturally,” stated Woodley, “seeing the full transcript of the interview gave us pause for many reasons.”
CJPME has many friends within the Green Party, and fully recognizes that many of May’s comments were not representative of official Green Party policy on Israel-Palestine. CJPME’s policy work of the past eight years directly or indirectly is in alignment with every one of the Green Party’s seven policy points on Israel-Palestine. This extensive common ground was also reflected in CJPME’s highly positive review of Green Party Middle East policy in CJPME’s 2011 pre-election guide.
About CJPME - Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME) is a non-profit and secular organization bringing together men and women of all backgrounds who labour to see justice and peace take root again in the Middle East. Its mission is to empower decision-makers to view all sides with fairness and to promote the equitable and sustainable development of the region.
For more information, please contact Patricia Jean, 438-380-5410
Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East www.cjpme.org