Listen now (119 min) | My guest this week is the political scientist and wildly prolific author Norman Finkelstein. If you know Norman’s work and history, you’ll know that some view him as a controversial figure. His criticisms of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians, the cultural legacy of the Holocaust, the Democratic Party, and any number of other hot-button topics have made him virtually persona non grata in mainstream circles. I’ve even received emails from viewers asking me not to post this conversation, despite the fact that, until now, no one except Norman, me, and my team knew what was said in it. Perhaps you think his ideas are so toxic that he should be silenced. Clearly, I don’t think he should be.
1.) I will give credit where it is due. I thought NF was open to Glenn's criticism (I wish Glenn would have given more of it!).
2.) To call Israel an apartheid state is asinine. Israeli-Arabs have rights. NON ISRAELI Arabs are allowed to work in Israel but are not treated the same way as Israeli Arabs (why would they - they are not Israeli citizens!) The non-Israeli Arabs art treated commensurate with their aggression against the Israeli citizenry.
3.) I understand Glenn relating to NF on being attacked from with in due to the criticisms of the communities to who they belong. However, I see two major differences between Glenn and NF on this ...
A.) Glenn is often right. NF is often foolish on his comments on Israel and the Holocaust. Candace Owens often gets hate for her critique of the black community from black people; in her case (like NF) she often deserves the response she gets for her bombastic approach.
B.) Glenn has a strong commitment to the black community; his criticisms come from a place of love. NF is ethnicity Jewish and has made vigorous conscientious efforts to distance himself from Jewish peoplehood (he despises the concept).
4.) You can tell a person according to whom they praise. NF worships at the feet of Noam Chomsky. It would be understandable if it were in the realm of linguistics. It is his (Chomsky 's) activism that FN styles himself in. To his credit NF opposes the woke. However, that moral bank account is still far in the red with his comments on Israel, the Holocaust, Charlie Hebdo, etc.
5.) When I was in youth group I remember a kid who was a anarchist/extreme leftist. He was howling about Jews focusing on the Holocaust so they gave him a platform to state his case and he mitigated it's (the Holocaust) relevance and importance because more people were killed in other genocides. NF reminds me of this kid. I would not classify him (NF) as a self-hating Jew. I would put him in the camp of the many other atheists of Jewish ethnicity who desire to be a "citizen of the world" and think that can only be achieved by vigorously separating themselves from Jews and specific concerns of the Jewish community (Israel and the Holocaust). You can see this approach peppered through out the conversation with Glenn where NF went through a lot of effort to point out how he was not specially interested in Jews or matters to Jewish interests.
6.) All this being said I don't necessarily disagree with NF on all counts of Israel and the Holocaust. I acknowledge that both subjects can be used to try to manipulate people into agreement based on the threat of being labeled antisemitic.
However, there is a difference between legitimately criticizing Israel and labeling it "satanic" and it's actions "a Holocaust" just as one could say disproportionately focusing on the Holocaust can be a disservice to acknowledging other tragedies and genocides inflicted on other cultures without calling it "the Holocaust industry." Play stupid games win stupid prizes. It's amazing how misguided intelligent people can say and believe in things so dumb.
I will also say that I have read most if not all of Alen Dershowitz's books on Israel. I found them worthwhile and often convincing, but I acknowledge that the academic rigor he is probably capable of was not reflected in the material in the books.
7.) I don't put the importance that some put on the Holocaust with regard to how it is unique in it's nature and implementation. However, I would make a couple observations which I think make it unique from other genocides (not that it diminishes the atrocity are importance of other genocides). I am not aware of citizens of THEIR OWN country being targeted for their ethnicity for genocide. I am also not aware of a country with such high standards for civility and culture (Germany) inflicting such barbarity on the world.
Welp add us to the august list of people who disagree in the comments.
I will only add that:
1 - there is a distinction between and idea and a moral judgment and in the later case the actions of the person passing judgment do matter.
2 - as much as I respect Glenn and enjoy his commentary, his opinion on how to run an business would mean far less to me than that of someone who has actually done it, and I suspect he would agree with this sentiment.
I just wish I could see the faces of people who bought into Finklestein’s simplistic and hyperbolic version of the Israel-Palestine Conflict now being called ignorant and fraudulent by him. Ooo boy, this was a fun one ☕️
One further point to add to others I have made here. Going back to what I say about K-12 educators and their uses of the Holocaust. Rarely (as near as I could tell) or minimally do these materials relate the Holocaust to the founding of Israel - as I said earlier, as opposed to Finkelstein's view that the Holocaust is used to justify Israel. In my view, the absence of much or any reference to Israel in these materials is because their "narrative" is the Jews as ultimate victims. Hence the loving dwelling on the emaciated bodies, the gaunt expressions, the hopeless passivity of the camp survivors, etc. The story these materials usually tell is of the Jews as victims. In fact, bringing Israel into that story integrally would upset that narrative and so it is rarely done. The building of Israel makes the Holocaust the story it in fact is, a story of Jewish resilience. A defiant "we will live, we will thrive, and we will reclaim our homeland." Jewish agency, not victimhood, ought to be the story that is told about the Holocaust. So, in that sense, I say to Norman F, yes, bring Israel into it. There is no shame in that, it is a central part of the story, a story far, far from over.
Re “as opposed to Finkelstein's view that the Holocaust is used to justify Israel”… that would not be just NF’a nor a tiny minority’s view. It was without question a core reason for the establishment of Israel, and the UNGA partition decision in 1947. If not THE core reason, one of two core arguments. Absent the Holocaust it would have been a much harder sell, particularly wrt the USSR.
My comments have been in response to Finkelstein's notion that Jews have used the Holocaust in a major way to justify Israel SINCE Israel's founding, and that this explains the way the Holocaust has been stressed over the past decades SINCE Israel's founding. I believe that is frankly absurd. As to 1947, of course the Holocaust may have influenced many people at the time to support Israel's founding itself. However, it is a big stretch to call it a "core reason" or "THE core reason." First of all, earlier partition plans predate the Holocaust - as does the entire Zionist return to create a homeland in Palestine, which began before Hitler was born. Or take your statement about "particularly with the USSR." In fact, as Jeffrey Herf shows in his book "Israel's Moment," Stalin's brief year or so supporting Israel was due to his calculation that Israel, as a seeming socialist society, would be a bulwark against the British Empire in the region. (He got over that dream quickly and soon turned to backing the Arab regimes instead.) No doubt some Russians and Eastern bloc members felt a few pangs of sympathy for Jews in the Nazi Holocaust. It is inconceivable that Stalin cared for a single second about any of them, since he had murdered even more of his own innocents and was gearing up to go after Jews himself a bit later.
I have no issue with ideas being introduced so long as they can be defended. No one is able to defend communism on either its merits or its results, unless mass murder has somehow become a good thing. Finkelstein may identify as a "small c communist," whatever that means but he seems quite happy functioning in a capitalist system where his ideas can be aired. Try being on the opposite side in a communist regime and see how it works out.
Communists do not agree with wokeism, also free discussions are very much permissable in most historic socialist nations.. the view you have of our countries is fucking stupid.
Also disappointed in Glen, no pushback at all. Finkelstein is a moral midget and childish thinker. Like most who hurl invective at Israel from the cheap seats, he has never actually had do anything, build anything or physically defend anything or anyone. He has the luxury to remain pure while judging the people who have their hands in the dirt.
The fact that he is correct about the wokes just proves the old adage about broken clocks.
Ah you misunderstand, sorry if I wasn't clear. By 'hands in the dirt' I mean to say doing something physical in the real world - moving atoms. Finklestein sits in buildings built and maintained by others, is protected by military and police forces in which he did not serve. He does not have the moral authority to judge others who actually have to do difficult things in the real world and in real time.
Hilarious. When introducing young Black people to the work of Black writers DuBois, Carter G Woodson, Martin Delaney, Toni Morrison, Maya Angelou, Zora Neale Hurston, Frederick Douglas, Phylis Wheatley, etc are among the usual starting points. Octavia Butler is included for those who love SciFi.
Hanna-Nicole Jones and Ibrim X Kendi are rarely induced. It is amusing to watch people waste time arguing about Kendi. Jones has a children’s book “Born in the Water”. Young readers are reminded that Black people were enslaved. They were not born in the water. Youth interested in where Black people originated are introduced to literature about the Continent of Africa. Summer reading classes include Zoom sessions where children in the United States are able to interact with Black children from Africa, the Caribbean, and South America. In other words, they are exposed to the Diaspora.
Listening to the outrage about Kendi is like watching a sitcom
I’m disappointed in Glen not pushing back on the leftist Chomsky-like attitude to using “apartheid” relative to Israel as a state. Palestine leadership wants the elimination of the Jews, hard to negotiate with people who only want your extermination.
That’s right, he calls for resistance against the occupation. He wouldn’t be a popular leader if he didn’t. I notice you didn’t address my response. Most Palestinians want a negotiated solution that gives them citizenship. Currently the status quo is apartheid, which Israeli leaders are just fine with.
Please, let’s not even remotely pretend there is decency on either side at times. There isn’t.
But Israel remains the only democratic country in the ME with free and fair elections. And they treat their women, gay and minority communities like human beings, which is more than can be said for most of the Arab world. I know, I lived there for 10 years.
You should ask the Gay community in Palestine that question, or at least do some discovery on it. How a state treats its citizens, is important, obviously, that includes every citizen. You certainly think it is as it pertains to Israel.
It’s not a democratic election when 40% of the people under your control can’t vote. It’s certainly not “free and fair” when the nation controlling your borders, denying you citizenship, confiscating your land and natural resources, etc denies you the right to vote on these policies.
Criticizing one side and not the other is antithetical to being honest on the issues. They all must bear the burden of how they choose to live, in peace or not. They all make decisions that perpetuate warring. My daughter attended school with Arab children who told her that calling someone a “Jew” was the greatest insult. I have no doubt some children in Israel are raised and taught similarly against Arabs.
So I frankly don’t see how anyone can come down on one side or the other, both sides are at fault. None, in the leadership on either side that is, the innocent women and children are simply pawns in the game, are blameless.
Sure, but one side has all the tanks, all the helicopters, all the artillery pieces and controls the existence of the other. Only one side has citizenship, one side controls the border and the natural resources. Don't pretend like this is a "both sides" kind of discussion.
The class topic is on point. But there are still some blacks who feel that race and class are the same thing. They are not able to distinguish them. That goes back to what I have said many times. Black culture is subjective. People will keep moving the goal post in any direction on that field.
People set their own goal posts. My definition of Black culture includes the Diaspora. the United States is not limited to enslavement, the Caribbean includes freeing Haiti, Europe includes classical musicians. Canada includes the history of Nova Scotia. There were Blacks in Europe at the time of the Renaissance. We have recently been reminded that there are Afro Ukrainians and Afro-Russians. I find Black culture fascinating.
Finkelstein's love for Sanders blinds him. Of course the Democrat elites didn't want Sanders to win the nomination because they thought Biden had a better chance against Trump.
Fascinating and instructive. Honestly, I had never heard Dr. Finkelstein speak and was pleased that Dr Loury pretty much gave him a free rein to rattle on.
In the past, I had read allegations that Dr. Finkelstein had been on the payroll at one time or another of both Hamas and Hezbollah. I have no idea if those allegations are true and was a bit disappointed that this issue did not surface during the interview given the degree to which Dr. Finkelstein has repeatedly condemned Israel in his many books.
Frankly, I have always found Dr. Finkelstein’s mentor, Noam Chomsky, to be certifiably nuts. But, like Dr. Loury, I found myself often nodding my head in agreement with many of the points Dr. Finkelstein was making.
I am continually impressed by Dr. Loury’ s willingness to host guests on this podcast with whom he may have profound disagreement and yet the respect and decency to allow such persons the opportunity to be heard.
Based on your self-censorship paper, I had always thought of standing to speak on particular issues as being a form of protection offered by immutable characteristics related to race, gender, etc. But Finkelstein seems to have standing based on earned cover. His perspective on Obama has a different meaning because of his perspectives on Israel as a Jew. His natural cover on that topic seems to extend to standing on other issues.
If I am understanding this correctly, it is saying that because Finkelstein is a Jew, he has "natural cover" to criticize Israel, and this then gives him "earned cover" to criticize Obama. I don't see it that way, though I suppose some might. I thought his criticisms of Obama were refreshingly on target. Delightful, really, However, I think his criticisms of Israel and American Jews are ridiculous caricatures. He's a Jew, I'm a Jew. By and large, the Jews I know do not give other Jews "natural cover." Two Jews, three opinions, the joke goes. In my upbringing it was not a joke, it was plain reality.
Yes that's what I was saying. The ideas of standing and natural cover are discussed by Glenn in this brilliant paper (the video I linked to is a conversation about the paper):
If it was Richard Spencer, say, rather than Finkelstein who made the same criticisms of Israel, one might think they were made in bad faith, based on tribal loyalties or to support an ideological narrative. Dershowitz would probably be inclined to ignore the criticisms, and so would most others.
Similarly if Jim Jordan, say, had made the criticisms of Obama. I was suggesting (and Glenn may not agree) that Finkelstein's natural cover in one domain spills over as earned cover to other domains.
My point is not about whether he is right or wrong about Israel or Obama, just that what we know of his potential tribal loyalties affects our interpretation of his claims.
One more point. Natural cover is not about members of a group giving each other standing, it's about people outside the group taking certain arguments more seriously. Insiders may react with alarm and fury, and view the critic as a traitor. This too is discussed in Glenn's paper, in part informed by his own experience.
Yes, I see what you are saying. I certainly see that many pro-Israel Jews do direct their strongest "fury," as you say, against Jews like Finkelstein. But I don't view him as a traitor in part because, as I said, it is so common for Jews to argue with one another. Besides, he is clearly thoughtful. I have to say a critic of Israel like Ilhan Omar or, at times even, Obama, or the WASP denizens of the State Department at many times in the past do arouse my fury more. I worry a lot about Jews in this country growing indifferent or hostile to Israel, but I don't think I view them as traitors. A guy like Finkelstein seems to me almost like one of the family. Like someone at the dinner table, about whom you say, "oh good grief, there he goes again." He's a smart guy, but a pain. Next to the UN, Iran, BDS or his onetime heroine Angela Davis, he's not that big a problem and a good goad to better thinking.
Yes I think some insiders will react like you do, and others will react like Dershowitz. Same with the reaction to Glenn himself, some of the harshest attacks come from within his own community but also a lot of respect from those who disagree quite sharply on substance. The amazing this is that Glenn laid out the logic of this so clearly in his paper three decades ago.
A few points:
1.) I will give credit where it is due. I thought NF was open to Glenn's criticism (I wish Glenn would have given more of it!).
2.) To call Israel an apartheid state is asinine. Israeli-Arabs have rights. NON ISRAELI Arabs are allowed to work in Israel but are not treated the same way as Israeli Arabs (why would they - they are not Israeli citizens!) The non-Israeli Arabs art treated commensurate with their aggression against the Israeli citizenry.
3.) I understand Glenn relating to NF on being attacked from with in due to the criticisms of the communities to who they belong. However, I see two major differences between Glenn and NF on this ...
A.) Glenn is often right. NF is often foolish on his comments on Israel and the Holocaust. Candace Owens often gets hate for her critique of the black community from black people; in her case (like NF) she often deserves the response she gets for her bombastic approach.
B.) Glenn has a strong commitment to the black community; his criticisms come from a place of love. NF is ethnicity Jewish and has made vigorous conscientious efforts to distance himself from Jewish peoplehood (he despises the concept).
4.) You can tell a person according to whom they praise. NF worships at the feet of Noam Chomsky. It would be understandable if it were in the realm of linguistics. It is his (Chomsky 's) activism that FN styles himself in. To his credit NF opposes the woke. However, that moral bank account is still far in the red with his comments on Israel, the Holocaust, Charlie Hebdo, etc.
5.) When I was in youth group I remember a kid who was a anarchist/extreme leftist. He was howling about Jews focusing on the Holocaust so they gave him a platform to state his case and he mitigated it's (the Holocaust) relevance and importance because more people were killed in other genocides. NF reminds me of this kid. I would not classify him (NF) as a self-hating Jew. I would put him in the camp of the many other atheists of Jewish ethnicity who desire to be a "citizen of the world" and think that can only be achieved by vigorously separating themselves from Jews and specific concerns of the Jewish community (Israel and the Holocaust). You can see this approach peppered through out the conversation with Glenn where NF went through a lot of effort to point out how he was not specially interested in Jews or matters to Jewish interests.
6.) All this being said I don't necessarily disagree with NF on all counts of Israel and the Holocaust. I acknowledge that both subjects can be used to try to manipulate people into agreement based on the threat of being labeled antisemitic.
However, there is a difference between legitimately criticizing Israel and labeling it "satanic" and it's actions "a Holocaust" just as one could say disproportionately focusing on the Holocaust can be a disservice to acknowledging other tragedies and genocides inflicted on other cultures without calling it "the Holocaust industry." Play stupid games win stupid prizes. It's amazing how misguided intelligent people can say and believe in things so dumb.
I will also say that I have read most if not all of Alen Dershowitz's books on Israel. I found them worthwhile and often convincing, but I acknowledge that the academic rigor he is probably capable of was not reflected in the material in the books.
7.) I don't put the importance that some put on the Holocaust with regard to how it is unique in it's nature and implementation. However, I would make a couple observations which I think make it unique from other genocides (not that it diminishes the atrocity are importance of other genocides). I am not aware of citizens of THEIR OWN country being targeted for their ethnicity for genocide. I am also not aware of a country with such high standards for civility and culture (Germany) inflicting such barbarity on the world.
Welp add us to the august list of people who disagree in the comments.
I will only add that:
1 - there is a distinction between and idea and a moral judgment and in the later case the actions of the person passing judgment do matter.
2 - as much as I respect Glenn and enjoy his commentary, his opinion on how to run an business would mean far less to me than that of someone who has actually done it, and I suspect he would agree with this sentiment.
This was a podcast where lots the guest made many claims without providing any supporting data.
I just wish I could see the faces of people who bought into Finklestein’s simplistic and hyperbolic version of the Israel-Palestine Conflict now being called ignorant and fraudulent by him. Ooo boy, this was a fun one ☕️
One further point to add to others I have made here. Going back to what I say about K-12 educators and their uses of the Holocaust. Rarely (as near as I could tell) or minimally do these materials relate the Holocaust to the founding of Israel - as I said earlier, as opposed to Finkelstein's view that the Holocaust is used to justify Israel. In my view, the absence of much or any reference to Israel in these materials is because their "narrative" is the Jews as ultimate victims. Hence the loving dwelling on the emaciated bodies, the gaunt expressions, the hopeless passivity of the camp survivors, etc. The story these materials usually tell is of the Jews as victims. In fact, bringing Israel into that story integrally would upset that narrative and so it is rarely done. The building of Israel makes the Holocaust the story it in fact is, a story of Jewish resilience. A defiant "we will live, we will thrive, and we will reclaim our homeland." Jewish agency, not victimhood, ought to be the story that is told about the Holocaust. So, in that sense, I say to Norman F, yes, bring Israel into it. There is no shame in that, it is a central part of the story, a story far, far from over.
Re “as opposed to Finkelstein's view that the Holocaust is used to justify Israel”… that would not be just NF’a nor a tiny minority’s view. It was without question a core reason for the establishment of Israel, and the UNGA partition decision in 1947. If not THE core reason, one of two core arguments. Absent the Holocaust it would have been a much harder sell, particularly wrt the USSR.
My comments have been in response to Finkelstein's notion that Jews have used the Holocaust in a major way to justify Israel SINCE Israel's founding, and that this explains the way the Holocaust has been stressed over the past decades SINCE Israel's founding. I believe that is frankly absurd. As to 1947, of course the Holocaust may have influenced many people at the time to support Israel's founding itself. However, it is a big stretch to call it a "core reason" or "THE core reason." First of all, earlier partition plans predate the Holocaust - as does the entire Zionist return to create a homeland in Palestine, which began before Hitler was born. Or take your statement about "particularly with the USSR." In fact, as Jeffrey Herf shows in his book "Israel's Moment," Stalin's brief year or so supporting Israel was due to his calculation that Israel, as a seeming socialist society, would be a bulwark against the British Empire in the region. (He got over that dream quickly and soon turned to backing the Arab regimes instead.) No doubt some Russians and Eastern bloc members felt a few pangs of sympathy for Jews in the Nazi Holocaust. It is inconceivable that Stalin cared for a single second about any of them, since he had murdered even more of his own innocents and was gearing up to go after Jews himself a bit later.
I have no issue with ideas being introduced so long as they can be defended. No one is able to defend communism on either its merits or its results, unless mass murder has somehow become a good thing. Finkelstein may identify as a "small c communist," whatever that means but he seems quite happy functioning in a capitalist system where his ideas can be aired. Try being on the opposite side in a communist regime and see how it works out.
Communists do not agree with wokeism, also free discussions are very much permissable in most historic socialist nations.. the view you have of our countries is fucking stupid.
Also disappointed in Glen, no pushback at all. Finkelstein is a moral midget and childish thinker. Like most who hurl invective at Israel from the cheap seats, he has never actually had do anything, build anything or physically defend anything or anyone. He has the luxury to remain pure while judging the people who have their hands in the dirt.
The fact that he is correct about the wokes just proves the old adage about broken clocks.
Ah you misunderstand, sorry if I wasn't clear. By 'hands in the dirt' I mean to say doing something physical in the real world - moving atoms. Finklestein sits in buildings built and maintained by others, is protected by military and police forces in which he did not serve. He does not have the moral authority to judge others who actually have to do difficult things in the real world and in real time.
All praise goes to the man in the arena:
https://youtu.be/A311CnTjfos
Did I correctly hear that Chomsky told Norm to publish the anti-woke book ?
Will Chomsky and Norm now be banned from appearing on woke Democracy Now with their previous best friend woke Amy Goodman? 😁
Hilarious. When introducing young Black people to the work of Black writers DuBois, Carter G Woodson, Martin Delaney, Toni Morrison, Maya Angelou, Zora Neale Hurston, Frederick Douglas, Phylis Wheatley, etc are among the usual starting points. Octavia Butler is included for those who love SciFi.
Hanna-Nicole Jones and Ibrim X Kendi are rarely induced. It is amusing to watch people waste time arguing about Kendi. Jones has a children’s book “Born in the Water”. Young readers are reminded that Black people were enslaved. They were not born in the water. Youth interested in where Black people originated are introduced to literature about the Continent of Africa. Summer reading classes include Zoom sessions where children in the United States are able to interact with Black children from Africa, the Caribbean, and South America. In other words, they are exposed to the Diaspora.
Listening to the outrage about Kendi is like watching a sitcom
Great interview!
I’m disappointed in Glen not pushing back on the leftist Chomsky-like attitude to using “apartheid” relative to Israel as a state. Palestine leadership wants the elimination of the Jews, hard to negotiate with people who only want your extermination.
Many Palestinian leaders including Marwan Barghouti have called for a two state solution, with Palestine and Isreal living peacefully side by side.
Is that the same Barghouti who constantly calls for intifada and who was jailed for murder?
That’s right, he calls for resistance against the occupation. He wouldn’t be a popular leader if he didn’t. I notice you didn’t address my response. Most Palestinians want a negotiated solution that gives them citizenship. Currently the status quo is apartheid, which Israeli leaders are just fine with.
The current Israeli leadership is doing everything it can to stop even the possibility of a two state solution by expanding settlements.
Please, let’s not even remotely pretend there is decency on either side at times. There isn’t.
But Israel remains the only democratic country in the ME with free and fair elections. And they treat their women, gay and minority communities like human beings, which is more than can be said for most of the Arab world. I know, I lived there for 10 years.
What do gays and lesbians have to do with Palestine. It seems like you are trying to change the subject.
Israel treats its Jewish citizens very well, I don’t think anyone disputes that.
You should ask the Gay community in Palestine that question, or at least do some discovery on it. How a state treats its citizens, is important, obviously, that includes every citizen. You certainly think it is as it pertains to Israel.
What state are the gay citizens in Palestine controlled by? Is Palestine a state?
It’s not a democratic election when 40% of the people under your control can’t vote. It’s certainly not “free and fair” when the nation controlling your borders, denying you citizenship, confiscating your land and natural resources, etc denies you the right to vote on these policies.
Criticizing one side and not the other is antithetical to being honest on the issues. They all must bear the burden of how they choose to live, in peace or not. They all make decisions that perpetuate warring. My daughter attended school with Arab children who told her that calling someone a “Jew” was the greatest insult. I have no doubt some children in Israel are raised and taught similarly against Arabs.
So I frankly don’t see how anyone can come down on one side or the other, both sides are at fault. None, in the leadership on either side that is, the innocent women and children are simply pawns in the game, are blameless.
Sure, but one side has all the tanks, all the helicopters, all the artillery pieces and controls the existence of the other. Only one side has citizenship, one side controls the border and the natural resources. Don't pretend like this is a "both sides" kind of discussion.
Thank you, Robin. I shall try.
The class topic is on point. But there are still some blacks who feel that race and class are the same thing. They are not able to distinguish them. That goes back to what I have said many times. Black culture is subjective. People will keep moving the goal post in any direction on that field.
People set their own goal posts. My definition of Black culture includes the Diaspora. the United States is not limited to enslavement, the Caribbean includes freeing Haiti, Europe includes classical musicians. Canada includes the history of Nova Scotia. There were Blacks in Europe at the time of the Renaissance. We have recently been reminded that there are Afro Ukrainians and Afro-Russians. I find Black culture fascinating.
Finkelstein's love for Sanders blinds him. Of course the Democrat elites didn't want Sanders to win the nomination because they thought Biden had a better chance against Trump.
Fascinating and instructive. Honestly, I had never heard Dr. Finkelstein speak and was pleased that Dr Loury pretty much gave him a free rein to rattle on.
In the past, I had read allegations that Dr. Finkelstein had been on the payroll at one time or another of both Hamas and Hezbollah. I have no idea if those allegations are true and was a bit disappointed that this issue did not surface during the interview given the degree to which Dr. Finkelstein has repeatedly condemned Israel in his many books.
Frankly, I have always found Dr. Finkelstein’s mentor, Noam Chomsky, to be certifiably nuts. But, like Dr. Loury, I found myself often nodding my head in agreement with many of the points Dr. Finkelstein was making.
I am continually impressed by Dr. Loury’ s willingness to host guests on this podcast with whom he may have profound disagreement and yet the respect and decency to allow such persons the opportunity to be heard.
I note all your critiques are ad hominems. You can do better.
Thank you, Robin. I’ll try.
What an exhilarating conversation Glenn!
Among other things it made me reconsider the meaning of standing and natural cover, which we discussed here:
https://youtu.be/PEPneES36X8
Based on your self-censorship paper, I had always thought of standing to speak on particular issues as being a form of protection offered by immutable characteristics related to race, gender, etc. But Finkelstein seems to have standing based on earned cover. His perspective on Obama has a different meaning because of his perspectives on Israel as a Jew. His natural cover on that topic seems to extend to standing on other issues.
If I am understanding this correctly, it is saying that because Finkelstein is a Jew, he has "natural cover" to criticize Israel, and this then gives him "earned cover" to criticize Obama. I don't see it that way, though I suppose some might. I thought his criticisms of Obama were refreshingly on target. Delightful, really, However, I think his criticisms of Israel and American Jews are ridiculous caricatures. He's a Jew, I'm a Jew. By and large, the Jews I know do not give other Jews "natural cover." Two Jews, three opinions, the joke goes. In my upbringing it was not a joke, it was plain reality.
Yes that's what I was saying. The ideas of standing and natural cover are discussed by Glenn in this brilliant paper (the video I linked to is a conversation about the paper):
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1043463194006004002
If it was Richard Spencer, say, rather than Finkelstein who made the same criticisms of Israel, one might think they were made in bad faith, based on tribal loyalties or to support an ideological narrative. Dershowitz would probably be inclined to ignore the criticisms, and so would most others.
Similarly if Jim Jordan, say, had made the criticisms of Obama. I was suggesting (and Glenn may not agree) that Finkelstein's natural cover in one domain spills over as earned cover to other domains.
My point is not about whether he is right or wrong about Israel or Obama, just that what we know of his potential tribal loyalties affects our interpretation of his claims.
One more point. Natural cover is not about members of a group giving each other standing, it's about people outside the group taking certain arguments more seriously. Insiders may react with alarm and fury, and view the critic as a traitor. This too is discussed in Glenn's paper, in part informed by his own experience.
Yes, I see what you are saying. I certainly see that many pro-Israel Jews do direct their strongest "fury," as you say, against Jews like Finkelstein. But I don't view him as a traitor in part because, as I said, it is so common for Jews to argue with one another. Besides, he is clearly thoughtful. I have to say a critic of Israel like Ilhan Omar or, at times even, Obama, or the WASP denizens of the State Department at many times in the past do arouse my fury more. I worry a lot about Jews in this country growing indifferent or hostile to Israel, but I don't think I view them as traitors. A guy like Finkelstein seems to me almost like one of the family. Like someone at the dinner table, about whom you say, "oh good grief, there he goes again." He's a smart guy, but a pain. Next to the UN, Iran, BDS or his onetime heroine Angela Davis, he's not that big a problem and a good goad to better thinking.
Yes I think some insiders will react like you do, and others will react like Dershowitz. Same with the reaction to Glenn himself, some of the harshest attacks come from within his own community but also a lot of respect from those who disagree quite sharply on substance. The amazing this is that Glenn laid out the logic of this so clearly in his paper three decades ago.
By the way, thanks for the link to that article. I've got it downloaded.