First of all, you're a complete ****ing idiot. Second of all, I'm not even going to take the time to pick apart your ****ing stupid argument because it's so ****ing stupid.
Regarding Finkelstein , I am reminded of all the neocon members of Congress who dusted off their great love for the Iranian people for five minutes right after the election was disputed, and promptly forgot about the again as soon as it became clear they weren't going to start a revolution. I'm sure he is very sincere, but I'm also sure most of the people who pull him out don't really give the slightest thought to him as a person or really support his intellectual opinions. He is just the Uncle Tom that you can trot out and say, "See! Black people can be perfectly happy as slaves. We have a slave who proves it!" You also see the British MP (whose name eludes me) trotted out quite a bit. He is often described as a wonderful human being for turning into an Israel critic once the demographic of his constituents became solidly Muslim. Ward Churchill also comes to mind, but I guess there isn't a big American Indian movement.
Do you know the differences/history between the PLO, Hamas, Fatah, Hezbollah, "and their ilk"? Although your comment about controlling the Palestinian people through fear has some merit but that's like me saying Republicans watch and believe Fox News: in other words, the statement is too broad and ambiguous and probably misleading. For the Gaza reference, is that a tongue-in-cheek description of the aftermath of the Gaza War from last year?
Not fair and completly missing the boat. You are comparing Finkelstein to folks who apparently have changed their opinions or allegiances , for immediate career gain or had momentary enthusiasms. This guy has had his opinions for years at great cost to his career. He is thus appreciated by Palestinians and others who admire his steadfastness. The part about Uncle Tom is truly bizaare. I will try to help you with your analogy so it makes sense, though it is tough. In this case an Uncle Tom would be a Palestinian who says they don't need a state and what is all the fuss about since the Israelis treat the occupied Palestinians just fine. Any attempt to claim it is the poor Israelis who are oppressed and it is the sad Mr. Finkelstein who is coddling up to his oppressors is so silly that I hope that is not what you are getting at.
Although many YouTube videos and their several hundred comments in Arabic support your argument, I and several people including some here on CF view him as a person and agree with his ideas/read+purchase his works/etc. Just because the Uncle Tom device may be at work here doesn't necessarily mean those who support him are the bad guys/slave owners. During the French Revolution, former aristocrats siding with the peasants were branded as 'Uncle Toms' in their time but we know now that serious socio-economic issues did indeed exist in France. And I think you're referring to Gerald Kaufman?
Damnit, I wish I'd read this before posting. I was also very confused about how you used Uncle Tom, and in my reply I got caught in your thinking and messed up my response.
I just want to confirm that I'm reading this correctly -- being OK with slavery is analogous to criticizing Israel's treatment of Palestinians?
Ward Churchill is a prefect great example and I included him specifically with you in mind. I don't expect you to understand why he is "out there" since you are right there with him and the KPFT crowd. It is entirely consistent for you to embrace things that 99% of the world find off kilter. That is your identity, and I have no problem with your consistency here. IIRC you've defended Churchill pretty strongly in the past. But all the Muslims who trot Finklestein out for convenience, give me a chuckle. The fundamental point is that people become "great fans" of Finklestein because he is convenient to their beliefs and because has "Jewish cred" with a Jewish name. If his name was As'ad Abukalil, he would be a voice in the crowd. It is a variation on the "appeal to authority" falacy. That argument is as follows: [rquoter] Source A says that p is true. Source A is authoritative. Therefore, p is true. [/rquoter] In this case it would be: Source A says p is true. p is a negative statement about Israel. Source A is Jewish. Therefore, p is true. A similar example from the other side would be Masab Yousef (son of a Palestinian leader) who was paraded around the American media a couple of months ago. I'm sure he really believes what he believes, but the fact that he has a Muslim name and is related to a Hamas official makes him a nice conversation piece for the Israelis. It has nothing to do with the actual content of any his beliefs, which are the same beliefs as millions of other people. The point about the Uncle Tom is that the pro-slavery black man was only relevant to whitey because he was black and he supported their opinions. The white men supporting him didn't give a rats ass about black people, their point of view, or what was in the best interest of the average African-American. He was convenient because he let whitey say, "See! Even black people love slavery!"
Finkelstein is important because he highlights and elaborates using the Holocaust as a tool for justification of foreign policy and a state's 'right to exist'. Whatever reason that a Muslim finds it appealing that a Jewish person would denounce Israel is their business for many educated people know that there is a complex difference between the politics inside Israel and the political beliefs of Jewish people outside Israel, specifically the US since the last 150 years.
And "pro-slavery" is being compared to ... what? Following this logic, I could just as well refer to a White Southern Abolitionist whom Black Freemen read and listened to as an "Uncle Tom". Afterall, those Black Freemen probably didn't care all that much for White Slaveowners or their point of view. But if I made such a comparison at that time, anyone who actually gave a crap about the slaves would have every right to slap the hell out of me.
Ottomatton, you are damn good poster from what I have seen but I have to disagree with analogy, it is false.
Yeah... since the discussion has been all about what a great guy Finklestein is, I guess I'm not sure exactly where you deposited these great tomes of irrefutable proof are that I should be emulating. And worldwide I would say anti-Israeli sentiment would be the majority. So you're the one clinging to the majority opinion without providing anything to back it up. I guess if anybody had articulated any of his arguments in writing it would make sense. But when all the posts consist of adoration of his great character and intelligence, then you've opened the door for discussions on related subjects. Don't get pissed off if I follow you through. Pro-dhimmitude. I don't begrudge you your opinion, but it would seem that after declaring its falseness you should then articulate why.
Finkelstein is not pro-dhimmitude. The many, many liberal, left-thinking Arabs who have invited Finkelstein to speak are not pro-dhimmitude.
Unfortunately, the people on the ground and running things in Gaza are. And many of the Muslims that I've seen quote him support that view as well.
Perhaps if Israel was more committed to peace and diplomacy, did not illegally claim land they have no right to, and did not deny basic goods to a destitute people, such opinions could be swayed to a more sensible, secular position. You can't hold a people to the floor with a foot on their neck, and expect them to suddenly like you.
Your conditions were all met between 1950-1973. There was quite a bit more anti Israel hatred during this time frame. I guess nobody bothered to tell the Palestinians or the Syrians, or the Transjordanians or the Egyptians your rules for peace. Maybe if the Arabs hadn't been talking about "Palestine from the river to the sea", refering to Israel as "the Zionist entity" like some smelly turd in the punchbowl and threatening imminent destruction during all the years that Netanyahu was growing up, he and his friends wouldn't have become such right wing nuts.
Israel was not illegally claiming land prior to 1973? They were not being hostile towards their neighbors? In any case, conditions have changed dramatically in many respects since the first 25 years of Israel's history. There has been no serious threat of Israel being overrun by Muslim invaders for a long time. That is a poor excuse to be making at this stage. And it was well-understood prior to Israel's birth what would happen if they claimed the land they shared with many Palestinians to belong to Jews. It was done anyway. Maybe if Ben Gurion and his comrades showed more compassion and empathy for the indigenous population that did not wish to become second-class citizens, a lot of violence and hatred would have been averted on both sides. Right?
I guess I missed the Israeli attempts to wipe out and assimilate all their neighbors. Could you provide some references? It's very nice of you to tell them that they shouldn't need to be afraid anymore and they should just forget everything experience taught them. But I still read Middle Easterners expressing nearly everyday their desire and long term plans to eliminate Israel. The fact that Arabs stopped trying to wipe them out when they became become paranoid psychos to prevent regular invasions does not make a good case for Israelis to stop being paranoid psychos.
