Amid debates, contentious prof speaks

Top: Norman Finkelstein reviews his remarks before his talk last evening as seats in Stiteler Hall quickly fill. Bottom: Finkelstein shares his controversial views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Finkelstein, the son of Holocaust survivors, firmly de

Despite contention among the student body, University officials are standing by their decision to bring the controversial Norman Finkelstein to campus, saying that funding does not translate into endorsement.

The event with Finkelstein, a professor at DePaul University, was co-sponsored by the Political Science department and the Middle East Center, which provided $300 and $250, respectively, toward Finkelstein's speaking fee, said College senior Sara Barclay of Students for Justice in Palestine.

SJP, among other groups, brought in Finkelstein to speak about the Middle East as part of Palestine Awareness Week.

But some students question whether the University should be funding such controversial- - and, in this case, what some characterize as offensive - speakers to come to campus.

A range of sources, from acclaimed historian Benny Morrison to The New York Times, have questioned Finkelstein's credibility as a historian and have alleged him to be everything from anti-Semitic, anti-Israel and a Holocaust revisionist.

Still, officials say that bringing in such a controversial speaker does not imply that they legitimize or promote his views.

"Our decision to co-sponsor a speaker in no way reflects that we agree with or endorse the views of any particular speaker," said Avery Goldstein, the undergraduate chair of the Political Science department.

He said that the department does not make an evaluation on the overall quality of a speaker's work.

Goldstein explained that, when a student group approaches the department about co-sponsoring a speaker, he consults his colleagues - in this case, Political Science professor Ian Lustick - on whether a speaker should be brought in.

"Our preference is to err on the side of being generous," he said.

The MEC had a similar argument: According to the Center's Web site, its "co-sponsorship in no way indicates endorsement of a particular point of view."

"We cannot engage in the practice of censorship," said MEC Director Firoozeh Kashani-Sabet of the Center's policy to bring in controversial speakers.

And, despite receiving a letter from about 60 students asking him to intervene in the matter, University Provost Ronald Daniels is likewise sticking by the Political Science's department and MEC's decisions.

"The University's Guidelines on Open Expression apply to all members of the University community," Daniels wrote in an e-mail. "They protect the right of student groups and faculty members to bring in controversial speakers, and the right for those who disagree to voice those opinions."

The issue surrounding the University's sponsorship of Finkelstein first came into the public eye when representatives from Hillel and the Penn Israel Coalition co-authored a UA proposal that urged the University departments to revoke their funding for both Finkelstein's speech and future speakers that would raise similar questions regarding academic credibility.

In a meeting Sunday night, the UA fell two votes short of the two-thirds majority needed to put the resolution on the table for discussion.

Meanwhile, student leaders disagree over whether the University made the right decision.

"Considering Finkelstein's lack of credibility and the fraudulent message he promotes, . bringing in such an ill-reputed speaker only hurts [the University's] own credibility," College senior and Hillel president Ezra Billinkoff said.

Conversely, Barclay said that "it would actually be to the University's discredit . to stifle the speaker."

Others have questioned the University's sponsorship in general.

"The University is setting a very serious double standard by refusing to fund political speeches by either party, Republican or Democrat, but . paying to bring radicals like Finkelstein to campus," said Wharton sophomore Clayton Robinson, the president of Penn Democrats.

"We think that is a very dangerous message to set," he said.

Comments (7)

Denying the Holocaust and claiming that it is being exploited for political ends today are two logically distinct arguments. I don�?t know much about all of this, so just from reading the Wikipedia article on Finkelstein I found this: In an interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now, Finkelstein argued that in the eyes of the ADL "anyone who's a critic of Israel becomes an anti-Semite. And the truth of the matter is, the real anti-Semites, they don't really care about -- or the real Holocaust deniers, which is their other favorite epithet to hurl at people or expectorate at people who are critical of Israel." In that same interview, Finkelstein went on to say that genuine instances of Holocaust denial Ð such as Mahmoud Abbas's doctoral dissertation (which claimed that less than a million Jews were killed by the Nazis) or Silvio Berlusconi's claim that Mussolini was a "benign dictator" who "never killed anyone" (thousands of Italian Jews were sent to their deaths under Fascism) Ð are routinely downplayed by the ADL if the perpetrator is regarded an ally of the U.S. and Israel. I am a graduate student and I do not have time to read all of the books relating to this controversy. Could someone who believes that Finkelstein is a Holocaust denier please quote a specific passage in his work where he makes some kind of claim that the Holocaust did not take place or anything to that effect? If I read that I will be convinced that he was a poor choice of a speaker. If not, I have to believe that he is being called a Holocaust denier for political reasons.

If you allow a controversial figure such as Finkelstein to spew his illegitimate half truths, then you should allow a legitimate person such as Dershowitz to tear him apart and bring the truth to the forefront.

[QUOTE id="14501d06-b900-485f-8745-1607dbdbd93b"]Denying the Holocaust and claiming that it is being exploited for political ends today are two logically distinct arguments. I don�?t know much about all of this, so just from reading the Wikipedia article on Finkelstein I found this: In an interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now, Finkelstein argued that in the eyes of the ADL "anyone who's a critic of Israel becomes an anti-Semite. And the truth of the matter is, the real anti-Semites, they don't really care about -- or the real Holocaust deniers, which is their other favorite epithet to hurl at people or expectorate at people who are critical of Israel." In that same interview, Finkelstein went on to say that genuine instances of Holocaust denial Ð such as Mahmoud Abbas's doctoral dissertation (which claimed that less than a million Jews were killed by the Nazis) or Silvio Berlusconi's claim that Mussolini was a "benign dictator" who "never killed anyone" (thousands of Italian Jews were sent to their deaths under Fascism) Ð are routinely downplayed by the ADL if the perpetrator is regarded an ally of the U.S. and Israel. I am a graduate student and I do not have time to read all of the books relating to this controversy. Could someone who believes that Finkelstein is a Holocaust denier please quote a specific passage in his work where he makes some kind of claim that the Holocaust did not take place or anything to that effect? If I read that I will be convinced that he was a poor choice of a speaker. If not, I have to believe that he is being called a Holocaust denier for political reasons.[/QUOTE] Let's set this straight - Finkelstein does not challenge the fact that 6 million Jews were exterminated by the Nazis in the 1930s and 40s, and therefore is not a Holocaust denier. However, what he does do is downplay the horrors of how the Jews were calculatedly targeted and victimized for no reason other than being Jewish in order to make the Jews seem like criminals in the big picture. Finkelstein minimizes the most extensive and most successful genocide of all time, making it seem like the Holocaust was just like any other murderous policy targeted at a minority group. He attributes the fame and perceived significance of the Holocaust not to the fact that 6 MILLION HUMAN BEINGS WERE SLAUGHTERED, but rather to the Jews' financial and political manipulations and influence in the world and in the US in particular. He even goes as far as to criticize the existence of a Holocaust museum in Washington, because in his mind the killing of 6 million of his own people is not significant enough to warrant a memorial. Therefore, though Finkelstein does not assert that the Holocaust was a Jewish conspiracy, his claim that the Jews exploit the Holocaust for their benefit in every which way (financially, politically, etc.) is only a step away from the conspiracy claim. He also has the nerve and insensitivity (you would think his parents would have taught him better) to equate Israel with the Nazi regime, while he criticizes others for using the word "anti-semite" too freely. It is for this reason that Finkelstein is adored by Neo-Nazis and Islamic terrorists alike, because although he wouldn't dare ruin his career by saying the Holocaust never happened, his claims are close enough to theirs to create an alliance. Consider the following quotes: "Finkelstein's exceedingly useful to us and to the Revisionist cause. He is making three fourths of our argument. We would not be making vast inroads in Europe with our outreach program, were it not for his courageous little booklet, The Holocaust Industry (Finkelstein's book)." ----Ernst Zundel, notorious Holocaust denier and currently residing in German prison "My chief regret is that I wasn't even more forceful in publicly defending Hezbollah against terrorist intimidation and attack." ----Norman Finkelstein As you can see, this man is clearly out of his mind. He has allied with Holocaust deniers (see YouTube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49u5GehpTa4), even being invited to the Holocaust denial conference in Iran. He has publically defended Hamas and Hizbollah, two of the biggest obstacles to world peace, instead claiming that Israel is the Nazi-like terrorist causing all of the problems in the world. So I agree that Finkelstein is not a Holocaust denier in the strict sense of the term, and I personally am against giving him that name. However, I am not opposed to any of the following: Anti-semite (or self-hating Jew, whichever you prefer), anti-Israel, anti-world peace, pro-neo-nazis, pro-forgetting the Holocaust, pro-Hizbollah, pro-Hamas. If only he knew that were his friends Hizbollah, Hamas, and the Neo-Nazis to gain enough power to start another Holocaust, he would not be spared...

Sorry for posting twice. It's my first time doing this.

Thank you for the reasonable response. I can see your point of view and while I consider it possible, in my own mind I see too many parallels to 9/11. In this country anyone who disagrees with the Bush Administration's policies, say, bombing Iraq, have been told that they are terrorist sympathizers and that they don't care about what happened on 9/11. The Bush Administration really pulls the 9/11/terrorism card for everything. If you have been paying attention the past couple years I really feel that that point is undeniable. I don't know as much about the Middle East, and so I can imagine that my understanding could be mistaken, but from what little I know I see some strong parallels. I understand that 9/11 and the Holocaust are different and to be honest, I cannot, and I don't know that anyone can fully appreciate what either of those events really meant to those who suffered as a result. I would say the same thing is true for what has happened in many places - Rwanda, and Iraq today come to mind. I have often heard supporters of Israel say that it is the only democracy in the Middle East. I hope that Israel and its supporters can live up to this claim by engaging in an open dialogue about its policies, regardless of how its opponents behave. Also, I would like to say that I thought Matthew Richman's comment here was very good: http://media.www.dailypennsylvanian.com/media/storage/paper882/news/2007/03/23/Opinion/Your-Commentary.Online.Additional.Letters.On.The.Norman.Finkelstein.Debate-2788741.shtml Thanks for the post, it went a lot farther to making me reevaluate my opinion than an overly emotional one would have.

Here is my take on the use of the term "anti-semitism." The term, in my opinion, is being misunderstood both by the people who are misusing it and by the people who are criticizing those who use it. Here is what I mean: I agree with your claim that Bush throws around the "anti-America" terms too much, often for his own political agenda, and I think that in some cases anti-semitism is being used too freely to apply to anyone who criticizes Israel, the same way the term "racist" is sometimes applied too easily. I do not think that criticizing Israel's policy is anti-semitic, or else almost every Israeli citizen would fall into the category. The fact is that every country makes mistakes and should be informed on ways to improve, and doing so is not automatically anti-semitic. However, the opposite side of the spectrum is even farther from the truth. When some (including Finkelstein) say that there is no connection between anti-Zionist activists and anti-semites, they are ignoring some essential truths. The fact is that Israel, by its original purpose, is a Jewish state. Not a state in which many Jews live. A state that belongs to Jews and a state whose every independent decision should be made by an independent Jewish people. The world saw what happened when the Jews did not have their own state, and therefore decided that it was necessary that there be a place where Jews can live without being oppressed by another government. The Jewish people and the Jewish state are one entity, and an attack on one is, in effect, an attack on the other. This is why if you look at Hizbollah's or Hamas' ideology, they do not differentiate between the Jews and the Zionists. They want to kill them all. It is only recently that more adept politicians have managed to avoid being labeled anti-semitic by insisting that being anti-Israel is something completely different. So, you may ask, what is the difference between criticizing Israel and being anti-Israel or anti-semitic? I think that the following criteria can be used to distinguish the two. The first difference is in the attitude and purpose of the criticism. Criticism of Israel is just fine, but when criticism becomes a verbal and political attack, one encroaches on anti-semitism. It also shows a lack of depth and understanding of the issues. The situation in Israel today is more complicated than perhaps that of any other nation in the world. We don't always realize this, but when the Israeli government makes decisions they are often choosing not between good and bad but between bad and worse. Here are some examples: -The Palestinian population and the "right of return" - it seems unfair to not allow palestinians to vote in Israeli elections, but at the same time if they are allowed to vote then in the near future we would see Hamas take over the Israeli government. -Israeli Arabs - the Israeli government treats Israeli Arabs as full citizens with the right to vote. Except they vote in Arab parliament members who hate Israel and publicly support terrorists attacking Israel. Where else in the world do you have elected government officials who work for the enemy? -Palestinian quality of life - while the Israeli government wants to give humanitarian aid to the impoverished Palestinian people (Fatah stole most of their money), most of the money that Israel sends to Abbas or other Palestinian organizations is used by Palestinians not to feed their children or to find a job but to buy weapons to shoot at Israeli soldiers. -In military operations and wars against the terrorists, the Israeli army tries to be as careful and humane as possible, trying to avoid injuring civilians and losing their own soldiers as they go door-to-door searching for terrorists. I have met Israeli soldiers personally and have been amazed at the measures they go to and the life-endangering stunts they perform just to avoid Palestinian casualties. However, war becomes incredibly difficult when you are fighting enemies that use human shields, kill themselves, and in general put little or no value on human life. This is not a balanced war, and it therefore becomes a very difficult one to fight. The second case in which, in my opinion, criticizing Israel automatically becomes anti-semitism, as is in the case with Finkelstein and others, is when one begins to lend any ounce of legitimacy to terrorism. Criticize Israel all you want, but there is absolutely no excuse for targeting and murdering innocent civilians. Period. Anyone who, like Finkelstein, shows support for Hizbollah, Hamas, Iran, Syria, etc. by claiming that they are victims or are forced to blow up pizza shops, displays the same hate for Jews and Israel that those organizations show. This is when it becomes anti-semitic. Because these organizations don't go after Israel. They go after Jews. Look at any of their charters or public statements. Hizbollah has publicly stated that it wants all of the Jews to move to Israel so it will be easier to kill all of them without having to come to America to do so. Lending legitimacy to someone who says this is anti-semitism in the strictest sense of the word. So perhaps anti-semitism is used too freely, and criticizing Israel does not mean anti-semitism. But when the criticism of Israel is clearly out of hate and insensitivity and ignoring that Israel is the victim of a very tragic and frustrating situation, not the villain, then it is most likely fueled by anti-semitism. Every country can and should be criticized, including Israel, but when Israel is criticized with as much hate and hostility as one can see coming from Norman Finkelstein, anti-semitism is the only explanation.

Comments are closed for this item.