Recently, Norman Finkelstein was invited to Penn. Among the "sponsors" are the Political Science department as well as other groups. Some of those extending the invitations are unaware of Finkelstein's willing collaboration with neo-Nazis, Holocaust deniers and anti-Semites. Watch his YouTube.com appearance on a Holocaust denial program on Lebanese TV. Neo-Nazis also love Finkelstein, and for good reason. Listen to Ernst Zundel, the Hitler lover and Holocaust denier who is now in prison in Germany:
"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 loves Hezbollah, the terror organization whose leader said, "If Jews all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide." Finkelstein praised the group, saying: "my chief regret is that I wasn't even more forceful in publicly defending Hezbollah against terrorist intimidation and attack."
Finkelstein recently commissioned a cartoon-showing me masturbating in ecstatic joy to TV pictures of dead Lebanese - by a neo-Nazi cartoonist and friend of his who won second place in the Iranian Holocaust denial cartoon contest. He refused to confirm or deny that he commissioned the cartoon, even when asked so by colleagues at DePaul University, where he is up for tenure, on the grounds that no one will believe him.
It is not surprising therefore that when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad created a list of the world's most virulent Holocaust deniers to invite to their Holocaust-denier hate-fest in Tehran, high among those on the list were the Klansman, and currently professor at a Ukrainian university, David Duke and the Holocaust-justice denier Finkelstein, now an assistant professor at DePaul University.
Finkelstein's name appeared on the schedule alongside Duke's, though Finkelstein, at the last minute, decided not to appear. The reason he gave for declining the invitation had nothing to do with principled opposition to being a speaker at an anti-Semitic hate-fest. Instead, he claimed that he wanted "at least 45 minutes to speak," but they wouldn't agree to his conditions. He has refused to disclose his communications with the Iranians regarding his invitation. What is he hiding?
The real reason he did not attend is that he was trying to testify on behalf of Hamas in a Chicago criminal trial. After listening to his testimony and learning of his lack of credentials-he has never even visited Israel-the federal judge concluded that he did not have any expertise, essentially characterizing him as a crackpot. This was consistent with other characterizations.
A New York Times review of Finkelstein's book The Holocaust Industry called it: "A novel variation on the anti-Semitic forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion ... [It] verges on paranoia and would serve anti-Semites around the world."
The Washington Post described Finkelstein as "a writer celebrated by neo-Nazi groups for his Holocaust revisionism and comparisons of Israel to Nazi Germany." Leon Wieseltier of The New Republic wrote: "You don't know who Finkelstein is. He's poison, he's a disgusting self-hating Jew, he's something you find under a rock." Others describe Finkelstein's theories as "crackpot ideas, some of them mirrored almost verbatim in the propaganda put out by neo-Nazis all over the world."
One eminent scholar added:
"No facts alleged by Finkelstein should be assumed to be really facts, no quotations in his book should be assumed to be accurate, without taking the time to carefully compare his claims with the sources he cites . . . Such an examination reveals that many of those assertions are pure invention."
No wonder that not a single one of his articles has ever been accepted for publication by a peer reviewed journal, and no wonder he was fired by several New York colleges at which he taught.
This is the propagandist bigot who is being invited to Penn. No college should prevent him from speaking. He can get a soapbox and fulminate the way other bigots do. But no university or group that would not invite David Duke should lend its imprimatur to Finkelstein's poison. Duke and Finkelstein are opposite sides of the same hateful coin.
Everyone should be free to invite the Dukes and Finkelsteins of the world to their campus, as the president of Iran did to his hate-fest, but people should be judged by the bigots they invite. Recently, when several pro-Palestinian groups at Brandeis University learned who Finkelstein really was, they withdrew their sponsorship of his talk. They didn't want their cause to be associated with his hate.
A university should be open to controversial speakers. It has two choices. It can adapt the "taxi cab" approach under which anybody who is invited by a student or faculty member is welcome, without regard to their ideology or bigotry. Under this approach, both Duke and Finkelstein should be invited.
The second approach is to articulate objective criteria and qualifications and apply them without regard to ideology. Under this approach it could refuse to welcome bigoted extremists as long as it did so across the board; neither Duke nor Finkelstein would be welcome.
What it cannot do is sponsor bigots of the hard left while disallowing bigots of the hard right. It is only under this impermissible third approach that Finkelstein would be sponsored by a department that would never dream of sponsoring Duke.
Alan Dershowitz is a law professor at Harvard University. He can be reached at dersh@law.harvard.edu.
Comments
comment
One eminent scholar added: "No facts alleged by Finkelstein should be assumed to be really facts, no quotations in his book should be assumed to be accurate, without taking the time to carefully compare his claims with the sources he cites . . . Such an examination reveals that many of those assertions are pure invention." The irony of this section is amazing. You attack his use of sources by way of an anonomous 'eminent scholar'...hilarious
comment
The scholar quoted is Peter Novick, history professor at the University of Chicago and a renowned Holocaust scholar.
comment
I was wondering why a Harvard professor would write an editorial for the DP about some visitor to the Penn campus. Well, it looks as if there is lots of prior bad blood between Alan Dershowitz and Norman Finkelstein: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dershowitz-Finkelstein_Affair
comment
Bravo - I admire DP and Alan Dershowitz for this discussion. What a pity that none of these countless other institutes including Harvard, Cornell, Yale and Stanford (I dont want to hurt Penn pride by comparing it to "lesser" institutions) where Finkelstein spoke had such conscientious watchdogs. Perhaps Dershowitz should consider joining UPenn for he will more like minded people here.
comment
I only hope that the same campus groups who have organized so effectively to condemn Norman Finkelstein's visit do the same when Anti-Palestinian hate mongerers such as Daniel Pipes make their usual rounds to Penn.
comment
[QUOTE id="22dc813a-8c50-49f9-98e1-f470ca727751"]I only hope that the same campus groups who have organized so effectively to condemn Norman Finkelstein's visit do the same when Anti-Palestinian hate mongerers such as Daniel Pipes make their usual rounds to Penn.[/QUOTE] Upon what evidence do you base you assertion that Daniel Pipes is a "Anti-Palestinian hate monger..."?
comment
[QUOTE id="22dc813a-8c50-49f9-98e1-f470ca727751"]I only hope that the same campus groups who have organized so effectively to condemn Norman Finkelstein's visit do the same when Anti-Palestinian hate mongerers such as Daniel Pipes make their usual rounds to Penn.[/QUOTE] Yes, the evidence is nothing compared to that of the similarity between Finkelstein and David Duke. Please dont make such childish comparisons in response to a witty eloquent article like this. Did Pipes ever condone cartoons about people masturbating in ecstatic joy?
comment
[QUOTE id="22dc813a-8c50-49f9-98e1-f470ca727751"]I only hope that the same campus groups who have organized so effectively to condemn Norman Finkelstein's visit do the same when Anti-Palestinian hate mongerers such as Daniel Pipes make their usual rounds to Penn.[/QUOTE] I know most left-wingers are dumb and gullible. But are you crazy? What kind of comparison are you making?
comment
Dear Kuku, I also heard Finkelstein has a third nipple and beats puppies...do you believe everything you hear/read? Or rather, do you believe everything you hear/read from the unconditional boosters of Israel?
comment
[QUOTE id="6b1cff2c-1afd-42e9-aef0-dd9413af67da"]Dear Kuku, I also heard Finkelstein has a third nipple and beats puppies...do you believe everything you hear/read? Or rather, do you believe everything you hear/read from the unconditional boosters of Israel?[/QUOTE] Finkelstein is a well known 2nd rate academic as well as a well known self-hating Jew. (Yes you can be Jewish and hate yourself.) Consequently, he is a perfect candidate for Anti-Israel and anti-western Muslims and secular radical liberals to bash Israel with. Dershowitz on the other hand, despite being a liberal is a first rate academic who was and is the youngest person ever to be appointed a professor of law at Harvard. He is also a mainstream Jew and not a self-hating loser like Finkelstein.
comment
I guess sarcasm doesnt carry through on a web post. Also read my response to Fred's comment. I'm a (sad) Penn alumnus and jaded by any attempt to have a meaningful dialogue crushed by being labelled anti-Semitic, but then it is only a symptom of a larger malady.
comment
I agree with KuKu! Jews always squash the debate about Isreal by pulling the anti-semite card. I mean just because you say the Holocoust was a wild Jewish conspiracy to gain their own illigitimate state doesn't mean that you are a paranoid anti-semite!!
comment
So much ignorant rambling should stop. First of all, Daniel Pipes could legitimately be called anti-Palestinian: "The unhappy conclusion cannot be avoided: there can be either an Israel or a Palestine, but not both. To think that two states can stably and peacefully coexist in the small territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea is to be either na•ve or duplicitous. If the last seventy years teach anything, it is that there can be only one state west of the Jordan River. Therefore, to those who ask why the Palestinians must be deprived of a state, the answer is simple: grant them one and you set in motion a chain of events that will lead either to its extinction or the extinction of Israel." http://www.danielpipes.org/article/194 If you think that believing Israel has no right to exist is anti-semitic, why can't we call believing Palestine cannot exist anti-Palestinian? ANOTHER IMPORTANT ASIDE: Using "antisemitic", thereby invoking the racial policies of nazi Germany in this debate is disingenuous and ignorant. Say "anti-Jewish!" Arabic is a semitic language. Semites are people who speak semitic languages. All Arabs are semites. Calling any Arab figure antisemitic is just incorrect. I say this not to be a pedant but to illustrate a point. "Anti-Israel" sentiment equates "anti-semitic" sentiment to some, which is a hatred of Jews that would include European racism throughout history. However, w/ today's conflict you must realize that this would be "anti-Jewish" sentiment. It's much harder to play the "anti-semite" card when your language is more honest. Why?... Saying that Israel doesn't have an absolute right to exist doesn't necessitate that someone believes Judaism as a faith shouldn't exist. There are many people who have a problem with Israel who don't want Judaism and all Jews destroyed. It's harder to equate being opposed to Israeli policy to being opposed to Jewish culture and religion, which is why dishonest people throw about the term "anti-semitic" simply because it's lost its meaning and has become an epithet that blacklists someone & their ideas immediately. If someone said "anti-Jewish", we'd ask them how exactly they reached that conclusion and then laugh when its revealed that it was just an empty epithet without meaning. It's no different than when people run out of ideas in the immigration debate and call each other racists and nativists. It's empty jargon crap. If you used honest language instead of epithets, you'd be expected to explain your reasoning, thus requiring you to have one in the first place. Calling someone a Jew-hater because they don't support an officially ethnic & religious Jewish state is just broadcasting to intelligent people everywhere that you haven't got any argument whatsoever.
comment
[QUOTE id="93086313-d5ce-4e56-a17f-340ce3e86206"]So much ignorant rambling should stop. First of all, Daniel Pipes could legitimately be called anti-Palestinian: "The unhappy conclusion cannot be avoided: there can be either an Israel or a Palestine, but not both. To think that two states can stably and peacefully coexist in the small territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea is to be either na•ve or duplicitous. If the last seventy years teach anything, it is that there can be only one state west of the Jordan River. Therefore, to those who ask why the Palestinians must be deprived of a state, the answer is simple: grant them one and you set in motion a chain of events that will lead either to its extinction or the extinction of Israel." http://www.danielpipes.org/article/194 If you think that believing Israel has no right to exist is anti-semitic, why can't we call believing Palestine cannot exist anti-Palestinian? ANOTHER IMPORTANT ASIDE: Using "antisemitic", thereby invoking the racial policies of nazi Germany in this debate is disingenuous and ignorant. Say "anti-Jewish!" Arabic is a semitic language. Semites are people who speak semitic languages. All Arabs are semites. Calling any Arab figure antisemitic is just incorrect. I say this not to be a pedant but to illustrate a point. "Anti-Israel" sentiment equates "anti-semitic" sentiment to some, which is a hatred of Jews that would include European racism throughout history. However, w/ today's conflict you must realize that this would be "anti-Jewish" sentiment. It's much harder to play the "anti-semite" card when your language is more honest. Why?... Saying that Israel doesn't have an absolute right to exist doesn't necessitate that someone believes Judaism as a faith shouldn't exist. There are many people who have a problem with Israel who don't want Judaism and all Jews destroyed. It's harder to equate being opposed to Israeli policy to being opposed to Jewish culture and religion, which is why dishonest people throw about the term "anti-semitic" simply because it's lost its meaning and has become an epithet that blacklists someone & their ideas immediately. If someone said "anti-Jewish", we'd ask them how exactly they reached that conclusion and then laugh when its revealed that it was just an empty epithet without meaning. It's no different than when people run out of ideas in the immigration debate and call each other racists and nativists. It's empty jargon crap. If you used honest language instead of epithets, you'd be expected to explain your reasoning, thus requiring you to have one in the first place. Calling someone a Jew-hater because they don't support an officially ethnic & religious Jewish state is just broadcasting to intelligent people everywhere that you haven't got any argument whatsoever.[/QUOTE] Spare us your jargon. The greatest threat to the world is you and your ilk. "It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists," he writes, "but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims. We cannot clear our names unless we own up to the shameful fact that terrorism has become an Islamic enterprise; an almost exclusive monopoly, implemented by Muslim men and women." - Abdel Rahman al-Rashed, Saudi journalist in London
comment
[QUOTE id="93086313-d5ce-4e56-a17f-340ce3e86206"] Saying that Israel doesn't have an absolute right to exist doesn't necessitate that someone believes Judaism as a faith shouldn't exist. There are many people who have a problem with Israel who don't want Judaism and all Jews destroyed. It's harder to equate being opposed to Israeli policy to being opposed to Jewish culture and religion, which is why dishonest people throw about the term "anti-semitic" simply because it's lost its meaning and has become an epithet that blacklists someone & their ideas immediately. If someone said "anti-Jewish", we'd ask them how exactly they reached that conclusion and then laugh when its revealed that it was just an empty epithet without meaning. It's no different than when people run out of ideas in the immigration debate and call each other racists and nativists. It's empty jargon crap. If you used honest language instead of epithets, you'd be expected to explain your reasoning, thus requiring you to have one in the first place. Calling someone a Jew-hater because they don't support an officially ethnic & religious Jewish state is just broadcasting to intelligent people everywhere that you haven't got any argument whatsoever.[/QUOTE] I avoid the anti-Semite card because I think it's often a lame cop-out by Jews, but... Zionism, in a nutshell, is Jewish sovereignty. Saying that Jews should be deprived of sovereignty in a world filled with ethnic and religious groups that claim sovereignty over a piece of territory *is* pretty hateful. Israel contains more Jews that any other country in the world. It is *the* center of Jewish religious and cultural life. And, for many Jews, Zionism is a fundamental component of their religio-cultural life. So arguing that Israel shouldn't exist is just broadcasting to intelligent people everywhere that there is a disconnect in your thinking. Or that you're an irrational lilly-white postmodernist who believes that nation-states are irrelevant just because they are irrelevant to you sitting in your office on a high speed internet connection. I won't defend Pipes, as you are correct in saying that he *is* anti-Palestinian. But Pipes does at least have decent credentials (unlike Finklestein), as Pipes is fluent in Arabic, has studied the Middle East and spent a good deal of time in the region. Dammit, you made me defend Pipes! Now hair is growing out of my palms...
comment
[QUOTE id="93086313-d5ce-4e56-a17f-340ce3e86206"]Spare us your jargon. The greatest threat to the world is you and your ilk. "It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists," he writes, "but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims. We cannot clear our names unless we own up to the shameful fact that terrorism has become an Islamic enterprise; an almost exclusive monopoly, implemented by Muslim men and women." - Abdel Rahman al-Rashed, Saudi journalist in London[/QUOTE] Me and my ilk!? What does that mean? Also, I never denied that Islamic terrorism is committed by Islamic people. Can you respond with something other than a complete non sequitur? Oh, and if you think you can provoke me to shout back weird ethnic slur BS, (ie. that "ilk" comment) think again.
comment
[QUOTE id="93086313-d5ce-4e56-a17f-340ce3e86206"]Zionism, in a nutshell, is Jewish sovereignty. Saying that Jews should be deprived of sovereignty in a world filled with ethnic and religious groups that claim sovereignty over a piece of territory *is* pretty hateful. Israel contains more Jews that any other country in the world. It is *the* center of Jewish religious and cultural life. And, for many Jews, Zionism is a fundamental component of their religio-cultural life. So arguing that Israel shouldn't exist is just broadcasting to intelligent people everywhere that there is a disconnect in your thinking. Or that you're an irrational lilly-white postmodernist who believes that nation-states are irrelevant just because they are irrelevant to you sitting in your office on a high speed internet connection.[/QUOTE] Zionism is not necessary to Judaism. Yes, the Torah, OT, etc. all desire a state that is in accord with its teachings. However, every religion in the world desires this. Thankfully, developed nations have learned that ANY official ethnic or religious state of any sort just isn't conducive to liberty. You don't have to be a postmodernist to dislike nation-states that allow dejure priority with regards to ethnicity and religion. You merely have to be a modernist. Yes, I know that there are many states the world over who claim sovereignty for a specific group over all others (ie. nearly every Muslim state except Turkey). That is not modern and I (and others) don't like that either. Is *that* hateful? Israel is a forward and progressive nation. Many ask it to change because we hold it to a higher standard than the developing world (we know most of these countries don't care about freedom and equality of religion/race/ethnicity). Could it continue to exist as a free state (by which I mean, one that does not officially elevate any faith above others)? If the answer is no, then I do oppose that state. However, I do agree that a Palestinian state that is officially Arab-Muslim in place of Israel would be no better (probably worse with regards to human rights).
comment
Israel contains more Jews that any other country in the world. It is *the* center of Jewish religious and cultural life. Fact check: There are NOT more Jews in Israel than anywhere else in the world. The United Staes has the biggest population of Jews. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/jewpop.html Given our one-sided foreign policy regarding Israel and the Middle East, I hardly think this is a coincidence.
comment
The 1990 Pipes post is worth reading. It does not include, as best I can tell, the proported quote, but it does explain that if the Palestinans, will never accept Israel, a "two state" solution is not logical. Here is a part: A Hamas leaflet dated 14 March 1988 declared "'No' to peace with the Zionist entity.... Where is there justice with them still possessing one inch on the coast of Haifa and Acre?" For his part, Shaykh Khalil Quqa of Gaza put it is opposed to "giving the Jews even one granule of sand." Were elections held, Hamas could win 40 per cent of the vote in both the West Bank and more in Gaza-- which goes far toward explaining why the PLO has such reservations about elections. In the time-honored fashion of Palestinian politics, moderates are being silenced by systematic intimidation. Revealingly, the number of incidents and the degree of their brutality both increased substantially as soon as the Israeli government launched a peace initiative in May 1989. During the first half of 1989, 710 of the attacks by Palestinians were directed against Jews, but nearly as many, 670, were directed against Arabs. Favorite targets included village elders, reporters, policemen, and day laborers in Israel. In part, the killings resulted from the rivalry between Hamas and the PLO for leadership in the occupied territories.
comment
You declare that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely anti-Zionist. And I say, let the truth ring forth from the high mountaintops, let it echo through the valleys of God s green earth: when people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews. Lecture by Martin Luther King, Harvard University, 1968
comment
You declare that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely anti-Zionist. And I say, let the truth ring forth from the high mountaintops, let it echo through the valleys of God s green earth: when people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews. Lecture by Martin Luther King, Harvard University, 1968
comment
The answer to Mr. Dershowitz's initial question is "yes, the poli sci dept. would invite David Duke to speak." Political Science Prof. Ian Lustick claims that the War on Terror is a "crock." Numerous Penn departments fund and sponsor blame-America-first sit-ins and protests. Nothing is too extreme here.
comment
First of all, my apologies to Kuku for misunderstanding your post. Second, I took Mr. Dershowitz up on his offer to check out Finkelstein on a "Holocaust denial program" on Lebanese tv, and I invite you all to do the same: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49u5GehpTa4 The host of the program makes some horribly inflammatory remarks about the alleged "great controversy" surrounding the figure of Jews exterminated in the Holocaust, but Finkelstein sticks to the subject matter of his books, that: 1. the Holocaust has been exploited for political gain. 2. Holocaust suffering should not be ranked as greater suffering than has occurred in other exterminations throughout history. 3. the claim that Swiss banks withheld billions from Holocaust survivors is untrue. All three are not inherently anti-Semitic (or anti-Jewish or what have you), although they are very sensitive subjects. Feel free to disagree with Mr. Finkelstein if you can out-research him, but I don't find the "he hasn't been there" argument convincing because YOU weren't there either in 1945 (nor you, Mr. Dershowitz, at the tender age of 7). Although it speaks nothing to his academic integrity, one should note that Finkelstein's parents were, and lived to tell him about it. The host, or the tv network, or the Lebanese media's views should not be thrust upon Mr. Finkelstein just as Bill O'Reilly's or Howard Stern's should not be thrust upon their guests.
comment
I'm not a fan of Dershowitz' twisted idea that torture can be appropriate in some cases, but this opinion piece is pretty spot-on. No department should be willing to sponsor visits by hard-left nutters under the guise of "academic freedom," but then exclude hard-right nutters under the banner of "tolerance" or "respect". If my tuition money is going towards bringing Finkelstein to campus, I want the chance to listen to other nutters who are probably just as interesting, such as someone from the Nation of Islam or the National Alliance.
comment
You declare that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely anti-Zionist. And I say, let the truth ring forth from the high mountaintops, let it echo through the valleys of God s green earth: when people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews. Lecture by Martin Luther King, Harvard University, 1968, quoted in Abraham H. Foxman, Never Again? The Threat of the New Anti-Semitism (San Francisco: Harper, 2003).
comment
As a former alumna, I am appalled at the virulent anti-semitic remarks from people who know nothing about the Israeli Palestinian conflict. They just believe whatever they have been fed by a bunch of hate mongers without any interest in finding out the facts. Where are the inquiring minds that should be the hallmark of students at Penn. I despair of this generation of college student.