Misplaced Pages

Norman Finkelstein: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 08:44, 30 March 2006 view sourceRagout (talk | contribs)322 editsm →Criticism by the Anti-Defamation League← Previous edit Revision as of 13:16, 30 March 2006 view source 212.51.20.123 (talk) short version betterNext edit →
Line 5: Line 5:


==Doctoral thesis and exposure of ''From Time Immemorial''== ==Doctoral thesis and exposure of ''From Time Immemorial''==
Finkelstein wrote his ] doctoral thesis on ], and it was through this work that he first attracted controversy. In 1984, while Finkelstein was still at Princeton, he began to write a critical review of ]' book '']'' in which he examined every footnote and concluded that the book was a "monumental hoax." A "history and defense" of the state of Israel, Peters' book had been effusively praised in mainstream ] media sources. Finkelstein's charges initially roused little attention in the U.S. According to Finkelstein, "By the end of 1984, ''From Time Immemorial'' had...received some two hundred notices...in the United States. The only 'false' notes in this crescendoing chorus of praise were the ''Journal of Palestine Studies'', which ran a highly critical review by Bill Farrell; the small Chicago-based newsweekly ''In These Times'', which published a condensed version of this writer's findings; and ], who devoted a series of columns in ] exposing the hoax....The periodicals in which "From Time Immemorial" had already been favorably reviewed refused to run any critical correspondence (e.g. ], ], ''Commentary''). Periodicals that had yet to review the book rejected a manuscript on the subject as of little or no consequence (e.g. ], ''Dissent'', ]). Not a single national newspaper or columnist contacted found newsworthy that a best-selling, effusively praised 'study' of the Middle East conflict was a threadbare hoax" (Finkelstein, ''Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict'', pp. 45-6). Finkelstein wrote his ] doctoral thesis on ], and it was through this work that he first attracted controversy. In 1984, while Finkelstein was still at Princeton, he began to write a critical review of ]' book '']'' in which he examined every footnote and concluded that the book was a "monumental hoax." A "history and defense" of the state of Israel, Peters' book had been effusively praised in mainstream ] media sources. Finkelstein's charges initially roused little attention in the U.S. According to Finkelstein, "By the end of 1984, ''From Time Immemorial'' had...received some two hundred notices...in the United States. The only 'false' notes in this crescendoing chorus of praise were the ''Journal of Palestine Studies'', which ran a highly critical review by Bill Farrell; the small Chicago-based newsweekly ''In These Times'', which published a condensed version of this writer's findings; and Alexander Cockburn, who devoted a series of columns in ] exposing the hoax....The periodicals in which "From Time Immemorial" had already been favorably reviewed refused to run any critical correspondence (e.g. ], ], ''Commentary''). Periodicals that had yet to review the book rejected a manuscript on the subject as of little or no consequence (e.g. ], ''Dissent'', ]). Not a single national newspaper or columnist contacted found newsworthy that a best-selling, effusively praised 'study' of the Middle East conflict was a threadbare hoax" (Finkelstein, ''Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict'', pp. 45-6).


However, after a number of reviewers in the British and Israeli media supported Finkelstein's criticisms, a few U.S. journals began publishing more critical reviews of the book. Today, partly as a result of Finkelstein's analysis and criticism, Peters' book is widely discredited among scholars as a fraud. <!-- Finkelstein's findings appear in ''ibid.'', chapter 2. --> However, after a number of reviewers in the British and Israeli media supported Finkelstein's criticisms, a few U.S. journals began publishing more critical reviews of the book. Today, partly as a result of Finkelstein's analysis and criticism, Peters' book is widely discredited among scholars. <!-- Finkelstein's findings appear in ''ibid.'', chapter 2. -->


The controversy that surrounded Finkelstein's research caused a delay in his earning his Ph.D. at Princteon. ], a friend of Finkelstein, wrote in '']'' that Finkelstein "literally could not get the faculty to read ." According to Chomsky, Princeton eventually granted Finkelstein his doctorate only "out of embarrassment," though they didn't "even write a letter for him saying that he was a student at Princeton University." (''Understanding Power'', New York, 2002, p. 245 ) The controversy that surrounded Finkelstein's research caused a delay in his earning his Ph.D. at Princteon. ], a friend of Finkelstein, wrote in '']'' that Finkelstein "literally could not get the faculty to read ." According to Chomsky, Princeton eventually granted Finkelstein his doctorate only "out of embarrassment," though they didn't "even write a letter for him saying that he was a student at Princeton University." (''Understanding Power'', New York, 2002, p. 245 )
Line 16: Line 16:
However, '']'' wrote: "Mr Finkelstein... is not exerting much influence in the United States. His essays have attracted attention, largely hostile, in Britain, ... but have so far dropped like a stone in America. ...Yet his basic argument that memories of the Holocaust are being debased is serious and should be given its due." Critics in the mainstream Jewish community tend to find the core ideas of ''The Holocaust Industry'' less objectionable than the style and tone of "overriding hatred" that they see in Finkelstein's writing. However, '']'' wrote: "Mr Finkelstein... is not exerting much influence in the United States. His essays have attracted attention, largely hostile, in Britain, ... but have so far dropped like a stone in America. ...Yet his basic argument that memories of the Holocaust are being debased is serious and should be given its due." Critics in the mainstream Jewish community tend to find the core ideas of ''The Holocaust Industry'' less objectionable than the style and tone of "overriding hatred" that they see in Finkelstein's writing.


Finkelstein has taken other controversial positions. In ''The Holocaust Industry'', he described ] as a corrupt "racket," in which little of the money actually goes to victims and too much goes to lawyers involved. He has also challenged the characterization of the Holocaust as a uniquely evil historical event incomparable to no other pogrom, and likened Israeli security in their treatment of the Palestians to the ]. Questioned explicitly about his views on ], Finkelstein has said that rather than violence, ] should pursue independence through "non-violent civil revolt." Finkelstein has taken other controversial positions. In ''The Holocaust Industry'', he described ] as a corrupt "racket," in which little of the money actually goes to victims and too much goes to lawyers involved. He has also challenged the characterization of the Holocaust as a uniquely evil historical event, and likened Israeli security to the ]. Questioned explicitly about his views on ], Finkelstein has said that rather than violence, ] should pursue independence through "non-violent civil revolt."

He been called a "terrorist sympathizer" for what critics term his "bizarre" views on ]. Frequently quoted is Finkelstein's statement, "Frankly, part of me says - even though everything since September 11 has been a nightmare--'you know what, we deserve the problem on our hands because some things Bin Laden says are true'. One of the things he said on that last tape was that 'until we live in security, you're not going to live in security', and there is a certain amount of rightness in that." Finkelstein and his defenders respond that Finkelstein opposes terrorism, and say that his views are actually "banal" and commonplace: he is merely trying to "locate the Bin Laden phenomenon in some deeper social and political current."


==Finkelstein on David Irving and on numbers of Holocaust victims== ==Finkelstein on David Irving and on numbers of Holocaust victims==
Line 31: Line 29:


==Finkelstein and Alan Dershowitz== ==Finkelstein and Alan Dershowitz==
In addition to his attack on Joan Peters' work, Finkelstein has accused ] of using it without acknowledgement in his 2003 book, ], pointing to passages where Dershowitz quoted exactly the same excerpts that Peters footnoted in her book, but where Dershowitz referenced only their original sources and not Peters. Finkelstein regards this as plagiarism, a charge that Dershowitz denies. (''See ].'')


Finkelstein expanded his findings in a book entitled ''Beyond Chutzpah'', which was published by the ] (UCP) on ], ] despite of threats of legal action and an appeal to the Governor of California by Alan Dershowitz. . The threats required the Press and Finkelstein to agree on a number of editorial changes and caused a long delay in the publication date, leading Finkelstein to doubt whether the Press would go ahead. On July 9, 2005, editorial negotiations between Finkelstein's representatives and UCP came to a successful conclusion and ''Beyond Chutzpah'' was finally published on 28 August 2005.
Finkelstein has accused ] of quoting, in his 2003 book, ], exactly the same excerpts that Joan Peters footnoted in her book, largely in the same order, which he describes as plagiarism When confronted by Finkelstein on live radio, Dershowitz responded "one scholar is entitled to read a book as I did, Peters' book, and to find quotes in the book and check them against the original quotes. And find them to be accurate and then do what I did." He continued "I'm doing what a lawyer would do and what lawyers do is they find sources, they check the sources, I had a research staff that obviously checked the sources...If Peters had made up a quote that hadn't existed, Mark Twain had never written and then somebody borrowed the quote without going to check back on whether Mark Twain had said that, obviously that would be a serious charge. I've done nothing like that."

Dershowitz asked Harvard to investigate the accusations and was exonerated. James O. Freedman, the former president of Dartmouth, the University of Iowa, and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, stated: "I do not understand the charge of plagiarism against Alan Dershowitz. There is no claim that Dershowitz used the words of others without attribution. When he uses the words of others, he quotes them properly and generally cites them to the original sources." He noted that this is exactly the practice recommended in the authoritative Chicago Manual of Style. Freedman concluded, "this is simply not plagiarism, under any reasonable definition of that word" .

In an appendix to Beyond Chutzpah (p. 230-1), Finkelstein asserts that Dershowitz reproduces at least two of Peters' errors, and so could not have independently checked the original sources. Finkelstein also asserts that Dershowitz cites the page numbers from the 1881 edition that Peters cited rather than the 1996 edition cited Dershowitz's book. Finkelstein's appendix also produces an advance uncorrected proof of Dershowitz's text with notations that he interprets as directing a research assistant to cite from Peters' book, rather than the original sources.

The authoritative Chicago Manual of Style says "to cite from a secondary source is generally discouraged, since authors are expected to have examined the works they cite" . Similarly, Harvard's widely-used text manual ''Writing with Sources'' provides the following guideline:
:''2.1.(e) QUOTING OR CITING A PASSAGE YOU FOUND QUOTED OR CITED BY ANOTHER SCHOLAR: when you haven’t actually read the original source, cite the passage as “quoted in” or “cited in” that scholar—both to credit that person for finding the quoted passage or cited text, and to protect yourself in case he or she has misquoted or misrepresented (see “Indirect Source” pages 48–9). Always read for yourself any source that’s important to your argument, rather than relying on an abstract or a summary in another source.''

It is important to note that this passage does not appear in the chapter on plagiarism. Dershowitz's practice of citing the primary source rather than the secondary source is exactly the practice recommended by these standard manuals on academic writing -- assuming that Dershowitz did consult the original sources. While many academics consider failing to consult the original sources cited to be sloppy scholarship, no authoritative source agrees with Finkelstein in describing this fault as plagiarism.

Finkelstein also charged in a letter to the Dean of Harvard Law and numerous other forums that Dershowitz did not write ]. As evidence, he has noted (1) Dershowitz's failure to deny the charge when confronted with it during a debate, (2) Dershowitz's citations to the web site for a documentary film and another informal source, and (3) Dershowitz's confusion in a radio debate of several English noblemen who oversaw Palestine in the nineteenth century. . Dershowitz has responded that he immediately denied the charge during the debate.

Finkelstein has also called Dershowitz a "crook," a "charlatan," a "shameless moron," and compared him to Nazi official ] .

Finkelstein elaborated on his accusations in a book entitled ''Beyond Chutzpah'', which was published by the ] (UCP) on ], ]. After learning of Finkelstein's letter to the Harvard Law Dean, Dershowitz threatened to sue for libel and produced his handwritten manuscript. In consultation with the publisher's lawyers, Finkelstein removed the charge that Dershowitz was not the true author of The Case for Israel and all uses of the word "plagiarism" in favor of the phrase "lifted from". . "He couldn’t document that, so we asked him to take it out," said the UCP's director of the ghostwriting charge .

Finkelstein has also routinely called Dershowitz's defense of Israel's human rights record, particularly during the second intifada, a "fraud." Finkelstein disputes Dershowitz' claims with reports from organizations such as Amnesty International, the U.S.-based Human Rights Watch and the Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem.


While the book documents Finkelstein's plagiarism charge against Dershowitz in its appendices, the bulk of the book consists of an essay critiquing the "new anti-semitism" and longer chapters contrasting Dershowitz's arguments in The Case for Israel with the findings of mainstream human rights organisations, such as ]. As evidenced by the reviews in the list that follows this article, the book has received a polarised reception: praise from fellow-critics of Israel (including a number of Jewish writers) and intense hostility from supporters of Israel.
See also Misplaced Pages article, the ].


== Quotations == == Quotations ==
Line 61: Line 43:


* ]: (From the rear cover of the second edition of ''The Holocaust Industry'') "When I read Finkelstein's book, ''The Holocaust Industry'', at the time of its appearance, I was in the middle of my own investigations of these matters, and I came to the conclusion that he was on the right track. I refer now to the part of the book that deals with the claims against the Swiss banks, and the other claims pertaining to forced labor. I would now say in retrospect that he was actually conservative, moderate and that his conclusions are trustworthy. He is a well-trained political scientist, has the ability to do the research, did it carefully, and has come up with the right results. I am by no means the only one who, in the coming months or years, will totally agree with Finkelstein's breakthrough." * ]: (From the rear cover of the second edition of ''The Holocaust Industry'') "When I read Finkelstein's book, ''The Holocaust Industry'', at the time of its appearance, I was in the middle of my own investigations of these matters, and I came to the conclusion that he was on the right track. I refer now to the part of the book that deals with the claims against the Swiss banks, and the other claims pertaining to forced labor. I would now say in retrospect that he was actually conservative, moderate and that his conclusions are trustworthy. He is a well-trained political scientist, has the ability to do the research, did it carefully, and has come up with the right results. I am by no means the only one who, in the coming months or years, will totally agree with Finkelstein's breakthrough."

Finkelstein has also criticized Dershowitz's defense of Israel's human rights record, particularly during the second intifada as based on flawed or fraudulent data. Finkelstein has challenged Dershowitz with reports from organizations such as Amnesty International, the U.S.-based Human Rights Watch and the Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem.


==Bibliography== ==Bibliography==
Line 159: Line 139:
* Alan Dershowitz, * Alan Dershowitz,
* CAMERA (Deborah Passner), * CAMERA (Deborah Passner),
** NormanFinkelstein.com,





Revision as of 13:16, 30 March 2006

File:Norman finkelstein democracynow.jpg
Norman Finkelstein on Democracy Now!

Norman G. Finkelstein (born December 8, 1953) is an American assistant professor of political science at DePaul University known for his controversial writings pertaining to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and for his criticisms of the way he sees the Holocaust being handled by certain parties and organizations. He is the author of five books, of which the most prominent are Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering and Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History.

Norman G. Finkelstein should not be confused with Norman H. Finkelstein who is an author of several nonfiction books for young adults, some of which are about the State of Israel.

Doctoral thesis and exposure of From Time Immemorial

Finkelstein wrote his Princeton doctoral thesis on Zionism, and it was through this work that he first attracted controversy. In 1984, while Finkelstein was still at Princeton, he began to write a critical review of Joan Peters' book From Time Immemorial in which he examined every footnote and concluded that the book was a "monumental hoax." A "history and defense" of the state of Israel, Peters' book had been effusively praised in mainstream United States media sources. Finkelstein's charges initially roused little attention in the U.S. According to Finkelstein, "By the end of 1984, From Time Immemorial had...received some two hundred notices...in the United States. The only 'false' notes in this crescendoing chorus of praise were the Journal of Palestine Studies, which ran a highly critical review by Bill Farrell; the small Chicago-based newsweekly In These Times, which published a condensed version of this writer's findings; and Alexander Cockburn, who devoted a series of columns in The Nation exposing the hoax....The periodicals in which "From Time Immemorial" had already been favorably reviewed refused to run any critical correspondence (e.g. The New Republic, The Atlantic, Commentary). Periodicals that had yet to review the book rejected a manuscript on the subject as of little or no consequence (e.g. The Village Voice, Dissent, The New York Review of Books). Not a single national newspaper or columnist contacted found newsworthy that a best-selling, effusively praised 'study' of the Middle East conflict was a threadbare hoax" (Finkelstein, Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, pp. 45-6).

However, after a number of reviewers in the British and Israeli media supported Finkelstein's criticisms, a few U.S. journals began publishing more critical reviews of the book. Today, partly as a result of Finkelstein's analysis and criticism, Peters' book is widely discredited among scholars.

The controversy that surrounded Finkelstein's research caused a delay in his earning his Ph.D. at Princteon. Noam Chomsky, a friend of Finkelstein, wrote in Understanding Power that Finkelstein "literally could not get the faculty to read ." According to Chomsky, Princeton eventually granted Finkelstein his doctorate only "out of embarrassment," though they didn't "even write a letter for him saying that he was a student at Princeton University." (Understanding Power, New York, 2002, p. 245 )

Controversial opinions

Finkelstein's work is often viewed as being controversial. One of his books "The Holocaust industry" was on the top seller lists in many countries where according to an article in Die Welt in which he was interviewed , he points out that Amazon.com data shows the book was number one in South-America, number four in Central-America, number one in Austria, number three in Switzerland and number five in Jordan on the best-selling lists, and it is presently translated into eleven languages. He has gained a popular following in Germany where, according to Haaretz, he is considered a "darling of the extreme right." When he was asked in the same Haaretz article "How does it feel for him to be a favorite of the radical right in Germany?", he replied: "At first I was very puzzled by it," says Finkelstein, "and then I realized I wasn't responsible for it. It was the actions of the Jewish establishment. You can't accuse me of encouraging anti-Semitism. I am only the messenger who reports on the actions of the Jewish establishment, actions that are encouraging anti-Semitism."

However, The Economist wrote: "Mr Finkelstein... is not exerting much influence in the United States. His essays have attracted attention, largely hostile, in Britain, ... but have so far dropped like a stone in America. ...Yet his basic argument that memories of the Holocaust are being debased is serious and should be given its due." Critics in the mainstream Jewish community tend to find the core ideas of The Holocaust Industry less objectionable than the style and tone of "overriding hatred" that they see in Finkelstein's writing.

Finkelstein has taken other controversial positions. In The Holocaust Industry, he described Holocaust reparations as a corrupt "racket," in which little of the money actually goes to victims and too much goes to lawyers involved. He has also challenged the characterization of the Holocaust as a uniquely evil historical event, and likened Israeli security to the Gestapo. Questioned explicitly about his views on terrorism, Finkelstein has said that rather than violence, Palestinians should pursue independence through "non-violent civil revolt."

Finkelstein on David Irving and on numbers of Holocaust victims

Finkelstein's critics sometimes like to associate him with Holocaust denier, David Irving. Finkelstein's views on Irving are expressed in The Holocaust Industry, where he states that Irving “notorious as an admirer of Hitler and sympathizer with German national socialism has, nevertheless, as Gordon Craig points out, made an 'indispensable' contribution to our knowledge of World War II." Finkelstein goes on to endorse Craig's dismissal of Irving's holocaust claims as "obtuse and quickly discredited". The "indispensable" comment (made by Craig and quoted by Finkelstein) is specifically about Irving's contribution to the study of the "German side of the Second World War" (Source: The Holocaust Industry, Second Edition, New York: Verso, 2003; page 71-72).

Finkelstein's critics (such as the ADL, see below) also routinely accuse him of holocaust revisionism and in some cases of holocaust denial. Finkelstein himself says that he relies on the work of Raul Hilberg for historical facts about the holocaust and that, on the basis of that research, Finkelstein quotes the numbers of holocaust Jewish victims as being 5.1 million . In the Holocaust Industry Finkelstein did, however, take issue with the numbers of holocaust survivors as quoted by interest-groups seeking holocaust reparations.

Criticism by the Anti-Defamation League

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is typical of Finkelstein's critics who have called him a holocaust denier, and have also accused him of pursuing an anti-Semitic agenda . Finkelstein has called the ADL's accusations against him empty and undeserved. "I am Jewish and my parents are Holocaust survivors. With others you could say, 'you're an anti-Semite' or 'you're a Holocaust denier,' you can't do that with me," he once responded, "you have to argue the facts."

Finkelstein has frequently criticized the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) as an organization dedicated not to defense against anti-semitism, but to defamation of critics of Israel. Ultimately, he argues, the ADL trivializes real anti-semitism by "crying wolf" over fraudulent allegations of "the new anti-semitism."

Finkelstein and Alan Dershowitz

In addition to his attack on Joan Peters' work, Finkelstein has accused Alan M. Dershowitz of using it without acknowledgement in his 2003 book, The Case for Israel, pointing to passages where Dershowitz quoted exactly the same excerpts that Peters footnoted in her book, but where Dershowitz referenced only their original sources and not Peters. Finkelstein regards this as plagiarism, a charge that Dershowitz denies. (See Dershowitz-Finkelstein affair.)

Finkelstein expanded his findings in a book entitled Beyond Chutzpah, which was published by the University of California Press (UCP) on June 1, 2005 despite of threats of legal action and an appeal to the Governor of California by Alan Dershowitz. . The threats required the Press and Finkelstein to agree on a number of editorial changes and caused a long delay in the publication date, leading Finkelstein to doubt whether the Press would go ahead. On July 9, 2005, editorial negotiations between Finkelstein's representatives and UCP came to a successful conclusion and Beyond Chutzpah was finally published on 28 August 2005.

While the book documents Finkelstein's plagiarism charge against Dershowitz in its appendices, the bulk of the book consists of an essay critiquing the "new anti-semitism" and longer chapters contrasting Dershowitz's arguments in The Case for Israel with the findings of mainstream human rights organisations, such as Human Rights Watch. As evidenced by the reviews in the list that follows this article, the book has received a polarised reception: praise from fellow-critics of Israel (including a number of Jewish writers) and intense hostility from supporters of Israel.

Quotations

  • Noam Chomsky: "I'm delighted to hear that I'll be followed shortly by Norman Finkelstein and would very strongly advise you to come listen to him. Not only an old personal friend but a person who can speak with more authority and insight on these topics than anyone I can think of. So that should be a memorable occasion and I urge that you not miss the opportunity."
  • Leon Wieseltier: "He's poison, a disgusting self-hating Jew, something you find under a rock."
  • Raul Hilberg: (From the rear cover of the second edition of The Holocaust Industry) "When I read Finkelstein's book, The Holocaust Industry, at the time of its appearance, I was in the middle of my own investigations of these matters, and I came to the conclusion that he was on the right track. I refer now to the part of the book that deals with the claims against the Swiss banks, and the other claims pertaining to forced labor. I would now say in retrospect that he was actually conservative, moderate and that his conclusions are trustworthy. He is a well-trained political scientist, has the ability to do the research, did it carefully, and has come up with the right results. I am by no means the only one who, in the coming months or years, will totally agree with Finkelstein's breakthrough."

Bibliography

External links

Profiles

Reviews

Appearances

Criticisms

Categories: