[Mb-civic] Norman Finkelstein Speaks + Cheney, Bush and AIPAC

[ean at sbcglobal.net]

http://www.columbiaspectator.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2006/03/08/440e74
fd1c36 e Columbia Spectator (Columbia University’s Newspaper) March 08, 
2006

Active Subject

Norman Finkelstein Speaks

By Nell Geiser

As a Jewish student who is looking forward to Norman Finkelstein’s speech
on campus tonight, titled “Israel & Palestine: Misuse of Anti-Semitism,
Abuse of History,” I am disappointed there’s been such misinformed debate
about his visit. Maryum Saifee and Athar Abdul-Quader explained Monday 
on
this page (“In Defense of Professor Finkelstein,” March 6) that inaccurate
accusations hurled at Finkelstein only stifle productive dialogue. Since
many of the charges levied against him seemed to be based on emotional
appeals and not on facts, I decided to talk to professor Finkelstein
myself to clarify his argument in his new book Beyond Chutzpah.

I asked Finkelstein to talk about the misuses of anti-Semitism in relation
to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He explained, “If you look at the
historical record on the Israel-Palestine conflict, the past, if you look
at the human rights record, the present, or if you look at the diplomatic
record, the future, on how to resolve the conflict—if you look at those
three records, it’s quite striking how broad is the consensus and how
uncontroversial the record is. ... In fact, it’s hard to think of another,
as it were, trouble spot in the world where the record is so unambiguous
and so straightforward.”

“An obvious question arises—namely, how do you account for so much
controversy, which, once you enter the public arena, swirls around the
conflict that, if you look at the actual documentary record, is not
controversial at all. And that’s the question I pose in the introduction
to my book. And the answer I suggest is that most of the controversy
surrounding the Israel-Palestine conflict is fabricated, contrived. And
the purpose of that fabrication and contrivance is to divert attention
from the actual factual record and to sow confusion about the real
record.”

“Let’s look at the issue of the New Anti-Semitism. That’s been a term
that’s been bandied about since roughly 2000, and there are two things to
say about that New Anti-Semitism. Number one, it’s not new. Every time
Israel faces a public relations debacle or comes under pressure from the
international community to resolve the conflict, it orchestrates this
extravaganza called ‘The New Anti-Semitism.’ It’s very easy to
demonstrate. Any Columbia student, all that he or she has to do, is go to
Butler Library and look for a book that came out in 1974 by the same
organization that’s orchestrating the hysteria now, namely the
Anti-Defamation League, and they’ll find a book called The New
Anti-Semitism. And they’ll find similar publications being putting
periodically by the ADL and kindred organizations. There’s nothing new
about the New Anti-Semitism. That hysteria is whipped up periodically in
the U.S. The problem is that people have short memories. They forget.”

“Number two, it has nothing to do with anti-Semitism. There’s no evidence
whatsoever of a New Anti-Semitism in the United States or in Europe. ...
The purpose of the New Anti-Semitism is basically twofold: number one, and
most obviously, it’s to turn the perpetrators and their apologists ...
into the victims. So instead of focusing attention on the cruel
occupation, our attention is supposed to be focused on the suffering of
those who are perpetrating the occupation: the victims of this alleged New
Anti-Semitism. And the second purpose is to discredit any criticism of
Israel as being motivated by anti-Semitism. The claim of the New
Anti-Semitism is that, whereas in the past it was aimed at Jews
individually, it’s now being directed at the collective Jew—Israel. And
therefore, anyone who criticizes Israel is guilty of anti-Semitism. So the
purpose is to exploit the very real suffering that Jews endured in the
past in order to discredit any of Israel’s critics as being, in fact,
motivated by anti-Semitism, and to discredit any criticism of Israel as
being anti-Semitic. That’s its purpose; there’s no basis for the claim in
reality.”

I also asked Finkelstein what he would like to see discussed in a
productive conversation about Israel-Palestine.

“I think the right answer is to steer away from slogan, steer away from
ideological obfuscations, steer away from hot-button issues, and stick to
the facts. In my opinion, what we now ought to be discussing has nothing
to do with your position on Zionism. I don’t care if you’re a Zionist or
not a Zionist, that’s not the issue. The issue is fairly straightforward.
It’s as uncomplicated as an issue can be. Where do you stand on
international law? Where do you stand on human rights law?”

“This is what the record shows: Israel has no right to any of the
territory it occupied in the June 1967 war. The settlements Israel has
built in the occupied territories are illegal under international law.
Under international law, Israel has to fully withdraw. Israel’s human
rights record in the occupied territories is an abomination. Each
statement I just uttered to you is completely uncontroversial. Every
mainstream source, bar none, every one, will validate each of the
statements I just made to you. And then the question to be put to a
rational, sane human being is, ‘Where do you stand on that?’ ‘Do you
support the violations or do you oppose them?’ ‘Do you support
international law or do you oppose it?’ And everything else is beside the
point.”

I, too, hope that Columbia students can discuss the issues at hand rather
than avoiding them through false accusations. Given that the General
Assembly of the United Nations has voted time after time in overwhelming
support of Palestinian self-determination and withdrawal of all Israeli
settlements from the territories occupied in 1967, my stance is that
Israel should abide by international consensus and international law.
Finkelstein is doing a service by cutting away the obfuscating layers and
making clear what constitutes the real issues in this debate.


Nell Geiser is a Columbia College senior majoring in anthropology and
comparative ethnic studies. Active Subject runs alternate Wednesdays.

***

http://www.forward.com/articles/7458

Forward     March 10, 2006

Pro-Israel activists cheer Cheney

Embattled Bush team gets boost at AIPAC parley

By E.J. Kessler

Washington — Even as President Bush's popularity dropped to record lows,
his administration was embraced warmly this week by the thousands of
delegates at the most influential annual gathering of American Jewish
activists.

In recent weeks Bush has seen his approval ratings drop to around 35%,
leading some analysts to the conclusion that his poll numbers were putting
him perilously close to a "failed presidency" — one unable to effectuate
its policies because of a lack of popular support. But this week, at the
annual policy conference of the main pro-Israel lobby, the American Israel
Public Affairs Committee, several of the most hard-line administration
officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney and Ambassador to the
United Nations John Bolton, drew a resounding response.

The hard-line mood of the audience also extended to Israeli politics.

Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu, who, like the two other candidates for
prime minister in Israel's coming election, spoke on a video link from
Jerusalem, was cheered enthusiastically when he called for building "an
iron wall" around Hamas. Labor leader Amir Peretz and Kadima's candidate,
Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, were not as warmly received, as they
talked about a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Olmert spoke about unilaterally redrawing Israel's border in the West Bank
through further pullouts, and received polite applause. Former premier
Netanyahu, however, was cheered enthusiastically when he spoke about the
need to push the West Bank security fence eastward, deeper into the
Palestinian territory, to create a broader buffer against Palestinian
terrorism.

The enthusiastic support for Netanyahu and Bush administration hawks
underscores what appears to be a widening gap between pro-Israel activists
in Washington on the one hand and the Israeli and American publics on the
other. Polls show Netanyahu trailing Olmert and Peretz in Israel at the
same time that support for Bush and the Iraq War are plummeting in
America. Some political observers have suggested that Bush's declining
political fortunes would make it harder for him to follow through on the
hawkish rhetoric cheered by pro-Israel activists, but participants at the
AIPAC conference who were interviewed by the Forward voiced no such
concerns.

AIPAC also appears to be out of step with the American Jewish community 
on
Iraq. Like many other American Jewish organizations, it supported the Iraq
war. But 70% of American Jews oppose the Iraq war, according to a poll
commission by the American Jewish Committee at the end of 2005.

Jewish organizations, most of which have a liberal political orientation,
recently have taken a unified hard line against Iran and Hamas.

"AIPAC members tend to be more hard line and defensive when it comes to
Israel's security than the mainstream of the American Jewish community,"
said analyst Doug Bloomfield, a former AIPAC legislative director. "They
see themselves as Israel's first line of defense against unwanted
pressure."

Cheney — a bugaboo of the left for his role in the Iraq War — spoke for
more than 35 minutes at the conference Tuesday. He stressed the need to
stand firm against Islamic extremists, including the newly formed Hamas
government in the Palestinian territories, and Iran, whose president has
vowed to "wipe Israel off the map."

"The United States will not be a party to the establishment of a
Palestinian state that sponsors terror and violence," the vice president
said, adding, "We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon."

Cheney's personal approval ratings have dropped to below 20%. But the vice
president was received enthusiastically at the AIPAC conference, drawing
48 rounds of applause from the 4,500 assembled delegates — including eight
standing ovations. When he took the podium, the crowd stood and cheered
for almost a minute. It displayed similar warmth toward Bolton, a leading
administration hawk on Iraq and Iran, who spoke Sunday morning. Even
Senator Susan Collins — a Maine Republican known as an archmoderate —
garnered loud applause, when she called the Iranian government "a racist,
death-worshipping cult."

The delegates' reactions to the Republicans showed that despite its
sagging support nationwide, the administration still can garner vocal
support among pro-Israel activists for its support for Israel and its
hawkish rhetoric on Islamic terrorism — even as large sections of the
public apparently feel disenchanted by its handling of some related
issues, such as the Dubai ports deal and the war in Iraq.

Owing to his unpopular handling of the ports deal and to a deterioration
of Iraqi security that started with the attack on the country's main
Shi'ite shrine — events that strike at the core of Bush's competence on
national security — Bush has seen his personal popularity slip to about
35% in recent polls. The drop comes after he only recently had recovered
some of his standing after taking a beating last fall for his
administration's seemingly slow response to Hurricane Katrina.

Now, however, Bush is "back deep in the danger zone," Stratfor, a leading
security consulting agency, argued in an analysis published March 1. "He
is losing part of his core constituency.... A failed presidency was on the
table and then off the table. It is suddenly back on, and in a more
serious form than before."

Even the office of the presidency has suffered a diminution of support
under Bush. A recent Harris Interactive survey found that only 25% of
respondents say they have "a great deal of confidence" in the White House,
down from 31% last year.

None of this disenchantment appeared to resonate with the AIPAC delegates,
who in interviews frequently praised Bush's resolve and character, as well
as his positions.

"I still think George Bush gets it," said one delegate, Dr. Daniel Storch,
a Phoenix cardiologist and registered Democrat who voted for Bush in 2004.
"I've been impressed all along that he sees the world in the way that the
Israelis do in terms of terrorism and security."

Storch said he opposes the ports deal, which Bush supports strongly. But
Storch contrasted the administration's general approach to the Middle East
favorably with that of Democrats — who suffer among some AIPAC activists
from a perceived softness on national security matters.

"The Iranians take the threat of military action from George Bush more
seriously than they would have from John Kerry," he said.

Democrats have scored points among pro-Israel activists recently by
highlighting the issue of the Arab boycott of Israel in the ports
controversy. At the same time, however, Democrats, pressing the issue of
lobbying reform in the Republican-dominated Congress, have proposed
stringent rules on interest-group-funded overseas trips for lawmakers,
like the ones frequently sponsored by AIPAC as part of its Israel
advocacy.

Some conference attendees said that the hard-line foreign policy outlined
by administration officials would help Bush rally his base, which polls
suggest is starting to abandon him for the first time.

Pastor John Hagee, a popular national evangelical leader who attended the
conference, said that Bush would succeed in his Middle East policies
because "he has set a moral agenda in support of Israel."

"It's not a matter of political clout," Hagee said. "It's a matter of
right and wrong. It is right to support Israel."

Others said that the Bush administration's tough talk on Iran would
catalyze support internationally.

"There is such unanimity on Iran, both domestically and internationally,
that the president will enjoy strong support for his policy," said William
Feinstone, a delegate from Skokie, Ill. "This support will supersede
whatever weakness — real or perceived — this administration may be
suffering from."

Delegates voiced only muted criticism of Bush's Middle East policies — and
what complaints did emerge generally seemed to come from the president's
right flank. They privately debated whether the administration should
cease discussing the establishment of a Palestinian state while Hamas is
in power and whether humanitarian aid to the Palestinians should be cut
off in order to shorten the life of the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority.

Frequent Bush critic Morton Klein — national president of the Zionist
Organization of America, which strongly opposed the Gaza pullout — said
that the president likely would seek an even harder line, given his
political troubles.

"President Bush and his advisers believe that if he would relent in this
crucial fight against Islamic terrorism, his poll numbers would fall even
further," Klein said. "Not only would it be wrong for America, it would
hurt him politically. The American people want this evil to be crushed."

— With reporting by Ori Nir.


-- 
You are currently on Mha Atma's Earth Action Network email list, 
option D (up to 3 emails/day).  To be removed, or to switch options 
(option A - 1x/week, option B - 3/wk, option C - up to 1x/day, option D - 
up to 3x/day) please reply and let us know!  If someone forwarded you 
this email and you want to be on our list, send an email to 
ean at sbcglobal.net and tell us which option you'd like.


"A war of aggression is the supreme international crime." -- Robert Jackson,
 former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice and Nuremberg prosecutor

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20060311/a596eda6/attachment-0001.htm