Norman Finkelstein: The Giant with Feet of Clay*

Maybe it took an outburst from Abdul Roberts, a Lebanese resident of Dearborn, Michigan, to rock us into an awareness that previously might have been merely gnawing at our subconscious minds: Professor Finkelstein is a supporter of a Jewish state in Palestine, and we’re not the only ones who have drawn this conclusion.

Speaking to a largely Arab audience at Henry Ford Community College, this Jewish lecturer stressed again and again how any solution to the “conflict” must be “just AND practical”, that a “reasonable statesperson” must solve the issue not merely employing “justice in the abstract” – for that might create even additional problems – but with an eye towards solutions that were “reasonably practical”. Carefully setting up his audience, he then called upon an HFCC student, who dutifully mantra’d “Partition cannot be undone”.

He played the xenophobic card to the wrong Arab and Abdul Roberts (not his real name) exploded when Norman compared the ‘horror’ of 6 million Palestinians returning to their homes to 270 million Chinese landing on America’s shores demanding citizenship HERE. Omigod, can you even imagine! Norm was using population figures to explain his Judeo-centric observations: 5 million Jews in Palestine “forced” to accept an approximately equal number of Palestinians. Abdul yelled, “So you’re basically telling the Palestinian refugees to just sit tight and remain where they are until reasonably practical statespersons can tell them where to go”. The man was livid. And garnered a lot of very vocal support in that auditorium: this writer tracked him down to shake his hand for saying what needed to be said.

Very telling in Norm’s talk was his introduction: the holocaust and anti-semitism are presented front and center as givens in the discussion. No, Norm, you expose yourself as a Jewish supremacist when you begin the conversation there. Palestinian solidarity activists – in our view – should never lead off with discussions on the holocaust. A better strategy is to say nothing about events in Europe during the second World War, and when the opponent brings it up, challenge his unsupported reiterations of the standard narrative: demand to know the reasons for anti-Semitic sentiment in Russia and Europe; ask whether the opponent is versed in revisionist literature; request a deconstruction of past events; ask questions like: why did Nazi Germany label Jews as enemy aliens of the state? Don’t paint yourself into a corner by playing defense; seize the initiative, then re-focus the discussion on Palestine.

Besides, we recognize that Zionism long predated Nazism, and plans for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine were in place far before the first Jew was persecuted by National Socialists. And lest we forget, we also recognize that the Zionists collaborated with the fledgling Nazis, permitting them to survive their first, tenuous year.

Is Finkelstein effective in this choice of introduction? Consider: you walk into a Toyota showroom, and the salesman immediately tells you about his father who’s been laid off from Ford because of sales gains made by imported cars. He then tells about his brother who lost his job at the Chevy dealership just last week for the same reason. Times are tough for the domestic car industry he complains, but hey, would you like to buy a Camry?

And so it is with Norm: he undermines his own criticism of the Jewish state by begging for your sympathy about Jewish suffering, which of course allowed the world to turn its collective head when Jews were massacring Palestinians in formation of their Jewish state.

Criticism of Israel’s atrocities should stand on its own. The criticism that Norman dishes out is immediately undermined by his presentation of Jews as eternal, unique sufferers. Thus is appears that Norm is playing with two decks of cards. And the ultimate conclusion is that, deep down, he really is asking his audiences to accept the Jewish state. His exhortation of “International law” underscores the Zionist solution: a Jewish state on 78% of Palestine.

Though it’s true that Alan Dershowitz played a heavy hand in getting Finkelstein’s tenure denied at DePaul University, and that one feels for the person so harmed, the actual difference between the two men is 20%: Alan wants all of Palestine; Norm wants a mere 80%.

A Personal Note

If readers find this report unduly harsh, please know that this writer at one time held Professor Finkelstein in high esteem as a true leader for justice in Palestine. I admired him from afar, and traveled hundreds of miles to hear him speak. But a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since, and frankly, Finkelstein has yet to make the journey.

Five Vigilers
Anti-Zionism means No Jewish State
Henry Herskovitz
Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friend
* – apologies to Jurgen Graf
Comments? –> https://blog.deiryassin.org/

An Evening with Michigan Peace Team

Ten members of Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends combined to form a table at Friday’s fund-raiser for the Michigan Peace Team held at the Greenfield Manor in Dearborn. Approximately 500 people attended this gala affair, which featured speakers Cindy Corrie, mother of murdered activist Rachel Corrie, and Grace Said, sister of the late Professor Edward Said. JWPF members were heartened to hear a prayer issued by Grace, which started “Give us the anger with which we can address injustice …”

More Indications of JVP’s Zionist Position

Barbara Barefield of the openly Zionist Jewish Voice for Peace explained to the large Dearborn audience how their plan to divest from TIAA-CREF was going. Once again, the voice of JVP was explicit: Their concern is specifically targeted on the “occupation” of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. It is becoming increasingly clear that this group wishes to maintain Jewish supremacy on +78% of Palestine. Here are additional hints:

First, we note that the Jewish Daily Forward named Rebecca Vilkomerson, director of JVP, “one of the top 50 Jewish leaders in the United States.” This should come as no surprise, since it’s a recognition issued from one Zionist group to another. As Peacemonger says:

This reminded me of the bit from the first Blues Brothers movie when Elwood asks the proprietress of an establishment he hopes will book his band, “What kind of music do you usually have here?” The woman proudly replies: “Oh, we got both kinds. We got country and western.” [JVP and JDF are] just as diverse: They have Zionists who are critical of Israel and Zionists who are not-so-much critical of Israel. Vive la différence!

Second, we also note that when Abe Foxman’s Anti Defamation League listed Jewish Voice for Peace in “The Top Ten Anti-Israel Groups in America”, Cecilie Surasky, Deputy Director of JVP, explained to Abe and to us “Much of what they say about us is dead wrong – we seek a suspension of military aid, not an end … We are not an anti-Zionist group, nor are we anti-Israel …”

Sit back and imagine: a German peace group in 1940 claiming not to be anti-Nazi.

Wouldn’t work. Yet here we have two Zionist groups doing “battle” with each other. One wants 100% of Palestine; the other will settle for 78%. Good cop, bad cop; we’ve seen it before, it’s just tough to discern, but as we noted in last week’s report, Malcolm X was not fooled. Neither are we.

And third, we note that no one in the room came out to boycott the soldier/musicians of the Jerusalem Quartet, except those sitting at the JWPF table and a Catholic friend of ours. As a sign of solidarity, we signed JVP’s document to divest from TIAA-CREF, but when it comes time to do the grass roots quid pro quo, they are consistently missing in action.

Free Speech, Anyone?

This writer traveled to Central Michigan University in Mt. Pleasant to hear Shirley Phelps-Roper speak to Professor Timothy Boudreau’s journalism class. Phelps-Roper is the adult daughter of Fred Phelps, pastor of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, KS, which protests at the funerals of slain US soldiers as part of their activities.

The logic presented by Phelps-Roper was actually straight-forward: they conclude from their interpretation of biblical verse that the US government is disobeying God’s commandments (e.g. “Thou shalt not kill”), and that 9/11 and fallen soldiers are God’s way of punishing this nation. Their presence at funerals is their chosen tactic to warn the US to repent.

The actions of WBC are in compliance with local law, at least in their case currently before the Supreme Court, argued by Shirley’s sister Margie Phelps on October 6th. Not known by many critics, the group protested 1000 feet away from the funeral of Matthew Phelps, and plaintiff/father Albert Snyder was not even aware of the group’s presence until he watched television reports later that day.

A lesson from Noam Chomsky: “If you’re in favor of freedom of speech, that means you’re in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise.”

Ten Vigilers
Free Speech and JWPF… a great combination
Henry Herskovitz
Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends

Malcolm X’s Lesson for Sincere Jews

Malcolm X writes, after his return from Mecca (The Autobiography of Malcolm X, pp. 383-384):

I tell sincere white people, ‘Work in conjunction with us – each of us working among our own kind’. Let sincere white individuals find other white people … and let them form their own all-white groups, to work trying to convert other white people who are thinking and acting so racist. Let sincere whites go and teach non-violence to white people!…

I have these very deep feelings that white people who want to join black organizations are just taking the escapist way to salve their consciences. By visibly hovering near us, they are ‘proving’ that they are ‘with us.’ But the hard truth is this isn’t helping to solve America’s racist problems. The Negroes aren’t the racists. Where the really sincere white people have got to do their ‘proving’ of themselves is not among the black victims, but out on the battle lines of where America’s racism really is – and that’s in their own home communities;…

Now take a moment to replace the word “whites” with “Jews”, “blacks” and “Negroes” with “Palestinians”, and America with “Israel” or “Zionism”, and a clear picture emerges. If Malcolm were alive today, he would see through Jewish-led peace groups and individuals who are more interested in maintaining a Jewish state, the myth of superior Jewish morality, and unique Jewish suffering, than challenging the Jewish community to relinquish their racist hold in Palestine.

Think about two examples: Jewish Voice for Peace comes to town (Detroit chapter, 2006), ostensibly to work with the Palestinian activist community, but pretty soon, they’re calling the shots. Assuming a leadership position, JVP proceeded to strip ‘boycott’ from the BDS call and focused on divestment from TIAA-CREF, a large investment house. Why is JVP repeatedly absent when other groups call for grassroots boycotts? Where were they last Thursday, when thirty activists took to Rackham Auditorium to protest the Jerusalem Quartet? Are their goals to protect the existence of a Jewish state in Palestine? Let’s read their own words: “Much of what they [ADL] say about us is dead wrong – we seek a suspension of military aid, not an end. We actually have well over 20 chapters and growing. We are not an anti-Zionist organization nor are we anti-Israel …”

And consider efforts of well established, Jewish peace activists like Mark Braverman, who, instead of holding his own Jewish community accountable for the crimes of the Jewish state, he writes books and lectures folks on *Christian* Zionism. Is that getting the cart before the horse, or what? And for what purpose? Well, Malcolm said it first: Mark’s form of activism gives him the benefit of salving his conscience by appearing to work for Palestinian liberation. Malcolm would not have been fooled, and neither are we. He wrote:

‘Conservatism’ in America’s politics means ‘Let’s keep the niggers in their place’. And ‘Liberalism’ means ‘ Let’s keep the knee-grows in their place – but tell them we’ll treat them a little better; let’s fool them more, with more promises.’ With these choices, I felt that the American black man only needed to choose which one to be eaten by, the ‘liberal’ fox or the ‘conservative’ wolf – because both of them would eat him.

So the aware Palestinian might also be faced with the same choice: being eaten by the ‘wolf’ – JCRC’s Don Cohen*, or the ‘fox’ JVP’s Barbara Harvey – because both of them would eat him.

Video of the Combined Protest of the Jerusalem Quartet

Please view the 13-minute video of our efforts with the Jerusalem Committee of Dearborn, as we protested Israel’s “Cultural Ambassadors” on Oct. 21st.

Visit JWPF at the Michigan Peace Team “Signature Event”

Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends will sponsor a table at next Friday’s event, November 5th at the Greenfield Manor in nearby Dearborn. We will help commemorate the lives of peace activists Rachel Corrie and Edward Said. Please feel free to drop by our table and engage us in conversation.

JWPF Presents at Ann Arbor City Council

The Ann Arbor Chronicle once again covered our talk at City Council’s October 18th meeting. See article posted after signature, and verbatim speech here

JWPF Loses a Great Supporter

Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends mourns the passing of our dear friend Carolyn Diem, who left us this week. We note that she stood vigil with us twice, despite her age and physical condition at the time. She was a strong willed woman, always cheerful and willing to look out for her neighbor. Her presence will be sorely missed.

Eight Vigilers
Got a Comment? Go to: https://blog.deiryassin.org/ and let it fly …
Henry Herskovitz
Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends
* Jewish Community Relations Council of Detroit spokesperson
#

Henry Herskovitz described the regular demonstration he and several others have conducted – for more than seven years – on Saturdays at the Beth Israel synagogue on Washtenaw Avenue, saying they were peaceful vigils. He allowed that some of the 1,000 motorists who drove past expressed annoyance at their activity – which includes holding signs calling for the end of U.S. aid to Israel. But he contended that more motorists would be supportive of them if more people got their news from sources other than the New York Times, which many residents of Ann Arbor now rely on, since the demise of The Ann Arbor News.

The Times, Hersovitz said, had failed to cover the report endorsed by the United Nations Human Rights Council on the investigation into events surrounding a Gaza-bound aid flottilla on May 31, 2010, which resulted in nine deaths. Six of the killings, said Herskovitz, were described in the report as consistent with summary execution. Herskovitz described a visit to Ann Arbor by the Jerusalem Quartet, performing on Thursday evening, Oct. 21 at the Rackham Auditorium, as an attempt to put a “human face on inhuman behavior,” and he indicated that he would be there to protest against the performance.
Link: http://annarborchronicle.com/2010/10/23/city-council-mulls-zoning-marijuana-height/

Boycott Protest an International Success

Members and friends of the Dearborn-based Jerusalem Committee traveled to the University of Michigan’s Rackham Auditorium last Thursday evening, to help bear witness to the plight of Palestinians to concert-goers and passersby alike. One man even drove in from Windsor, Ontario, lending international flavor to our protest. Thirty protesters – some in hijab, some in keffiyeh, and some in baby strollers – held signs and passed out flyers to those who would accept them. See flyer here.

A fall chill was in the air, but the cool temperatures did little to diminish hot tempers from some racist Zionists. The truth really got to one Russian Jew as he harangued every protester in sight, to the point of causing one UM police officer to intervene and guide the irate Zionist inside the building. However, more than one concert-goer said “We’re with you” in subdued tones.

We are happy that once again Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends were able to join forces with the Jerusalem Committee. They came equipped with nighttime video cameras to conduct live interviews, and their audio/visual department promises us some YouTube footage by next week. They also infused new energy and much needed youth into our protest; we look forward to working with them in the near future.

No “Occupation” – An Interesting Comment

Last week we discussed the hidden, Left-Zionist message in the phrase ‘End the Occupation.’ Two readers found grist in what we were offering, and agree with us, almost. One believes that ‘Occupation’ is merely a phrase invented to camouflage the outright theft of land that Jewish Zionists planned from the get go. His reply is worth the full read:

Many Jews, now aware of the injustice associated with the establishment of Israel, but still unable to relinquish their belief in Israel’s essential innocence, have congregated around the slogans: ‘End the occupation!’ and ‘Two states for two peoples!’ That there is no ‘occupation’, and that there will never be a true Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza, are simply denied.

The long-term Zionist strategy for the conquest of Palestine was always to wait for what Ben-Gurion called ‘revolutionary situations’, meaning situations which would provide cover under which the take-over of Palestine could be completed. The first of these ‘revolutionary situations’ presented itself in 1947 and 1948, when, under the cover of the conflict, 78 percent of historic Palestine was transformed into Israel. Another such situation presented itself in 1967.

Israel in 1967 was not the innocent party threatened with annihilation by the Arab states (though its population probably thought it was). Israel had been preparing for such a war for years. Neither was Israel’s victory anything other than totally expected by anyone who was even a little bit in the know. Like the 1947-48 conflict, the war of 1967 was an opportunity gladly taken for the take-over of the remaining 22 percent of Palestine. This was the fulfillment of Zionism’s historic mission.

There is, then, no occupation. There never was an occupation. If there had been an occupation, and the Israelis had the slightest intention of ending it they would have done so years ago. The fact is, that no Israeli government, either of the left or the right, has ever shown any intention of fully withdrawing back to the 1967 border. No Israeli government, left or right, has shown the slightest inclination to permit anything even remotely resembling a real Palestinian state to be established on the West Bank and Gaza. Any state that could emerge would be tiny, fragmented and weak, being simply a legitimization of Palestinian surrender. The occupation, in fact, has been a fig-leaf to conceal the reality of the final conquest of Palestine.

Nevertheless, for many Jews the occupation is the bedrock of Israel’s essential innocence. Occupations are temporary and can be reversed, and this one, they believe, was the result of a war which Israel did not seek. So, Israel and Zionism are still, at heart, innocent. The Jewish state, established at the expense of another people’s national life, is still blameless. It is the occupation that has ‘forced’ Israel into the role of oppressor, and if only Israel would withdraw to the borders of 1967 all would be as it had been, only better: the gains of 1948 would then be secured, Jews would have their Israel with its ‘moral foundations’, and the Palestinians would be contained within a bantustan with a semblance, but not the reality, of justice. For many Jews, this would mean that they could have both their empowerment and their consciences.

For a further developed treatise, see “Speaking the Truth to Jews” at

https://www.deiryassin.org/byboard17.html

Six Vigilers
Got a Comment? Go to: https://blog.deiryassin.org/ and let it fly …
Henry Herskovitz
Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends

Time to Send “End the Occupation” Packing

Pause and reflect: While we note that International Law still labels Gaza as “occupied”, consider that there is no occupation in the following sense: Goldstein doesn’t live there anymore. He no longer commutes on the Jewish-only highways connecting his illegal settlement to Apartheid Israel. His wife no longer shops in Jewish-owned stores. His kids no longer attend settlement schools. He no longer waters his lawn with water appropriated from Palestinians, etc. You get the picture. In Gaza, there is no occupation in the sense that *our* houses and apartments are occupied. In this sense the occupation of Gaza is over. Yet who could possibly claim that justice has been served and that Palestinian residents of Gaza are free?

The siege, the starvation, the sniping from watchtowers, the bombings, the flyovers … all are testimony to the fact that ending an occupation, in the traditional sense, only goes so far. Arguments could be made that things are even worse, that war crimes have escalated. The 1948 ethnic cleansing and genocide continue unabated since the occupation of Gaza has ceased. Where has that rhetoric gotten us?

We think it very clear that catch phrases like “End the occupation” can help to serve a Zionist interest: The preservation of a Jewish supremacist state in 78% of Palestine.

It’s past time to employ slogans which address the issue more directly, that will clarify the situation and help highlight the path to justice. “End Jewish Supremacism in Palestine”, “No Jewish State”, “Smash Israeli Apartheid”, “Dismantle the Jewish State”, “All of Palestine is occupied territory”. All these address the issue at its core.

Continuing an appeal to merely “End the Occupation”, now only of East Jerusalem and the West Bank, portends a similarly awful “solution.” Imagine no Jewish settlers there: what would stop the Jewish state from erecting more walls and fences, ala` Gaza, which would create additional open-air concentration camps? What would stop them from then shooting at will, bombing at will, the same way they’ve done to Gaza? What would stop them from forcibly removing all Palestinians with Israeli citizenship?

If a peace group makes it absolutely clear that all of Palestine is occupied, then “End the Occupation” might have standing. But no group that we are aware of has made that distinction. So let’s shine the spotlight brightly on groups that promote an end to the “occupation”, and demand to know from them whether they’re in the business to preserve a Jewish supremacist state, or to dismantle one.

Last Reminder to Boycott the Jerusalem Quartet

Fascist countries have long used the subterfuge of exporting their best and finest musicians, artists, dancers, etc. to cover up their war crimes, and Apartheid Israel is certainly no exception. How many concerts must the Jerusalem Quartet perform to cover up the Hanukkah massacre, which used banned white phosphorus weaponry on unarmed civilians and children? How many dance troupes and symphonies must Apartheid Israel send out as “cultural ambassadors” to make the world forget May’s deadly Flotilla attack, where the Jewish state “executed” peace activists? Do people remember Rachel Corrie, who might be turning 30 this year were it not for the Jewish state crushing her, then thumbing its nose at its patron, the Zionist Occupied Territory, aka the United States? Seven years after this crime, and the U.S. still has yet to tell us the name of the bulldozer driver/murderer. Are they afraid to ask their masters?

So we call upon all peace activists to put their feet on the sidewalk, and join us to say “You’re not fooling us” to these musician/soldiers as they buddy up to their musical aficionados. Just say No to mendacity.

Date: Thursday, October 21, 2010
Place: Rackham Auditorium, 915 E. Washington Street (48104), Main Campus
Time: Protest starts at 7:00pm, will go till 8:30. Concert starts at 8:00
See you there.

Eight Vigilers
No Justice, No Peace
Henry Herskovitz
Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends

This video is also available for viewing here on the DYR web site.

End of an Era?

For as long as this writer has been a political activist there has existed in Ann Arbor an anti-war protest at the federal building every Tuesday at noon. A local construction project has closed off one of the roads adjacent to the federal building, but it appears that this weekly protest, started by the Interfaith Council for Peace and Justice (before they succumbed to Zionist pressure and abandoned the peace movement), has run its course.

It also appears that a general malaise has set in with peace activists and the general public alike to just accept things as they are, to (falsely) believe that nothing they do will have any effect, and hey! we already have a Nobel Peace Prize-winning President, don’t we? Fortunately, we have folks like cartoonist David Dees who see through the Two-Headed, One-Party system that governs the unwashed masses:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~hersko/Photos/swear_dees2.jpg

Boycotting the Jerusalem Quartet

A slight error in last week’s report: This writer conflated Rackham Auditorium with another venue with two entrances. Rackham has but one, with flowing, wide stairs to its doors, and is situated on Washington Street, not North University. We hope that you decide to help us tell the incoming audience and passersby that, unlike other countries who treat all their citizens equally and boast musical talent, Apartheid Israel masks their discriminatory policies and laws and attempts to cover up these sins by sending talented soldier-ambassadors to claim a false “normalcy” among nations. Vigiller S calls this “putting lipstick on a pig”, and the analogy holds. Please make it your business (because, in the end it is) to show up and hold Israel and all its supporters accountable for the ongoing ethnic cleansing and genocide of the Palestinian people.

From our announcement on the Michigan Peace Network: “In compliance with the Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI, 2004) request for “a comprehensive economic, cultural and academic boycott of Israel”, we are calling for a protest of the performance of the Jerusalem Quartet, which will be held in Ann Arbor on Thursday, October 21st.”

Date: Thursday, October 21, 2010
Place: Rackham Auditorium, 915 E. Washington Street, Zip: 48104
Time: Protest starts at 7:00pm, will go till 8:30. Concert starts at 8:00

Definition of a Free Press

We can now define a “free press” as: When you own the newspaper, you are free to print – or omit – any news article of your choosing. As Mel Brooks might say, “It’s good to be the King”. We refer to the United Nations report of September 27th, which states that civilians were “executed” by Israelis during the illegal raid on the Mavi Marmara.

You wouldn’t know about these executions if you relied on Arthur Sulzberger’s New York Times (or any of its 18 other newspapers, including the Boston Globe). And why should this owner feel an obligation to inform its readers, when that information might impugn the character of his favorite Middle Eastern state? “Jewish Owner Protects Jewish State” might be the better headline, but it’s unlikely we’ll be seeing that in “All the News that’s Fit to Print”

Seven Vigilers
Holding the Jewish community accountable since 2003
Henry Herskovitz
Jewish Witnesses for Peace and Friends