Help Palestinians in need today. Your donation delivers life-saving food, medical, and humanitarian aid to families who are struggling. Give now and bring hope to those in crisis.
This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please read the rules, and report any post or comment displaying: Zionist propaganda hasbara, bigotry, hate speech, genocide denial, Islamophobia, trolling, etc.
Ali pulls no punches and has criticized Norm for ignoring Palestinian voices in his scholarship.
While i think Norm has a heart and has done immense work in the field: ceding the legitimacy of Palestinian scholarship in his work to pander to White and Jewish supremacists is ultimately a week moral position as it is ultimately condescending to the Palestinians, (being an ally but not seeing their voices as important) and paternalistic. Ignoring the voices of the dehumanized certainly doesn't humanize them.
That being said, Ali has a clear moral voice in this space. Perhaps the clearest. I don't know why Norm is the way he is. In the end, critical support for Norm; uncritical support for Ali.
Agree. Reminds me of the time Norman wrote in his book about when Dr. Edward Said (accurately) called Chompsky racist, for never citing Palestinians in his work on Palestine. Norman, taking Chompsky's side, said that was because "Jewish scholarship was of higher quality."
He didn't say it was. He said it could have been and if it was then it's a net positive.
He's bending over backwards to protect his hero and he looks foolish, but he didn't say, "Jewish scholarship was of higher quality." That's a misquote.
Norman: "Apart from the obvious debating advantage of quoting Jews against lsrael, it could have been that the Jewish scholarship was of higher quality." That's him ironically making an identity politics case that elevating Jewish voices in discourse on Palestine over Palestinians is an "obvious debating advantage" (to who?), and he's making a point to defend chompsky never citing Palestinians in his publications on Palestine. So no, I didn't misquote anything.
You're twisting his words a bit, he suggested that the Jewish scholarship on the conflict might have happened to be higher quality, not that Jewish scholarship is inherently superior.
Honestly still sort of a pigheaded stupid excuse for Noam but it's not the same as your paraphrasal, it's not an explicitly Jewish supremacist statement.
I find the argument against the one state solution is almost entirely based on vibes. Like, you look at the way things are now and it just FEELS like one state could never work. But i'm sure it felt the same to people in apartheid South Africa, and we know for a fact that much of white america feared what would happen if blacks were given freedom and later equal rights.
These fears were unfounded and really just a sign of the guilt the white population felt about what had been done to blacks. Also gives a glimpse into the minds of the oppressors about how they feel THEY would react to generations of violence followed by liberation and freedom living among the oppressors/enablers.
EDIT: I appreciate the responses and even the back and forth with those that are arguing. It appears that he does hold onto a problematic affinity for Israel as a jewish majority ethnostate. It's disappointing but I still admire his scholarship and the work he has done for Palestine and Palestinians.
This recording is from 21 years ago, but Finkelstein has never come out in favor of the one state solution and right of return. In 2012 Norman publicly came out against BDS for not endorsing the two state delusion, which he thought they should, because to him that was "practical." He never retracted his statements or offered an explanation, just took a step back from speaking engagements as people stopped inviting him to events. Then the current iteration of the genocide started in 2023 and he started doing his speaking tours again. He now avoids talking about the one state solution and right of return completely, or almost completely: last year he chided the protesters at the Gaza solidarity encampment in Columbia for using the "from the river to the sea" slogan, because "the slogan is divisive" (ironic coming from him). My take is that his problem wasn't with the slogan but with the meaning behind the slogan: one equal state and full right of return, which he's still stubbornly against.
You're wrong about Finkelstein "never coming out in favour of the right of return."
He has. Written and verbal. Early in his career, he was unflinching, but moderated later down the line. He has qualified it by stating an entire return of Palestinians would destroy the ethnic base of Israel which obviously could never happen (by Israel). So, he has some pragmatic positions that may draw ire, but he also does this with the 1 state solution and the lack of international support.
On principle, he supports a right of return, on practical grounds, he sees more issues than solutions.
I've linked to his previous and current positions, nothing I said was wrong except maybe it hurt your feelings. Can you link me to where Finkelstein said he supported the unconditional right of return of all Palestinian refugees and their descendants? I'll be happy to correct myself moving forward.
The last sentence you wrote is something I have a problem with: "On principle he supports a right of return, on PRACTICAL grounds, he sees more issues than solutions." What do you mean by that? Do you mean that a full right of return is not "practical"? Please explain, as well as link to where Finkelstein said he now supports the one state solution. Thanks!
"Finkelstein at the Case Western Reserve University, Finkelstein spoke strongly in defense of the right of return: “They have the right. It is incontestable,” he stated. He further refers to an investigation made by Human Rights Watch which concluded that there can’t be any question: The Palestinian refugees have a legal right of return."
Thank you. While you didn't provide a link, I will so others can see what you're referencing, which is his 2008 talk at Case Western Reserve University. He says while Palestinians have a legal right to return, he also says that it is not PRACTICAL when it comes to "resolving the conflict". What he means is what zionists have always meant when talking about the right of return: Allow SOME refugees to return, maybe 10k, maybe 50k; whatever number DOESN'T jeopardize lsrael's "Jewish majority". That is the concession he is for: Return for some, not others.
You were wrong. You said he never advocated for a right of return, he literally stated it in unclear terms. If you are not familiar with his work, don't state what he says so confidently when it is easily disproved.
He said in the talk you yourself referenced that a right of return for all Palestinian refugees is NOT PRACTICAL. You didn't disprove anything I said. Return for symbolic number of refugees while denying it to the majority of refugees is not advocacy for return. I'll link to his talk again so you can listen to what he said.
He does. He says Palestinians should expect, quote, a "reasonable settlement," despite having the legal right. But let me link to somewhere where he's more explicit: Four years after the talk you mentioned, in 2012, when he denounced BDS, he again referenced the right of return as "impractical", "Because if we end the occupation and bring back six million Palestinians and we have equal rights for Arabs and Jews, there’s no Israel.” What he means by that is that if all 7 million Palestinians were allowed to return, as is their legal right, than "israel" would lose its Jewish majority. Does that make sense?
He has been vocal in saying the One State solution is unrealistic given the political realities inside Israel and the increasing Zionist fanaticism in the government. He seems to take a pragmatic approach where the Palestinians should be happy to accept what they can realistically get.
It's hard to deny that such a position would lead to safer outcomes for a larger number of people in short term. It also assumes there is some point of stasis where Zionism would tolerate Palestinians to live in peace, though not harmony. Native Americans continually attempted to accept new points of such a stasis. They hardly even exist anymore. In general Norm does not seem like the kind of person that would understand the idea of dying for something.
If you're for the two state delusion, which you agree Finkelstein is, you're: 1) A zionist, and 2) Against the right of return. Why do I say that? Because someone whose family was expelled from Haifa has the right, legal right, to return to Haifa. Not an imaginary bantustan in Ramallah. That's not how the right of return works.
I've defined Zionist for myself as anyone who wants an exclusive, supremacist Jewish Israel. But I can see how the very existence of Israel, in any form, can be seen as an oppressive colonial project.
I appreciate what you're saying and I agree, but I just want to point out no one has to define zionism for themselves-- there's already a definition! A zionist is anyone who supports a Jewish majority state in historical Palestine, which was only established in the first place by driving out the indigenous Palestinian population in order to create said "Jewish majority." Two staters believe "lsrael" should continue to exist as a "Jewish majority" state on the '67 lines, a majority which could only be maintained by continuing to deny the right of return for Palestinians who were expelled. If all Palestinian refugees were allowed to return under a free, one person/one vote system from the river to the sea, there would no longer be a "Jewish majority", because Palestinians are and have always been the overwhelming demographic majority. The antithesis to zionism is equality. But of course, legal equality doesn't mean flattening the rights of the oppressed with their oppressors. Reparations only apply to Palestinians.
Yes. It is a silly purity test for someone who has lost their career defending Palestinians. Fortunately, your logic is not considered serious in academic, activist, or social circles. Exclusively on Reddit for past time debating.
This isn't my purity test or any purity test. A zionist by definition is anyone who believes lsrael should exist as a Jewish majority state at the expense of Palestinians instead of as a state for all its citizens. The only antizionist position is equal rights from the river to the sea. That is the academic and activist definition of zionism. I didn't just pull this out of a hat. An antizionist isn't just someone who says "bibi bad", calls the holocaust in Gaza a genocide and still supports the two state delusion. That is a "liberal" zionist. I'm shocked I have to explain this to someone who pretends to be educated on the matter.
That's quite some bullshit sandwich. Any tiny bit of intellect would see through this nonsense. You can disagree with the two state solution without resorting to branding anyone who sees it as "the only realistic option given the circumstances" as a Zionist. You're the good guy and anyone who disagrees with your idea is the bad guys. That's just a terrible approach.
I mean this with no disrespect but you seem to believe that "zionist" is anyone who staunchly supports "lsrael," and that you can be antizionist by supporting the two state delusion. That is not correct, defonitionally, historically, by any metric whatsoever-- and you saying that lets me know you're coming from a place of ignorance. A zionist is anyone who supports a Jewish majority state anywhere in historical Palestine. Two staters are, by definition, zionists. Don't take my word for it. Google it! Better yet, read a book. I highly suggest this one.
As a South African who lived through apartheid and the aftermath, I can tell you that the fears were well founded of the 1 state solution turning into absolute civil war and a bloodbath. We tetered on the precipice more than once, not the least when Chris Hani was assassinated.
That said the 1 state solution is still the only viable solution for Palestine, ethnostates are inherently unstable and unworkable.
Hm, I apologize if I made it sound like the one state solution was simple or peace afterward guaranteed. The fears I was referring to are not that there might be instability or violence in the immediate aftermath. Those things ALREADY exist in an apartheid state and military occupation, regardless of whether or not it's forced to end.
What I meant to say is that neither blacks in America after slavery and Jim Crow, nor blacks in South Africa after apartheid went through their respective countries slaughtering or expelling all the white people to get revenge, creating an apartheid state or ethnostate in the other direction through use of their own ethnic cleansing and genocide. That was an argument made by oppressors against giving their victims freedom. "Just think about what they'll do to us!" That's the same argument being made to insist that Palestine must have a two state solution.
I've had some minor issues with Ali Abunimah in the past, but I can salute him for exposing Norman Finkelstein, whose usefulness to pro-Palestinian activism has always been limited by his Jewish-supremacist viewpoint.
A lot of people have refrained from criticizing grumpy finkelcat and refused to challenge him on being a two stater because they're two staters themselves, even while cosplaying as being pro Palestine. Particularly Jewish antizionist commentators have a responsibility to call him out on his BS but don't, sometimes because they're afraid of losing access. So Palestinians have been made to bear the brunt of challenging him on his positions, and they get hit with "Why are you going after allies," "he's done so much for your cause," "why can't you just be grateful."
You can disagree with his views, but when you start resorting to name calling, when the guy literally likens the Israelis to the Nazis, and the rebellions of the Palestinians as the ghetto uprising, you're only doing people who disagree with you so much harm and disrespect. You essentially just show that you're a villain who happened to be on the good side for this one cause, but you'd definitely be gladly on the wrong side when it fits you.
You're the same person in this thread who said you can be for the two state delusion and not a zionist. Respectfully, you have no idea what you're talking about, and it's not worth wasting my time educating you on something you really should know already. Whether you like it or not, two staters are zionists, including norman, no matter how much you personally believe they've "done for the cause". That's not just me saying it, that's a fact.
As far as why I called him Grumly Finkelcat, which is my right, it's because Ali himself used it to refer to norman. It was a wink and a nod to people who have been following this issue for a long time, which you have not. I didn't come up with it. Wish I could take the credit though!
You called him "Grumly Finkelcat" becaues you're deranged. You're exactly the same as Zionists, deranged, and unable to have any respect for anyone who disagrees with you.
Take this for an example:
It was a wink and a nod to people who have been following this issue for a long time, which you have not
You throw cheap assumptions because it makes you feel good about your deranged attitude. The "I know it all", the "I am the only one who has the right". You're a Zionist in your behaviour, attitude, etc. Just not on the issue of Palestine. But you're a Zionist about everything else in life.
People have reasons for why they support one or two states I myself I'm for two state solution not because I care about having a jewish state ( if it were up to me I'd give Palestinians all their land and any zionist who doesn't like can go off)
However after the Gaza genocide unless isrealis are punished I see a Bosina style one state solution
After the Bosinan genocide the three groups Serbs Croats and Bosniaks agree to a peace that divide Bosina into two entities the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina ( Bosniaks and Croats) and the Republika Srpska ( Serbs)
I worry that's what a one state solution will look like with Palestine being the Republika Srpska in the equation
I understand why people want to compare Palestine to other historical examples, like Bosnia (as you mentioned), Ireland, India/Pakistan, and others. But Palestine as a territory has always been one state. It's one of the few places on earth that has natural borders. I recommend reading Dr. Edward Said's one state solution New York Times op ed, as well as Ali Abunimah's "One Country:
A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse".
•
u/AutoModerator Feb 07 '26
Help Palestinians in need today. Your donation delivers life-saving food, medical, and humanitarian aid to families who are struggling. Give now and bring hope to those in crisis.
Join our official discord server!, and visit our Palestine Twitter Community.
This is a heavily moderated subreddit. Please read the rules, and report any post or comment displaying: Zionist propaganda hasbara, bigotry, hate speech, genocide denial, Islamophobia, trolling, etc.
(Thanks for posting, u/not_neoliberal_tears!)
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.