In 2012 Finkelstein undertook a lecture tour in England and
talked extensively of the Israel-Palestine situation. What he said in one of
his lectures drew loud and bitter criticism, not from the supporters of Israel
but, strangely, from the supporters of Palestinians! Some even called him a
traitor to the Palestinian cause which he has been defending all his life, at
great risk and cost to himself. I examined the issue and here is what I wrote.
This was published widely by several media outlets including
VIEWZONE.COM.
My article was submitted to Finkelstein for response and
that appears here just after my article
This 2012 article and Finkelstein’s response are as relevant
today as they were in 2012. They contain very interesting and informative
facts.
March 27, 2012
FINKELSTEIN: Traitor or
Pragmatist?
Palestinians at a crucial
juncture
By: Gulamhusein Abba
It is all very well for us, sitting in the comfort and
security of our homes, to be purists. We do not live with drones flying over
our heads 24/7, we do not experience any difficulty travelling from one place
to another, we do not live in fear of bombs falling on our homes.
Neither I nor the talking heads nor the pundits and pen
pushers and keyboard warriors operating from the comfort and security of their
homes, nor the Finkelsteins of this world, nor anyone else can tell the
Palestinians what they should do or not do. It is for them to decide how to
shape their destiny."
After receiving several e-mails forwarding bitter attacks
against Finkelstein for his pronouncements at several colleges and in private
interviews during his recent lecture tour in UK, I read, in full, the posts
sent to me. I then hunted out several reports and videos about Finkelstein's UK
lecture tour and, though it took hours spread over several days, read all the
reports and saw all the videos.
It became clear to me that the attacks on Finkelstein were
based on the single 30 minute interview he gave to a private person in the
confines of a small private room. I feel that if those on the attack had heard
the long and detailed speeches Finkelstein gave to large audiences in
University Halls and at other places, they would change their mind.
I find that Finkelstein has not changed a bit on
fundamentals. In his lectures during his recent tour, he came out very hard on
Israel and recounted and described in graphic language several horrible acts
Israel has committed. And he affirmed very clearly and explicitly that according
to the International Court of Justice, UN resolutions, Amnesty International
and Human Rights Watch, to mention just a few entities, the West Bank, Gaza and
East Jerusalem are Palestinian territory, the transfer of Israelis to these
parts is against international law, the Israeli settlements are illegal.
In his lectures he also mentioned atrocities committed by
Israel elsewhere too.
He made no attempt to justify any of Israel's acts with
reference to Palestine. To the contrary he has condemned them unequivocally.
Israel's right to exist
Regarding Israel's right to exist, he ridiculed Israel's
demand that the Palestinians recognize its right to exist and said that
Israel's demand to be recognized as a Jewish state had no legal basis. Indeed,
he indirectly admitted that Palestinians are entitled to claim that Israel,
whether Jewish or secular, has no inherent right to exist though it can claim
that it has acquired the right to have its existence accepted. And indeed that
is the current position of Hamas and Fatah also. Both deny Israel's right to
exist but accept the fact of its existence.
Right of return
As for the refugee question, Finkelstein, in his London tour
lectures, never denied the right of return. To the contrary, he has ridiculed
the Israeli suggestion that an international fund be set up and the refugees be
compensated from that. He said that Israel cannot disclaim any responsibility
for the refugee problem and he insisted that Israel must accept the principle
of the right of return. He pointed out that the figures projected by Israel are
imaginary. The real number of refugees wanting to return to Palestine would be
far less. The refugee problem is not insurmountable and can be worked out
through negotiations.
Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions
Nor did he express any objection to the means the
Palestinians are using to achieve their rights. In fact he said he fully
supports the BDS campaign. His criticism was of those behind the BDS campaign
claiming that they are agnostic about the existence of Israel. He pointed out
that people are not fools. They see that the demands made by the Palestinians
will mean the end of Israel's existence as it is constituted at present.
The question, he said, is of tactics, of politics. He
maintains that if the Palestinians want to present themselves as ones who are
reasonable, ones who are rights-based, ones who just want the UN resolutions
enforced, then they cannot ask for a one state solution, simply because an
Israeli state is part of the UN resolution. One cannot ask for selective
enforcement.
One state or Two state solution
He has admitted that if the facts on the ground have been
changed by Israel to such an extent that it is now no longer possible to have a
contiguous and viable Palestinian state, then it would be quite legitimate for
the Palestinians to ask for a one state solution. But, he claims, that position
is not true. And he showed, by using maps, that by giving up just a little more
than one percent of the West Bank, and insisting on retaining the entire West
Bank other than the said one percent, Palestinians could have a viable and
contiguous state. That, according to him, knocks out the one valid argument for
a one state solution.
His argument is that though it might be right morally to
insist on a one state solution, that demand cannot be based on the argument
that a two state solution is no longer possible on account of the demographics
having been changed so completely by Israel.
As I understand it, the demand for a one state solution is
based on the fact that Israel has so carved up the West bank that, even if it
withdraws completely from the West Bank, it will not be a contiguous state,
especially if the proposed land swap is accepted.
Apartheid
There can be no question that Israel’s treatment of its Arab
citizens amounts to apartheid. One can denounce that and demand suitable action
against Israel for that. But one cannot, on that basis, demand that the
occupied territories be combined with what is now Israel to form a single
democratic and secular state.
Idealism versus
pragmatism
Finkelstein has been criticized for advocating a pragmatic approach
rather than one based on human rights, international law, justice, morality and
ethics.
It cannot be denied that moral action, such as human rights
campaigns, should never be guided by "mainstream public". Their very
task is to change mainstream public opinion.
Nowhere do I find Finkelstein denying this. All that he says
is that changing public opinion on the issue of one state versus two states is
going to take a very, very long time. Palestinians will be able to get their
legitimate demands met more quickly if they abandon the demand for a single
state and stick to a demand for an end to the occupation, a sovereign, viable
and contiguous Palestinian state in the borders contained in the UN partition
resolution and the right of return for the legitimate Palestinian refugees.
Either the Palestinians say it loud and clear that the UN
partition resolution itself is unjust and morally wrong and on that basis they
aspire to end a Jewish state and create in its place a democratic and secular
state with equal rights for all its citizens OR they demand the full
implementation and enforcement of the UN resolution, which includes having
Israel as a state (though not as a Jewish state).
What Finkelstein is saying is that if the Palestinians stick
to the first position, they will be morally right, but it will take many, many
years to achieve their goal. If they choose the second course, which does not
in any way contradict their three layered demands, they stand a better chance
of achieving their goal, a better chance of bringing to an end the misery and
deaths being inflicted on the Palestinians by the Israelis, a better chance of
allowing the Palestinians to get on with their lives.
He further argued that though it has taken years of hard
work to do so, the world is at last ready to listen sympathetically to the
demands of Palestinians, ready to admit that what Israel is doing is unjust and
contrary to international law. It is ready to see the establishment of a two
state solution. It is NOT yet ready to accept a one state solution.
He argued that rather than go on fighting for a demand which
may be morally right but which will entail years and years of waiting and many,
many more Palestinian lives lost, purely from the tactical point of view, it
would be better for the Palestinians to grasp this opportunity and adhere to
the demand of full implementation of the UN resolutions (which include the
state of Israel).
On whose side is Finkelstein?
If one listens carefully to all the videos, one begins to
see that what he is saying is not that the demand for a one state solution has
no moral underpinning or that it is not based on the rights of Palestinians. He
is merely stating that there is an alternative solution, a two state solution,
and it would be easier and quicker to get that rather than ask for a one state
solution.
The impression one gets after listening to all the lectures
is that his main concern is not preserving the state of Israel, as those who
are now criticizing him claim, but rather to suggest to Palestinians a tactic
that would more quickly bring an end to the Israeli occupation and all that
comes with it, and allow them to get on with their lives. Implicit was that the
final choice, of course, rests with the Palestinian people (as opposed to
ideologues or so called leaders who have their own personal agendas to pursue).
Is Finkelstein trying to "ease
his guilty conscience"?
All this talk about Finkelstein being concerned about how
the world, and specially the Israelis, remember him after he delivered his
lectures and his lectures being an
attempt to ease his conscience and his not wanting to be remembered as an
anti-Semite who advocated Israel shouldn’t exist at all, all this is pure
conjecture, quite baseless and wholly undeserved. I found no evidence of any
such concern and desires. I saw no trace of a guilty conscience trying to
redeem itself.
An exception to Finkelstein's
"swap" suggestion
I must confess that even I, who am so outraged by the
atrocities of Israel and by the UN carving up Palestine and giving more than
50% of it to a foreign entity to establish a state of their own thereon -- even
I have often urged what Finkelstein is now suggesting. With one exception.
Though it is going to be an uphill task, the demand, I feel, should, at the
very least, be for the entire West Bank to be restored to the Palestinians,
including the one percent that Finkelstein believes the giving up of which
would lead more quickly to the Palestinians achieving an independent state of
their own. Presenting the Israelis with this one percent would amount to
rewarding an invader with a part of his spoils to make him disgorge the rest.
Apart from it being unjust, it would set a bad and dangerous precedent for
future invaders. Truth to tell, I personally feel that the Palestinians should
demand the full implementation of the UN partition plan and all the relevant UN
resolutions thereafter, as Finkelstein now suggests. But, the demand should be
for Israel withdrawing fully and completely, to the borders delineated by the
UN in its original partition plan, not the 1967 borders.
Of course, it can be argued that even if Israel withdraws
completely from the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, it would be impossible
for these areas to live in peace because of the Israeli settlements and connecting
roads that Israel has dotted these areas with and on that basis, a two state
solution is no longer viable and the only solution is a unified, single,
democratic and secular state.
Finkelstein not free from criticism
Is Finkelstein completely free from criticism? Certainly
not. His downplaying the achievements of the BDS campaign is most unfortunate,
disturbing and contrary to facts. Many trade unions have participated in it.
Several artistes have cancelled their appearances in Israel. Divestment has
taken place. Products and companies have been boycotted. More important, as
pointed out by Finkelstein himself, in solidarity marches and protests all over
the world, those taking part are no longer just Palestinians. The majority of
them are non-Palestinians. And, again as pointed out by Finkelstein himself,
the perception of the world about Israel has changed. It is being increasingly
isolated. While it is true that Finkelstein himself has played not a small part
in making this change occur, the BDS campaign can rightfully take full credit
for this phenomenon.
Similarly, his constantly repeating that Palestinians should
adopt a tactic based on what the mainstream public worldwide is ready to accept
was, initially very disturbing and jarring. But I listened, over and over
again, to what Finkelstein was trying to convey and I realized that he was not
saying that what he is proposing is the right stand, in terms of what morality
and ethical norms demand. He was merely presenting this as an alternative
choice. What are the advantages and disadvantages of adopting this stance? And what are the costs of adopting a strictly
morality based stand?. One has to choose. Clearly Finkelstein feels that
sticking to a two state solution and, while insisting that the right of return
be accepted by Israel in principle, being flexible on the way it is implemented
-- this is, in the present circumstances, the better choice for the
Palestinians.
He was also dead wrong in suggesting that Palestinians
should stop criticizing Israel for the way it treats its minorities,
particularly the Arab citizens of Israel. Not only Palestinians but anybody and
everybody in the world has a right and a duty to condemn this apartheid. On
this question, I fully agree there can be no question that Israel’s treatment
of its Arab citizens amounts to apartheid. One can and should denounce that and
demand suitable action against Israel for that. But, I submit, one cannot, on
that basis, demand that the occupied territories be combined with what is now
Israel to form a single democratic and secular state.
On the whole
On the whole, my sense of the situation is that if it is put
to the vote, whether Palestinians should continue to fight for a single state
solution or accept the realities and agree to a two state solution within the
parameters of UN resolutions, -- if this is put to the vote, the majority of
the Palestinians would say that they have had enough of fighting, enough of the
hardships inflicted on them, enough of deaths, and want to move on with their
lives. I feel they would say they are now willing to accept a two state
solution, provided it includes a fully independent, sovereign, viable and
contiguous state of Palestine within the borders of the UN partition resolution
and the right of return for the Palestinian refugees.
We all know that Israel accepted only that part of the UN
resolution which authorized the Jewish entity setting up a state of its own in
Palestine. It never accepted the BORDERS. Israel has never defined its borders.
And there is a reason for this. Zionists, from the beginning, were bent on
extending Israel's borders to all of Palestine west of the Jordan River.
Indeed, their ultimate goal was, and remains, extending the borders to include
Jordan. But it "accepted" the state that was given to it, to use it
as a step to achieve its final goal.
Ultimately it is for the Palestinians
to decide
Perhaps the Palestinians should learn from this. Perhaps the
wise thing to do would be to accept the two state solution, get it set up and
recognized, build it economically, politically and in all other ways, and then,
when they are in a position to do so, campaign for one single, democratic,
secular state, on the ground and with the argument that it would benefit both,
the Israelis and the Palestinians.
On the other hand, one can be an idealist, a purist and go
on insisting that the UN had no right to carve up Palestine, no right to impose
a foreign government on the Palestinians, and go on insisting on a one state
solution on that basis alone.
Ultimately, I feel that it is for the Palestinians to decide
what they want to do. It is all very well for us, sitting in the comfort and
security of our homes, to be purists. We do not live with drones flying over
our heads 24/7, we do not experience any difficulty travelling from one place
to another, we do not live in fear of bombs falling on our homes. Palestinians
do.
…………
A personal note
First, about Finkelstein. He is clearly no traitor of the
Palestinian cause. He has been at the forefront advocating for Palestinian
rights. For more than three decades he has been telling the world about Israel’s
oppressive policies. He did this again and again in his lectures in UK
recently. His commitment to ending Israel's oppressive policies remains as
strong as ever and he continues to be an important and forceful critic of
Israel and supporter of the Palestinian cause.
This has not been easy for him nor is it easy for him now.
He has paid a very heavy price for his public denunciation of Israeli actions.
There is no need to repeat what he has borne. The record is known to all.
Quartering him and throwing him to the dogs is height of
ingratitude and is folly exemplified.
What Finkelstein deserves from the Palestinians and the
supporters of their cause is not vilification but praise, continued support and
yes, gratitude.
I have written this with a very heavy heart. Here are my
innermost thoughts, beliefs and feelings:
*The Jews did not really need a state of their own.
*The European powers decided to set up a separate state for
the Jews in Palestine not out of compassion for the Jews or to fill a perceived
need for them to have a state of their own but for their personal ulterior
motives, namely to provide a salve to their guilty conscience (for not doing
what they could have done to prevent the holocaust), keep the thousands upon
thousands of refugee Jews from their own shores, and, to have a paw in the
Middle East.
*The UN had no right to practice charity at the expense of
the Palestinians. The UN erred grievously in agreeing to partition Palestine
and imposing a foreign government on the Palestinians against their expressed
wishes.
*The UN added insult to injury by giving more than 50 per
cent of Palestine to this foreign entity.
*Israel being the creation of the UN, the UN has a duty and
an obligation to see that Israel respects international law. It is the duty of
the UN to take necessary action, such as imposing sanctions and taking any and
all other necessary actions, to compel Israel to end its illegal and brutal
occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights instead
of leaving the defenseless Palestinians at the mercy of the Israelis and forcing
the Palestinians to negotiate a peace deal with them.
*What is needed is not negotiations between the powerful
aggressor and the helpless victim but implementation and enforcement by the
international community of UN resolutions on record.
I personally am for the eventual establishment of a single
democratic and secular state on all of the land west of the Jordan River which
comprised Palestine prior to the establishment of Israel.
For the present, I feel, the best strategy would be to focus
on getting the UN to enforce the UN partition resolution and all the subsequent
UN resolutions on the subject.
Simultaneously, the BDS organizers should strengthen the
campaign, proposing neither a two state or a one state solution but
concentrating on calling for BDS against Israel solely on the grounds of it
violating international laws and human rights and practicing discrimination
against its Arab citizens and other groups.
The BDS campaign is an inclusive one, embracing all human
rights advocates including Palestinians, Israelis, American Jews, and American
Palestinian Christians and Muslims who together hold Israel accountable for its
horrendous policies and actions and call for an end to its illegal and brutal
occupation.
These are just my personal thoughts. What strategies should
the Palestinians adopt? I firmly believe that neither I nor the talking heads
nor the pundits and pen pushers and keyboard warriors operating from the
comfort and security of their homes, nor the Finkelsteins of this world, nor
anyone else can tell the Palestinians what they should do or not do. It is for
them to decide how to shape their destiny.
Dr. Norman Finkelstein’s response:
UPDATE: This article was sent to Dr. Norman Finkelstein with
a request that if there be any statement, argument, belief attributed to him in
the article to be untrue or incorrect, he should let me know. He has responded
and made only the following clarifications:
He has stated:
"I am not aware of any authoritative statements by
jurists or legal bodies that equate Israeli policies vis-a-vis its own
Palestinian-Israeli citizens as constituting Apartheid. No sane person denies
the discriminatory nature and policies of the Israeli state, but Apartheid
under the Rome Statutes constitutes a 'crime against humanity', and so it
requires crossing a very high threshold before one equates a State's
discriminatory policies with Apartheid."
With regard to my suggesting that he urges the Palestinians
to accept a two state solution and agree to swap about 1.9 per cent of existing
West Bank for a land equal in size and value, he has stated categorically:
"I do not believe that Palestinians should accept anything less than the
full 100% of their territory."
The article refers to a map he showed at the lectures with
the 1.9 percent of West Bank that was being asked for a land swap. The
implication was that this was a map drawn up by Finkelstein. With regard to
this he has clarified that the map was actually a map that had been presented
by the Palestinians in 2008.
About Palestinians recognizing Israel, while not denying
what he said at the lectures that Israel was not entitled to insist on the
Palestinians recognizing its right to exist as a state, much less entitled to
insist that they recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state, he has
stated, "If one wants to anchor a resolution of the conflict in
international law, I do not agree that the decision is the Palestinians to make
whether or not they recognize Israel. The law is the law; and according to the
law Israel is a member state of the United Nations and has the same rights and
duties as any other state." It must be emphasized that the purpose of this
article is neither to endorse or reject any of the statements, claims,
arguments, beliefs, suggestions presented by Dr. Finkelstein in his recent UK
lectures but merely to present a true and correct picture of what was said.
Viewzone Magazine || Comments? || Body Mind Spirit
