TAGS
ON CAMPUS
STUDENT LIFE
OFF CAMPUS
EDUCATION

GOVERNMENT
MONEY
COOL
VARSITY BLUES
UTSU
ADMINISTRATION
BIOLOGY
ART
MUSIC
FOOD & DRINK
ELECTIONS
IN THE LAB
FACULTY
TECHNOLOGY
HEALTH
FILM
PROFILE
NUMBERS
INTERVIEW
LITERATURE
PSYCH
BRIEFS
THEATRE
LOVE & SEX
DESIGN
GENDER
ENVIRONMENT
LONG FORM
POP CULTURE
THE VARSITY
SPACE
LAW
PRO SPORTS
SIMCOE HALL
TORONTO
HUMAN RIGHTS
MISSISSAUGA
UTSU DEFEDERATION
FROSH
SCARBOROUGH
PHOTOGRAPHY
INFOGRAPHICS
FAITH
BEST OF 2012
GUIDES
LGBTQ
FASHION
RACE
DRUGS
ALUMNI
EUREKA
EDITORIAL
DANCE
SGRT
RELIGION
JOURNALISM
INTRAMURALS
JOB MARKET
COMMUTE
INVESTIGATIVE
PODCAST
University of Toronto's Student Newspaper Since 1880

Finkelstein slams Harper, predicts resolution to Israel-Palestine conflict

Controversial author, scholar and activist Dr. Norman Finkelstein visited the University of Toronto late last week, speaking at the OISE auditorium.

By Rwayda Al-kamisi
Published: 1:00 pm, 30 January 2013
Modified: 10 pm, 31 January 2013
under
UPDATED

Controversial author, scholar and activist Dr. Norman Finkelstein visited the University of Toronto late last week, speaking at the OISE auditorium about his predictions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in 2013.

In his speech, Finkelstein was sharply critical of the Conservative government’s stance on Israel, joking that Stephen Harper was more supportive of Israel than even Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s recently re-elected prime minister.

In an interview with The Varsity, Finkelstein did offer cautious praise for former Progressive Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. “Although a Conservative, Mulroney played a decent role in opposing the apartheid regime [in South Africa] — not great, but not awful,” Finkelstein reflected. “If Harper were in power back then, I suppose he would have supported sending more tanks and bombers to the South African racists.”

Finkelstein also said he was optimistic about the prospect of an eventual resolution to the conflict. His lecture explored changing international realities, including increased pressure on Turkish and Egyptian governments to prioritize support for Palestinians. Finkelstein said he considers the Palestinian-Israeli issue to be “the least complex conflict in the world today,” and added that “the [UN and International Court of Justice] terms are always the same: it’s a two-state settlement on the June 1967 border.”

Finkelstein also noted that many countries had come to view Israel in a more negative light, pointing to the recent UN vote on Palestinian statehood and a BBC poll which ranked Israel as one of four countries considered to have had a mostly negative impact on world affairs, along with Pakistan, Iran and North Korea. Unlike Pakistan, Iran and North Korea, Finkelstein argued that Israel receives a mostly positive coverage in the American and Canadian press. “Israel does [better] in Canada than Canada,” he said.

Finkelstein also said it would be imperative for Palestinians to seize control of their own destiny through protest: “If and when the Palestinians engage in mass civil resistance to the occupation, then we must support them exactly as the international community supported South African blacks in the apartheid era, with various forms of sanctions,” he said.

Finkelstein was invited by the Graduate Students’ Union (GSU). The GSU’s recent passage of a motion endorsing the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement passed with an overwhelming majority in December, Bahram Farzady, the Graduate Student Union’s academic and funding commissioner, subsequently sought out Finkelstein to deliver a lecture.

  • Hardy Weinberg

    Bahram is my homeboy! I am glad this article highlighted some of Finkelstein’s comments on other countries in the region. Egypt now faces a number of internal problems before Palestine. Turkey on the other hand face parallel issues with Israel. Both are strong non-arab countries in the middle east, both face overwhelming propaganda in the west. The pro-bibi stuff was mentioned above, but the anti-Turkish propaganda has popped up on the radar, excellent example is Rick Perry (during his presidential run) calling for military action against the NATO ally. Both countries face a crisis at the Syrian border (turkey more so) and both have interests in Mediterranean superiority, particularly Cyprus.

    The competition/conflict between Turkey and Israel is interesting, and perhaps something that may play out more in 2013.

    • Bahram Farzady

      True dat homeboy.

  • Rend

    nice article, very informative!

  • Prof. Meqdad Taheri

    We all want peace, and yet, after more than a century of conflict, the struggle between these two related nations remains more intractable than ever. Why?

    Because each side is entrenched in its own narrative, to the exclusion of the other’s.

    Its faults notwithstanding, one must admit that Israel has taken some steps since the Oslo Accords toward acknowledging the Palestinian suffering. These steps are reflected in school books, in the media, and through other informational outlets. The Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza, for instance, are now referred to as “Palestinians,” and most Israelis would like to see a Palestinian state emerge. The fact that Israeli voters don’t reflect these wishes has to do with fears of surface-to-air missiles two miles from Ben-Gurion International Airport, and scarred memories of blown-up buses and pizzerias.

    The Palestinians, unfortunately, have done little to allay Israeli fears. While Palestinians clamor for the removal of onerous checkpoints and barriers, militant attempts to penetrate these barriers and attack Israeli civilians have not ceased at all since the second Intifada. Similarly, school books and speeches, in Arabic, have grown radical, to the point of portraying Israel’s very existence as a crime. Little has been done to acknowledge the Jewish roots in Palestine.

    The fact is that the Jewish presence in Palestine goes much farther back than most Palestinians, as well as Arabs and Muslims in general, would be willing to admit.

    Before 1948, Palestine was ruled by a series of empires. Before that Palestine was Judaea—a Jewish country. Jews have lived in Palestine continuously for more than 3,300 years. “Palestine” was the name given to the Jewish homeland in the second century by the Romans, in an attempt to break the Jewish adherence to the land. This was a century after the Jewish temple was destroyed and more than a million Jews were massacred.

    The Jews stopped fighting the Romans only after they had no more fighting men standing. As Evangelist William Eugene Blackstone put it in 1891, “The Jews never gave up their title to Palestine… They never abandoned the land. They made no treaty, they did not even surrender. They simply succumbed, after the most desperate conflict, to the overwhelming power of the Romans.”

    The Jews persisted through the centuries under the various empires, after the Arab invasion of 635AD (which they fought alongside the Byzantines), and after the Crusade massacres of the 11th Century, which decimated much of their population. They never stopped returning, and their numbers recovered. In the 19th century, before the Zionist immigration, Jews constituted the largest religious group in Jerusalem.

    Few Palestinians realize that Jewish customs, religion, prayers, poetry, holidays, and virtually every walk of life, documented for thousands of years—all revolve around Judaea/Palestine/Israel. For thousands of years Jews have been praying for Jerusalem in every prayer, after every meal, in every holiday, at every wedding, in every celebration. The whole Jewish religion is about Jerusalem and the Land of Israel. Western expressions such as “The Promised Land,” and “The Holy Land,” did not pop out of void. They have been part of Western knowledge and tradition dating back to the beginning of Christianity and earlier.

    After the Crusades, the Jews—including many who have returned over the centuries—lived peacefully with Arabs, often in the very same villages, as in Pki’in, in the Galilee, until the Zionist immigration of the 19th and 20th Centuries. Article 6 of the PLO Charter specifically calls for the acceptance of all Jews present in Palestine prior to the Zionist immigration. These Jews were simply another ethnic group in a region composed of Sunnis, Shiites, Jews, Druz, Greek Orthodox, Catholics, Circassians, Samarians, and more. Some of these groups, like the Druz, Circassians, Samarians, and an increasing number of Christians, are actually loyal to the Jewish State.

    Incidentally, genetic studies consistently show that Zionist immigrants (a.k.a., Ashkenazi Jews) are closely related to groups that predate the Arab conquest, like the Samarians, who have lived in Palestine for thousands of year.

    Palestinian denial of these facts may lead to events such as the ones brilliantly depicted in Jonathan Bloomfield’s award-winning book, “Palestine,” in which actual history and predicted events are thinly veiled as fiction.

    If, as the current Palestinian narrative goes, the Jews are not a people indigenous to Palestine but rather an invading foreign colonialist body, then they must be fought until they are removed from this land. Anything short of that, by any standard, would be injustice.

    Thus, war and bloodshed will continue until the Palestinians start acknowledging the Jewish narrative, and the fact that Jewish roots in Palestine date back thousands of years, long before the Arab invasion.

    • Bahram Farzady

      I don’t know if going back thousands of years is really fair. Do Zoroastrians also deserve most of what was mesopotamia? I’ll let an ancient historian assess the accuracy of your claims.

      Since when does Jewish, or other sorts of mythology entitle people to land? Anyhow, even the most ardent Palestinian supporters that night just wanted the right of return. Finkelstein never denied it to them, but giving it to every refugee overnight would essentially destroy Israel, as he admitted.

      Palestinians have little power in that region. What does it matter what they think they’re entitled to? Why not give them what international law would give them and we’ll take it from there?

      • Prof. Meqdad Taheri

        The Palestinians could have had a peaceful state…

        in 1937 with the Peel Plan, but they violently rejected it;

        in 1939 with the MacDonald White Paper, but they violently rejected it, pursuing their (in)famous battle-cry, “Itbach al-Yahud”–Slaughter the Jews;

        in 1948 with UN 181, but they violently rejected it. They chose instead to launch an offensive together with five regular Arab armies in an effort to “drive the Jews into the sea;”

        from 1948-1967 in the West Bank and Gaza, where the Arabs had ethnically cleansed every single Jew, but they violently rejected it. They chose instead to infiltrate the Jewish country and murder its civilians;

        after 1967, but instead, they and the rest of the Arab world issued the 3 No’s of Khartoum: No to peace with Israel, No to recognition of Israel, No to negotiations with Israel;

        after the 1993 Oslo Accords. But instead they chose to introduce their latest weapon against the Jews: The suicide bomber;

        in 2000 with the Barak offer, but they violently rejected it, and started the gruesome series of suicide massacres known as the “Second Intifada;”

        in Gaza after the Israeli withdrawal of 2005, but they violently rejected it with thousands of missile and rocket attacks;

        in 2008 with the Olmert offer, but they violently rejected. Every single month there have been dozens of attacks and attempted attacks from both the West Bank and Gaza. The only things preventing a bloodbath in Israel are the Israeli security measures: The barrier and checkpoints in the West Bank, the border and anti-missile system in Gaza, and the intelligence that leads to preemptive arrests.

        The Palestinians had many chances.

        They rejected them all because destroying Israel was a higher priority.

        • Bahram Farzady

          thanks prof. dershowitz.

          • Tadhg Morris

            I should point out that “Prof. Meqdad Taheri” is a sock-puppet whose initial post appears word-for-word on various blogs. Clearly a professor of cutting and pasting.

      • Hardy Weinberg

        Bahram, hope all is well, we
        gotta chat on twitter on facebook sometime, looks like you’re right Davis and
        Calderon got traded from the Raps.

        Now, not sure of Prof. Taheri is
        a UofT professor or even a professor at that, but I highly doubt it based on
        his arguments. He starts off by something I can truly support, that Israelis
        and Palestinians need to understand each other’s narratives to achieve peace. I
        agree that Israel proper is a great place to live, I know a ton of people who
        live there and have visited there myself. I also think the territories are shit
        holes and part of the blame does lay on corruption in palestinian government. I
        also think Israeli citizens want real and sustainable peace and often the
        government is not acting in their best interests. I think that any REAL peace
        initiative will not turn Israelis into refugees or deny them their human rights,
        right to self determination, freedom and dignity. At the same time this peace
        initiative will also need to restore Palestinian human rights, right to self
        determination, freedom and dignity.

        With a rosy introduction Prof.
        Taheri very quickly went to the dehumanizing mantra that “Palestinians
        dont want peace”. By depicting Palestinians under the narritive that they
        are blood thirsty, war mongering people, Prof. Taheri has essentially shot the
        premise of his argument in the face. He
        brings up long debunked myths that Palestinian children are taught to hate
        Israelis and Jews in schools. This myth is propagated by a handful of poorly
        translated undated and no context VHS tapes on youtube and hundreds of
        anti-palestinian websites that essentially repeat what Prof. Taheri said word
        for word. To the contrary, peer-reviewed published articles investigating the
        palestinian educational system has provided the opposite: that Palestinian
        education system, although very nationalistic, does not promote hate or anti Semitism.
        At most, the worst thing they say is that they view the military presence in the territories as an occupying force, which is far from the anti-Semitism Taheri described. (Reports from: Brown; Moughrabi; Firer-Adwan; IPCR).

        Prof. Taheri goes through history
        by stating dates, but anyone who has taken any university level history course
        knows that history is not about dates but about context. Yes the Israeli
        government has offered so called unilateral peace offers to create a “Palestinian
        State” and yes the palestinian government has rejected those, but if you
        ever read the proposals most of them require Palestinians to remain under
        occupation while creating a “state” . If accepted, palestinians wont
        have a capitol in east Jerusalem, wont have control over their air space, won’t
        have control over their water or food supplies, wont have control over their
        borders, settlements will still exist, travel through Israeli space will be
        solely under Israeli control, West bank will be divided into pieces with roads
        connecting the parts under solely Israeli control,
        and so on.

        Finally, a cursory google search of Prof. Taheri reveals not faculty pages but
        disqus and commenting accounts on a variety of newspapers, suggesting he is a
        fake troll or that his research involves going on the internet all day and
        promoting his propaganda on comment sections of newspapers.

        • Prof. Meqdad Taheri

          The Barak offer of 2000 included an eventual state on 91% of the West Bank and Gaza, with East Jerusalem as its capital, control of Muslim religious sites, an elevated road connecting the West Bank and Gaza, dismantling 63 settlements, and even a return of 100,000 refugees as part of family reunification—an anathema to Israelis. A poll found that 58% of Israelis opposed these concessions.

          Arafat walked away without making any counteroffer. Upon his return to the West Bank he asked Hamas to start the campaign of amaliyat (suicide bombings) that would be called the Second Intifada.

          Later, President Clinton privately described the Palestinian rejection as a ‘colossal historical blunder.’ Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who facilitated the Camp David talks behind the scenes, described it as a ‘tragic mistake, a crime.’

          As Abba Eben used to say, the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

          Regarding hate speech, you can find a plethora of recordings from the official TV stations of both PA TV and Hamas TV, on PalWatch.org and memri.org, and see for yourself, first hand: “Kill the Jews to the last one;” “Israel is a country whose aim is destruction and ruin of humanity,” and so forth.

          You would find more about me, but in this part of the world a dissenting voice gets the body belonging to it dragged behind a motorcycle until its flesh is scraped off its bones. It’s no longer the kinder treatment of having hot wax dripped into your ears or being pushed off a tall building.