Norman Finkelstein

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Norman Finkelstein
Norman Finkelstein giving a talk at Suffolk University
Born	December 8, 1953 (1953-12-08) (age 54)
Nationality	American
Education	Bachelor's Degree from Binghamton University, Master's Degree in Political Science from Princeton University, Ph.D in Political Science from Princeton University
Parents	Mother: Maryla Husyt Finkelstein Father: Zacharias Finkelstein
Website http://www.normanfinkelstein.com

Norman Gary Finkelstein (born December 8, 1953) is an American political scientist and author, specialising in Jewish-related issues, especially the Holocaust and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A graduate of SUNY Binghamton, he received his Ph.D in Political Science from Princeton University. He has held faculty positions at Brooklyn College, Rutgers University, Hunter College, New York University, and most recently, DePaul University, where he was an assistant professor from 2001 to 2007.

Amidst considerable public debate, Finkelstein was denied tenure at DePaul in June 2007, and placed on administrative leave for the 2007-2008 academic year. Among the controversial aspects of this decision were attempts by Alan Dershowitz, a notable opponent of Finkelstein's, to derail Finkelstein's tenure bid.^[1] On September 5, 2007 Finkelstein announced his resignation after coming to a settlement with the university on generally undisclosed terms.^[2][3] An official statement from DePaul strongly defended the decision to deny Finkelstein tenure, and asserted that outside influence played no role in their decision. The statement also praised Finkelstein "as a prolific scholar and outstanding teacher."^[4]

On May 23, 2008 Finkelstein was denied entry to Israel because, according to unnamed Israeli security officials, of suspicions that "he had contact with elements 'hostile' to Israel". Finkelstein was questioned after his arrival at Ben Gurion Airport near Tel Aviv and placed on a flight back to Amsterdam, his point of origin. Officials said that the decision to deport Finkelstein was connected to his anti-Zionist opinions and criticism of Israel.^[5] He was banned from entering the country for 10 years.^[6]

Contents 1 Personal background and education 2 Academic career and controversies 2.1 From Time Immemorial 2.2 The Holocaust Industry 2.3 Criticism of Alan Dershowitz's The Case for Israel 2.4 Tenure denial and resignation 2.5 Praise and criticism of Finkelstein's scholarship 3 Bibliography 4 Others on Finkelstein and his works 4.1 Academic reviews of books by Finkelstein 4.2 Reviews of books by Finkelstein 4.3 Profiles of Finkelstein 4.4 Critics of Finkelstein and replies 5 External links 6 Footnotes & References

Personal background and education

Finkelstein has written of his parents' experiences during World War II. His mother, Maryla Husyt Finkelstein, daughter of an ultra-Orthodox Jewish father, grew up in Warsaw, Poland, and survived the Warsaw Ghetto and the Majdanek concentration camp, as well as two slave labor camps. Her first husband — a boyfriend whom her father insisted, on religious grounds, she marry before the two entered the ghetto bunker — died in the war. She considered the day of her liberation as the most horrible day of her life, since it first struck her then that she was alone, none of her parents and siblings having managed to survive. Norman's father, Zacharias Finkelstein, was a survivor of both the Warsaw Ghetto and the Auschwitz concentration camp.^[7]

Finkelstein grew up in New York City. In his forthcoming memoir, Finkelstein recalls his strong youthful identification with the outrage that his mother, witness to the genocidal atrocities of World War II, felt at the carnage wrought by the United States in Vietnam. He had 'internalized (her) indignation', a trait which he admits rendered him 'insufferable' when talking of the Vietnam War, and which imbued him with a 'holier-than-thou' attitude at the time which he now regrets. But Finkelstein regards his absorption of his mother's outlook — the refusal to put aside a sense of moral outrage in order to get on with one's life — as a positive virtue. Subsequently, his reading of Noam Chomsky played a seminal role in tailoring the passion bequeathed to him by his mother to the necessity of maintaining intellectual rigor in the pursuit of the truth.^[7]

He completed his undergraduate studies at Binghamton University in New York in 1974, after which he studied at the École Pratique des Hautes Études in Paris. He went on to earn his Master's degree in political science from Princeton University in 1980, and later his PhD in political studies, also from Princeton. Finkelstein wrote his doctoral thesis on Zionism, and it was through this work that he first attracted controversy, which hurt his prospects for a university career.^{[citation needed]} Before gaining academic employment, Finkelstein was a part-time social worker with teenage dropouts in New York. He then taught successively at Rutgers University, New York University, Brooklyn College, and Hunter College and, until recently, taught at DePaul University in Chicago.

Beginning with his doctoral thesis at Princeton, Finkelstein's career has been marked by controversy. A self-described "forensic scholar," he has written sharply critical academic reviews of several prominent writers and scholars whom he accuses of misrepresenting the documentary record in order to defend Israel’s policies and practices. His writings, noted for their support of the Palestinian cause^[2] have dealt with politically-charged topics such as Zionism, the demographic history of Palestine and his allegations of the existence of a "Holocaust Industry" that exploits the memory of the Holocaust to further Israeli and financial interests. Citing linguist and politicial activist Noam Chomsky as an example, Finkelstein notes that it is "possible to unite exacting scholarly rigor with scathing moral outrage,"^[7] and supporters and detractors alike have remarked on the polemical style of Finkelstein's work.^[1][8] However, its content has been praised by eminent historians such as Raul Hilberg and Avi Shlaim,^[8] as well as Chomsky.

Academic career and controversies

From Time Immemorial

Finkelstein made his reputation with his doctoral thesis, which examined the claims made in Joan Peters's best-selling From Time Immemorial. Peters's book, a "history and defense" of Israel, deals with the demographic history of Palestine. Demographic studies had tended to assert that the indigenous Palestinian population, once a 90% majority at the turn of the century, had dwindled towards parity due to massive Zionist immigration. Edward W. Said, for example, claimed that between 1918 and 1947 the "ratio of alien settlers" increased from one to ten to one to two.^[9] Peters radically challenged this picture by arguing that a substantial part of the Palestinian people had themselves crowded into the Holy Land as emigrants from Arab countries from the early 19th century onwards. It followed, for Peters and many of her readers, that the picture of a native Palestinian population overwhelmed by Jewish immigration was little more than propaganda, and that in actuality two roughly simultaneous waves of immigration met in what had been a relatively unpopulated land.

From Time Immemorial had been effusively praised in mainstream United States media sources by figures as varied as Barbara Tuchman, Theodore H. White, Elie Wiesel, and Lucy Dawidowicz. Saul Bellow, for one, wrote in a jacket endorsement that:

"Millions of people the world over, smothered by false history and propaganda, will be grateful for this clear account of the origins of the Palestinians."^[10]

Peters is a former journalist with no background in the historical profession. Even her defenders, such as Ronald Sanders and Daniel Pipes, criticize the style and quality of her writing. Pipes, while supporting her underlying thesis, has described her work as suffering from excessive partisanship^[11] and a "somewhat hysterical undertone".^[12]

Finkelstein's doctoral thesis examined all of the sources that Peters had harvested and the way she had used her evidence. In it he asserted that the book, elsewhere acclaimed as a breakthrough into a balanced perspective on Jewish-Palestinian demographics, was nothing more than what he now calls a "monumental hoax".^[13] However, according to Finkelstein, whereas Peters's book received widespread interest and approval in the United States, a scholarly demonstration of its fraudulence and unreliability aroused little attention:

"By the end of 1984, From Time Immemorial had...received some two hundred [favorable] notices...in the United States. The only 'false' notes in this crescendoing chorus of praise were the Journal of Palestine Studies, which ran a highly critical review by Bill Farrell; the small Chicago-based newsweekly In These Times, which published a condensed version of this writer's findings; and Alexander Cockburn, who devoted a series of columns in The Nation exposing the hoax....The periodicals in which From Time Immemorial had already been favorably reviewed refused to run any critical correspondence (e.g. The New Republic, The Atlantic Monthly, Commentary). Periodicals that had yet to review the book rejected a manuscript on the subject as of little or no consequence (e.g. The Village Voice, Dissent, The New York Review of Books). Not a single national newspaper or columnist contacted found newsworthy that a best-selling, effusively praised 'study' of the Middle East conflict was a threadbare hoax."^[14]

Of the people Finkelstein sent a draft of his preliminary findings to in the U.S., only one, Noam Chomsky, responded, warning him of the probable consequences of his research:

"I warned him, if you follow this, you're going to get in trouble—because you're going to expose the American intellectual community as a gang of frauds, and they are not going to like it, and they're going to destroy you."^[15]

After a number of reviewers in the British and Israeli media supported Finkelstein's criticisms a few U.S. newspapers and journals began to publish more skeptical reviews of Peters's bestseller. The New York Review of Books published Yehoshua Porath’s review^[16] and an exchange with critics of the review^[12] in which he criticized the assumptions and evidence on which Peters’s thesis relied, thus lending independent support from an expert in Palestinian demographics to Finkelstein's doctoral critique.^[15]In the house journal of the American Council on Foreign Relations, Foreign Affairs, William B. Quandt, Edward Stettinius professor of Politics at the University of Virginia and authority on Middle Eastern politics,^[17] later described Finkelstein's critique of From Time Immemorial as a "landmark essay" and a "victory to his credit", in its "demonstration" of the "shoddy scholarship" of Peters's book.^[18]

The controversy that surrounded Finkelstein's research caused a delay in his earning his Ph.D. at Princeton University. Noam Chomsky wrote in Understanding Power that Finkelstein "literally could not get the faculty to read [his dissertation]." According to Chomsky, Princeton eventually granted Finkelstein his doctorate only "out of embarrassment [for Princeton]," but refused to give him any further professional backing.^[15] In this regard, Finkelstein's tackling of highly sensitive issues suffered a similar fate to the earlier groundbreaking work of Holocaust authority Raul Hilberg, a scholar who would in later decades lend his support to Finkelstein when the latter's publications came under fire for their polemical character.

Finkelstein published portions of his thesis in the following publications:

• "Disinformation and the Palestine Question: The Not-So-Strange Case of Joan Peters's From Time Immemorial." Chapter 2 of Blaming the Victims: Spurious Scholarship and the Palestinian Question (1988); and
• "A Land Without a People (Joan Peters' "Wilderness" Image)." Chapter 2 of Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict (1995).

The Holocaust Industry

See main article: The Holocaust Industry

The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering was published in 2000. Here, Finkelstein argues that Elie Wiesel and others exploit the memory of the Holocaust as an "ideological weapon." This is so the state of Israel, "one of the world's most formidable military powers, with a horrendous human rights record, [can] cast itself as a victim state" in order to garner "immunity to criticism."^[19] He also alleges what he calls a "double shakedown" by "a repellent gang of plutocrats, hoodlums and hucksters" seeking enormous legal damages and financial settlements from Germany and Switzerland, moneys which – according to Finkelstein – then go to the lawyers and institutional actors involved in procuring them, rather than actual Holocaust survivors.^[20]

The book met with a hostile reception in some quarters, with critics charging that it was poorly researched and/or allowed others to exploit it for antisemitic purposes. For example, according to Israeli journalist Yair Sheleg, German historian Hans Mommsen disparaged the first edition as 'a most trivial book, which appeals to easily aroused anti-Semitic prejudices.' ^[21]

Finkelstein also had his supporters however. Raul Hilberg, widely regarded during his lifetime as a leading expert among Holocaust researchers,^[22] said the book expressed views Hilberg himself subscribed to in substance, in that he too found the exploitation of the Holocaust, in the manner Finkelstein describes, 'detestable.' Asked on another occasion if Finkelstein's analysis might play into the hands of neo-Nazis for antisemitic purposes, Hilberg replied: 'Well, even if they do use it in that fashion, I'm afraid that when it comes to the truth, it has to be said openly, without regard to any consequences that would be undesirable, embarrassing.'^[23]

Criticism of Alan Dershowitz's The Case for Israel

See main article: Dershowitz-Finkelstein Affair

Shortly after the publication of the book The Case for Israel by Alan Dershowitz, Finkelstein derided it as "a collection of fraud, falsification, plagiarism, and nonsense".^[24] Asserting, during a joint interview by Amy Goodman, that Dershowitz lacked knowledge about specific contents of his own book, Finkelstein also claimed that Dershowitz did not write the book, and may not have even read it.^[24] In an interview with a Dutch newspaper Finkelstein said:

"In September 2003 I had a TV-debate with him. The notes in his book showed that he had worked on the manuscript until June 2003. However in September he had no idea of what was in the book. He didn't know names of people he cites. ... But it is true that I couldn't prove my thesis, I withdrew it."^[25]

In his book, Finkelstein noted twenty instances, in as many pages, where Dershowitz's book cites the same sources and passages used by Joan Peters in her book, in largely the same sequence, with ellipses in the same places. In two instances, Dershowitz reproduces Peters's errors (see below). From this Finkelstein concluded that Dershowitz had not checked the original sources himself, contrary to the latter's claims.^[26] Finkelstein suggests that this copying of quotations amounts to copying ideas.^[27] Examining a copy of a proof of Dershowitz's book he managed to obtain, he found evidence that Dershowitz had his secretarial assistant, Holly Beth Billington, check in the Harvard library the sources he had read in Peters's book.^[28] Dershowitz answered the charge in a letter to the University of California's Press Director Lynne Withey, arguing that Finkelstein had made up the smoking gun quotation, in that he had changed its wording (from 'cite' to 'copy') in his book.^[29] In public debate he has stated that if "somebody borrowed the quote without going to check back on whether Mark Twain had said that, obviously that would be a serious charge"; however, he insisted emphatically that he himself did not do that, that he had indeed checked the original source by Twain.^[24]

Dershowitz threatened libel action over the charges in Finkelstein's book, and, consequently, Finkelstein deleted the word "plagiarism" from the text before publication.^[30] Finkelstein also removed the charge that Dershowitz was not the true author of The Case for Israel because, as the publisher said, "he couldn’t document that."^[31]

Asserting that he did consult the original sources, Dershowitz says that Finkelstein is simply accusing him of good scholarly practice: citing references he learned of initially from Peters's book. Dershowitz denies that he used any of Peters's ideas without citation. "Plagiarism is taking someone else’s words and claiming they’re your own. There are no borrowed words from anybody. There are no borrowed ideas from anybody because I fundamentally disagree with the conclusions of Peters’s book."^[32] In a footnote in The Case for Israel which cites Peters's book, Dershowitz explicitly denies that he "relies" on Peters for "conclusions or data".^[33]

In their joint interview on Democracy Now, however, Finkelstein cited specific passages in Dershowitz's book in which a phrase that he says Peters coined was incorrectly attributed to George Orwell:

"[Peters] coins the phrase, 'turnspeak', she says she's using it as a play off of George Orwell which as all listeners know used the phrase 'Newspeak.' She coined her own phrase, 'turnspeak.' You go to Mr. Dershowitz's book, he got so confused in his massive borrowings from Joan Peters that on two occasions, I'll cite them for those who have a copy of the book, on page 57 and on page 153 he uses the phrase, quote, George Orwell's 'turnspeak.' 'Turnspeak' is not Orwell, Mr. Dershowitz, you're the Felix Frankfurter chair at Harvard, you must know that Orwell would never use such a clunky phrase as 'turnspeak'."^{[citation needed]}

James O. Freedman, the former president of Dartmouth College, the University of Iowa, and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, has defended Dershowitz:

I do not understand [Finkelstein’s] charge of plagiarism against Alan Dershowitz. There is no claim that Dershowitz used the words of others without attribution. When he uses the words of others, he quotes them properly and generally cites them to the original sources (Mark Twain, Palestine Royal Commission, etc.) [Finkelstein’s] complaint is that instead he should have cited them to the secondary source, in which Dershowitz may have come upon them. But as the Chicago Manual of Style emphasizes: 'Importance of attribution. With all reuse of others’ materials, it is important to identify the original as the source. This not only bolsters the claims of fair use, it also helps avoid any accusation of plagiarism.' This is precisely what Dershowitz did.^[34]

Responding to an article in The Nation by Alexander Cockburn,^[33][35] Dershowitz also cited the Chicago Manual of Style:

Cockburn's claim is that some of the quotes should not have been cited to their original sources but rather to a secondary source, where he believes I stumbled upon them. Even if he were correct that I found all these quotations in Peters's book, the preferred method of citation is to the original source, as the Chicago Manual of Style emphasizes: "With all reuse of others' materials, it is important to identify the original as the source. This...helps avoid any accusation of plagiarism...To cite a source from a secondary source ('quoted in...') is generally to be discouraged...."

...to which Cockburn responded:

Quoting The Chicago Manual of Style, Dershowitz artfully implies that he followed the rules by citing "the original" as opposed to the secondary source, Peters. He misrepresents Chicago here, where "the original" means merely the origin of the borrowed material, which is, in this instance, Peters. Now look at the second bit of the quote from Chicago, chastely separated from the preceding sentence by a demure three-point ellipsis. As my associate Kate Levin has discovered, this passage ("To cite a source from a secondary source...") occurs on page 727, which is no less than 590 pages later than the material before the ellipsis, in a section titled "Citations Taken from Secondary Sources." Here's the full quote, with what Dershowitz left out set in bold: "'Quoted in.' To cite a source from a secondary source ("quoted in") is generally to be discouraged, since authors are expected to have examined the works they cite. If an original source is unavailable, however, both the original and the secondary source must be listed." So Chicago is clearly insisting that unless Dershowitz went to the originals, he was obliged to cite Peters. Finkelstein has conclusively demonstrated that he didn't go to the originals. Plagiarism, QED, plus added time for willful distortion of the language of Chicago's guidelines, cobbling together two separate discussions. ^[35]

On behalf of Dershowitz, Harvard Law School dean Elena Kagan asked former Harvard president Derek Bok to investigate the assertion of plagiarism; Bok exonerated Dershowitz of the charge.^[30]. Doubts still exist however as to whether Harvard did in fact analyse the specific evidence Finkelstein adduced to suggest Dershowitz had copied quotations directly from Peters, rather than independently checking them in sources she had quoted. The relevant university office has since refused to confirm or deny Dershowitz's claim that he was cleared of the charge by Harvard.^[36]

Although the plagiarism allegations by Finkelstein received the most attention and attracted a lot of controversy, Finkelstein has maintained that "the real issue is Israel's human rights record."^[27] His book Beyond Chutzpah counters Dershowitz's claim that Israel's human rights record is "generally superb."

Dershowitz has described Finkelstein as a "failed academic", and has claimed that Finkelstein intentionally picked a fight so that he could claim that he was the victim of "outside interference" if DePaul University does not award him tenure.^{[citation needed]} In an April 3, 2007 interview with the Harvard Crimson, "Dershowitz confirmed that he had sent a letter last September to DePaul faculty members lobbying against Finkelstein's tenure."^[37]

In April 2007, Dr. Frank Menetrez, a former Editor-in-Chief of the UCLA Law Review, published an analysis of the charges made against Finkelstein by Alan Dershowitz, finding no merit in any single charge, and that, on the contrary, "Dershowitz is deliberately misrepresenting what Finkelstein wrote".^[38] In a follow-up analysis he concluded that he could find 'no way of avoiding the inference that Dershowitz copied the quotation from Twain from Peters's From Time Immemorial, and not from the original source', as Dershowitz claimed.^[36][39]

Tenure denial and resignation

In early 2007 the DePaul University Political Science department voted 9 to 3, and the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences Personnel Committee 5 to 0, in favor of giving Finkelstein tenure. The three opposing faculty members subsequently filed a minority report opposing tenure, supported by the Dean of the College, Chuck Suchar. Suchar stated he opposed tenure because Finkelstein’s "personal and reputation demeaning attacks on Alan Dershowitz, Benny Morris, and the holocaust authors Eli Wiesel and Jerzy Kosinski" were inconsistent with DePaul’s “Vincentian” values.^[40] In June 2007 a 4-3 vote by DePaul University's Board on Promotion and Tenure (a faculty board), affirmed by the university's president, the Rev. Dennis Holtschneider, denied Finkelstein tenure.^[41][42]The university denied that Alan Dershowitz, who had been criticized for actively campaigning against Finkelstein's tenure, played any part in this decision.^[42] At the same time, the university denied tenure to international studies lecturer Mehrene Larudee, a strong supporter of Finkelstein, despite unanimous support from her department, the Personnel Committee and the Dean.^[43][44] Finkelstein stated that he would engage in civil disobedience if attempts were made to bar him from teaching his students.^[45][46]

The Faculty Council later affirmed the right of Professors Finkelstein and Larudee to appeal, which a university lawyer said was not possible. Council President Anne Bartlett said she was "'terribly concerned' correct procedure was not followed".^[47] DePaul’s faculty association considered taking no confidence votes in administrators, including the president, because of the tenure denials.^[48] In a statement issued upon Finkelstein's resignation, DePaul called him "a prolific scholar and an outstanding teacher."^[4] Dershowitz expressed outrage at the compromise and this statement in particular, saying that the university had "traded truth for peace."^[2][3]

Praise and criticism of Finkelstein's scholarship

A self-described "forensic scholar," Finkelstein's books each take as their foil one or more works of mainstream scholarship which he purports to expose as deeply flawed and even fraudulent. The authors whose work he has thus targeted, including Daniel Jonah Goldhagen and Alan Dershowitz, along with others such as Benny Morris whose work Finkelstein has also cited approvingly, have in turn accused Finkelstein of grossly misrepresenting their work, and selectively quoting from their books.^{[49] [50]}

Finkelstein's work has attracted a number of supporters and detractors across the political spectrum. Notable supporters include Noam Chomsky, prominent intellectual and political critic; Raul Hilberg, Holocaust historian; Avi Shlaim, Israeli New Historian; and Mouin Rabbani, Palestinian jurist and analyst. According to Hilberg, Finkelstein displays "academic courage to speak the truth when no one else is out there to support him... I would say that his place in the whole history of writing history is assured, and that those who in the end are proven right triumph, and he will be among those who will have triumphed, albeit, it so seems, at great cost."^[8]

Criticism has been leveled against Finkelstein from several angles. The first sources are responses from those whose work Finkelstein has discussed. Daniel Goldhagen, whose book Hitler's Willing Executioners Finkelstein criticized, claimed his scholarship has "everything to do with his burning political agenda."^[51] Similarly, Alan Dershowitz, whose book The Case for Israel and Finkelstein's response Beyond Chutzpah sparked an ongoing feud between the two, has claimed Finkelstein's complicity in a conspiracy against pro-Israel scholars: "The mode of attack is consistent. Chomsky selects the target and directs Finkelstein to probe the writings in minute detail and conclude that the writer didn’t actually write the work, that it is plagiarized, that it is a hoax and a fraud," arguing that Finkelstein has leveled charges against many academics, calling at least 10 "distinguished Jews 'hucksters', 'hoaxters' (sic), 'thieves,' 'extortionists', and worse."^[34]

Historian^[52] Omer Bartov, writing for The New York Times Book Review, judged The Holocaust Industry to be marred by the same errors he denounces in those who exploit the Holocaust for profit or politics:

'It is filled with precisely the kind of shrill hyperbole that Finkelstein rightly deplores in much of the current media hype over the Holocaust; it is brimming with the same indifference to historical facts, inner contradictions, strident politics and dubious contextualizations; and it oozes with the same smug sense of moral and intellectual superiority... Like any conspiracy theory, it contains several grains of truth; and like any such theory, it is both irrational and insidious.' ^[53]

Since the Bartov review, Finkelstein has published a considerably expanded second edition of the book.^{[citation needed]}

Bibliography

• 1984: Norman Finkelstein on From Time Immemorial
• 1987: From the Jewish Question to the Jewish State: An Essay on the Theory of Zionism, thesis, Princeton University. Frankfurt (Germany) University Library owns a ms copy, contrary to this Israeli data set entry it lists 213 pages.
• 1995; 2001; 2003: Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, Verso, ISBN 1-85984-442-1
• 1996: The Rise and Fall of Palestine: A Personal Account of the Intifada Years. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota P, ISBN 0-8166-2859-9.
• 1998: A Nation on Trial: The Goldhagen Thesis and Historical Truth (Co-author with Ruth Bettina Birn) Henry Holt and Co., ISBN 0-8050-5872-9.
• 2000; 2001; 2003: The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering, Verso, ISBN 1-85984-488-X.
• 2005: Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History. U of California P, ISBN 0-520-24598-9. 2nd updated edition, U of Cal. P. June 2008, ISBN-10: 0520249895, contains an appendix written by Frank J. Menetrez, Dershowitz vs Finkelstein. Who's Right and Who's Wrong?, p.363-394, [1]
• The Future of Maoism, by Samir Amin Translation Norman Finkelstein. Monthly Review Press (1983): ISBN 0-85345-622-4.
• Disinformation and the Palestine Question: The Not-So-Strange Case of Joan Peter's "From Time Immemorial." in Blaming the Victims: Spurious Scholarship and the Palestinian Question. Ed. Edward W. Said and Christopher Hitchens. Verso Press, 1988. ISBN 0-86091-887-4. Chapter Two, Part One:
• Peace process or peace panic?. - The scourge of Palestinian moderation, Middle East Report, 19 (1989) 3/158 , pp. 25-26,28-30,42
• Zionist orientations, Scandinavian Journal of Development Alternatives. Stockholm. 9 (March 1990) 1. p. 41-69
• Bayt Sahur in year II of the intifada. - A personal account,Journal of Palestine Studies. Berkeley/Cal. 19 (Winter 1990) 2/74.p. 62-74
• Israel and Iraq. - A double standard, Journal of Palestine Studies. Berkeley/Cal. 20 (1991) 2/78. p. 43-56
• Reflections on Palestinian attitudes during the Gulf war, Journal of Palestine Studies, 21 (1992) 3/83 , p. 54-70
• Réflexions sur la responsabilité de l´État et du citoyen dans le conflit arabo-israélien (Reflections on the responsibility of state and citizen in the Arab-Israeli conflict), in Ed. L'Harmattan, L' homme et la société,1994, 114, S. 37-50
• Whither the `peace process'?, New Left Review, (1996) 218 , p. 138
• Securing occupation: The real meaning of the Wye River Memorandum, New Left Review, (1998) 232, p. 128-139
• Contributor to The Politics of Anti-Semitism. Ed. Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair. AK Press, 2001. ISBN 1-902593-77-4.
• Lessons of Holocaust compensation, in Palestinian Refugees: The Right of Return. Ed. Naseer Aruri. Pluto Press, 2001, S. 272-275. ISBN 0-7453-1776-6.
• Abba Eban with Footnotes, Journal of Palestine studies, Calif.: University of California Press, vol 32. (2003), p.74-89
• Prospects for Ending the Occupation, Antipode, 35 (2003) 5 , p. 839-845
• Contributor to Radicals, Rabbis and Peacemakers: Conversations with Jewish Critics of Israel, by Seth Farber. Common Courage Press, 2005. ISBN 1-56751-326-3.
• The Camp David II negotiations. - how Dennis Ross proved the Palestinians aborted the peace process, Journal of Palestine Studies, vol. 36 (2007), p. 39-53

Others on Finkelstein and his works

Academic reviews of books by Finkelstein

• Massad, Joseph. "Deconstructing Holocaust Consciousness," Review Essay, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 32, No. 1. (Autumn, 2002), pp. 78-89.
• Cole, Tim. "Representing the Holocaust in America: Mixed Motives or Abuse?," The Public Historian, Vol. 24, No. 4. (Fall, 2002), pp. 127-131
• Hooglund, Eric. Reviewed work: Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict by Norman Finkelstein, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 33, No. 3, Special Issue in Honor of Edward W. Said. (Spring, 2004), pp. 123-124.
• Pelham, Nicolas. Reviewed Work: Image and Reality in the Israel-Palestine Conflict. by Norman G. Finkelstein, International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-), Vol. 72, No. 3, Ethnicity and International Relations. (July, 1996), pp. 627-628.
• Pappe, Ilan. "Valuable New Perspectives," Reviewed Work: Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict. by Norman G. Finkelstein, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 26, No. 4. (Summer, 1997), pp. 113-115.
• Beinin, Joel. "The Palestinian-Israeli Conflict after Oslo," Reviewed work: Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict by Norman G. Finkelstein. Middle East Report, No. 201, Israel and Palestine: Two States, Bantustans or Binationalism?. (Oct. - Dec., 1996), pp. 45-47.

Reviews of books by Finkelstein

• Blokker, Bas. English translation of Dutch review Review of Beyond Chutzpah. NRC Handelsblad 24 February 2006
• Pappe, Ilan. Occupation Hazard. Review of Beyond Chutzpah. BOOKFORUM Feb./March 2006
• De Zayas, Alfred. Against Brazenness: The discourse on the Israel-Palestine Conflict Requires Intellectual Honesty. Review of Beyond Chutzpah. Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 3 February 2006
• Merkley, Paul Charles. These Pigs on the Face of the Earth: Israel's most relentless critic. Review of Beyond Chutzpah. Christianity Today January/February 2006
• Desch, Michael C.. The Chutzpah of Alan Dershowitz. Review of Beyond Chutzpah. The American Conservative 5 Dec. 2005
• Goldberger, Ernest. English translation of German review Review of Beyond Chutzpah. Neue Zürcher Zeitung 10 Dec. 2005
• Marqusee, Mike. Israel, fraud and chutzpah Review of Beyond Chutzpah. Red Pepper (magazine) Jan. 2006
• Prashad, Vijay. Z magazine reviews Beyond Chutzpah. Review of Beyond Chutzpah. Z Magazine November 2005 Volume 18 Number 11
• McCarthy, Conor. The case against Israel Review of Beyond Chutzpah. Village Magazine, Ireland 17 Nov. 2005
• Gordon, Neve. Neve Gordon: Review of Norman Finkelstein's, Beyond Chutzpah. Review of Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, by Norman G. Finkelstein. History News Network 12 Oct. 2005
• Nicolás, Rubén. El conflicto entre israelíes y palestinos sólo empeorará. Review of Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, by Norman G. Finkelstein. El Mundo 23 Oct. 2003
• Bogdanor, Paul. The Finkelstein Phenomenon. Review of The Holocaust Industry, by Norman Finkelstein. Judaism, Fall, 2002.
• Abse, Tobias. Finkelstein’s Follies: The Dangers of Vulgar Anti-Zionism Review of The Holocaust Industry, by Norman Finkelstein. New Interventions, vol. 10, no. 2, 2000.
• Bartov, Omer. A Tale of Two Holocausts. Review of The Holocaust Industry, by Norman Finkelstein. New York Times Book Review 6 Aug. 2000.

Profiles of Finkelstein

• Garner, Mandy. "The Good Jewish Boys Go into Battle." Times Higher Education Supplement 16 December 2005.
• Naparstek, Ben. "His Own Worst Enemy." The Jerusalem Post 12 December 2005.
• Rayner, Jay. "Finkelstein's List." The Observer 16 July 2000.
• Sheleg, Yair. "The Finkelstein Polemic." Ha'aretz 30 March 2001.

Critics of Finkelstein and replies

• Daniel Goldhagen, The New Discourse of Avoidance
  • Norman Finkelstein, Response to Goldhagen
• William Rubinstein et al., Uses of Holocaust, letters to the London Review of Books
• Alex Callinicos, Finkelstein and the Holocaust, criticism in Socialist Worker
• David Friedman, Anti-Defamation League letter, calling Finkelstein a Holocaust denier
  • How the ADL Fights Anti-Semitism
  • The Washington Post Publishes a Restraction, Marc Fisher, WP columnist, publishes a retraction of his charge of "holocaust revisionism"

External links

• Official website of Norman G. Finkelstein, featuring biography, works by Finkelstein, past and upcoming speaking engagements, and other links to information about him and controversies in which he is involved.
• Norman Finkelstein Solidarity Campaign Website Norman Finkelstein Solidarity Campaign - Supporters of Norman Finkelstein
• Doha Debate at the Oxford Union Video of debate on whether the "pro-Israeli lobby has successfully stifled Western debate about Israel's actions" with Alexander Cockburn, Martin Indyk, and David Aaronovitch, May 1, 2007
• Debate with Shlomo Ben-Ami on Democracy Now!, February 14, 2006
• "Depaul University -- Against" bibliography at "Norman G. Finkelstein Solidarity Campaign"
• Interview in Aljazeera English: Tear down the walls
• Interview Broadcasted on Lebanese TV January 20, 2008
• VIDEO: Norman Finkelstein - Israel and Palestine: Roots of Conflict, Prospects for Peace, presentation in Seattle, Washington, May 8, 2008.
• VIDEO: Norman Finkelstein at Brown University, April 15, 2008

Footnotes & References