Israel’s right to exist as a Zionist state, in its current form, SHOULD be questioned, because it has always been and continues to be based on theft, ethnic cleansing and exclusivity given to Jews over non-Jews. Anyone who has a problem with questioning that also has a problem with universal human rights and International Humanitarian Law. 2000 political prisoners on hunger strike in Israel’s prisons is not something you see in a normal functioning state. Nor is it normal to have children routinely imprisoned without trial or charge. Israel is a seriously defective state and therefore a direct challenge to its legitimacy is an urgent necessity.

Leaving Palestinians largely out of the discussion on the strategy forward, as Finkelstein effectively did in that interview, is highly problematic.

One cannot help but conclude that human rights, when advocated by Palestinians, appear somehow less attractive to a Western intellectual audience. Is this not subtle racism?

- The argument that a “mainstream public” is not ready for anything more than the continuation of the two state farce, which is Finkelstein’s view, crumbles for two reasons. Firstly, just who is this “mainstream public” – does it really exist? If so point us to some scientific evidence Mr. Finkelstein. Secondly, even if such a “mainstream public” did exist, its opinion would still be trumped by the inalienable rights of the indigenous people of the land. Al-Hardan makes this point eloquently where she talks about Finkelstein’s “imaginary public”.

The main argument by Finkelstein that International Law is the only way forward for the Palestinians is a red herring. Really Mr. Finkelstein? Wow – thanks for enlightening us! We hadn’t noticed. BDS activists call PRECISELY for the implementation of international law, and are pursuing an awareness campaign to bring pressure to bear so that International Law CAN be enforced.

Recommended reading: The Complete Plain Words by Sir Ernest Gowers.

Very good and timely analysis, thank you.
Regarding paragraph about the activist/interviewer (myself) that I pasted in full below, I could not agree more with you. To be totally honest, I have been kicking myself for replying to Norman Finkelstein in this way since interview came out. Not sure why I did respond in this manner. I do hope that this is not a subconscient patronising/orientalist view of mine. On a day to day basis, what I repeat constantly is that the bottom line is that the Palestinians have rights (including the most important one, the right of return) and that it is only for them to decide how they will implement it. If 6 millions of them do indeed want to return to Palestine, fair enough. That’s for them to decide.
I know that BADIL and Zochrot are at the moment working on a very interesting study that will examine what the right of return will mean in practice. I am sure that it will shed light on many myths surrounding this issue.

In solidarity
Frank

It was not only Finkelstein, however, who muted Palestinians’ political demands and political subjectivities in the process of constructing them and relating to them as objects of solidarity. When the Palestinian refugees’ unequivocal demand for the implementation of the right of return was discussed, even the interviewer-activist declared that people, presumably activists, are “very educated on the refugee issue”, and as a result, would never really demand the return of six million Palestinians; forgetting for a moment that the right of return is about the refugees and not the activists that are supposed to be advocating on their behalf.

When Finkelstein disagreed, noting that activists insist on the right of return of not six but even seven million refugees, the interviewer declared that:

“that’s people talking on behalf, in a way, of them. I mean, talking to Palestinian refugees, some of them know that there’s also a compromise, some of them [say], “we’d like to return”, some of them…”