The case for Norman Finkelstein

[Pedantic Wretch]

Matthew Abraham
June 14, 2007 8:00 AM
The Guardian

On Friday, June 8, DePaul University President Dennis Holtschneider announced that he had decided to uphold the university's tenure and promotion board's ruling denying outspoken political science professor Norman Finkelstein tenure. In a press release, the president is quoted as saying that academic freedom "is alive and well at DePaul University". Not surprisingly, the announcement of Finkelstein's tenure denial has spawned a national discussion. Academics everywhere have been forced to ponder the implications for the future of academic freedom in the United States, especially those who dare to criticise US and Israeli policy in the Middle East.

Finkelstein, the son of Holocaust survivors, has been relentless in exposing what he calls "The Holocaust Industry": the institutions and organizations that have used the holocaust (the actual historical event) to justify Israel's criminal assault upon the Palestinian population and international law. Among these organisations, he includes the World Jewish Congress, the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Committee, and a host of other fellow travellers. There is no doubt that Finkelstein's work has stoked controversy. But that shouldn't detract from what makes his tenure treatment so worrying: Finkelstein is undoubtedly a path-breaking and serious scholar.

Raul Hilberg, the leading scholar on the Nazi holocaust, has called Finkelstein's The Holocaust Industry "a breakthrough" and states that Finkelstein "was on the right track" in his documentation of how the World Jewish Congress, with the aid of the Clinton administration, extorted billions of dollars from Swiss banks in the name of Holocaust survivors, only to pocket the money for Jewish organisations. And, although The Holocaust Industry is Finkelstein's most frequently cited book in defamatory attempts to cast him as a "Holocaust denier" and a "denier of justice to Holocaust survivors", Image and Reality in the Israel-Palestine Conflict - a thorough criticism of the central political and philosophical tenets informing Zionism - is his most scholarly and substantial work. But Finkelstein's detractors avoid discussion of Image and Reality for exactly that reason: it is considered a first-rate piece of scholarship.

Finkelstein argues that most US commentators obscure or avoid the clear historical and diplomatic record in examining the Israel-Palestine conflict by ignoring or downplaying international law, fooling the US public into believing that Israel's occupation is just, necessary, and lawful. One such example is the failure of the 2000 Camp David talks - a failure that has been attributed, at least in elite circles within the United States, to Yasir Arafat's intransigence. In actuality, what Bill Clinton and Ehud Barak offered Arafat was something no Palestinian leader could accept: a Bantustan state reminiscent of the African national territories.

Finkelstein's latest exposure of US and Israeli apologetics for state violence was of famed Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, who was at the centre of Finkelstein's analysis in Beyond Chutzpah: The Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History. In August 2003, Dershowitz published The Case for Israel, which Finkelstein uses as a foil in Beyond Chutzpah, demonstrating that Dershowitz misrepresents key diplomatic, legal and historical aspects of the conflict. Dershowitz attempted to block publication of Beyond Chutzpah by inundating the University of California Press with threatening letters from the major New York law firm of Cravath, Swaine, and Moore throughout the spring and summer of 2005, stating he would sue the press if it did not ensure that every claim Finkelstein made about Dershowitz was factually correct. Beyond Chutzpah was vetted by six experts of the Israel-Palestine conflict and several libel attorneys. When he could not prevail upon the press or the University of California's Board of Reagents, Dershowitz asked Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to intervene. Schwarzenegger refused to do so on grounds of academic freedom. Finkelstein wasn't so lucky at DePaul.

But, by all accounts, Finkelstein far exceeds DePaul's teaching and publication requirements; indeed, he has the teaching and publication record for full professorship. His tenured colleagues in the political science department voted 9-3 in favour of his tenure and promotion to associate professor. (And the three professors who voted against Finkelstein's tenure are not experts on the Israel-Palestine conflict or the holocaust.) The college's personnel committee unanimously upheld the department's recommendation in a 5-0 vote.

In a memo dated March 22, Dean of Liberal Arts and Sciences Charles Suchar withheld support of Finkelstein's tenure application and agreed with the authors of the minority report, arguing that Finkelstein's tendency to engage in demeaning and reputation-damaging attacks compromised the quality of his scholarship. The dean invoked "Vincentian Personalism" as a tenure criterion, and reported to the university's board that Finkelstein has an "apparent penchant of reducing an argument and oppositional views to the inevitable personal and reputation damaging attack, demeaning those with whom he disagrees." Surprisingly, these concerns had never been raised about Finkelstein's work previously by DePaul's administration.

To thank for these new concerns we have Alan Dershowitz, who distributed an "information packet" to the faculty and waged a one-man war against Finkelstein. Throughout the months of April and May, Dershowitz availed himself of the pages of the New Republic, FrontPage magazine and even the Wall Street Journal to attack a world-renowned scholar and one of DePaul University's most accomplished teachers. Dershowitz has maintained that the Finkelstein case is not about academic freedom but about academic standards. DePaul administrators ended up rationalising the tenure denial along similar lines. That Finkelstein's opponents have succeeded should give pause to anyone concerned about academic freedom in the United States.


Matthew Abraham is an assistant professor of English at DePaul University.

[Paul B]

Any public figure in this country who speaks out against Israel does so at his own risk. It's disgusting, but a sad reality.

[Al in NYC]

This intellectual mau-mauing of anyone who would dare to criticize or question the actions of State of Israel is truly scandalous and has to stop. Finkelstein's story is only the most prominent, but this concerted campaign is going on all over the country in several disciplines right now, and I personally know of a number of other examples. All perpetrated by those who will straight-facedly call themselves supporters of "academic freedom," but who, in their intellectual dishonesty, don't want to extend this freedom to more than one side of this issue. It as if we've gone through the looking glass (or at last come to 1984) and "freedom" has taken on an entirely new meaning - one of conforming and confining ones work to an orthodoxy enforced by a kind of groupthink intellectual thuggery. The strangest part of all of this is that there is now more academic "freedom" on these issues in Israel itself, where questioning, critical, and dissenting voices represent a much wider range of viewpoints on that part of the world than those that have been deemed acceptable by the misguided Israel "supporters" in American academia. Shame on them, and I hope that more people have the guts to call them on this crap.

[Dan G]

Originally Posted by Al in NYC

...The strangest part of all of this is that there is now more academic "freedom" on these issues in Israel itself...

Maybe, but not always. I have a friend who was a tenured prof at a university in Israel. She's a sociologist and was doing research on the effects of the occupation (or, more precisely, war) on Palestinian children. But the Israeli government wouldn't let her go into Gaza to interview these kids, so she had to hire people there to do it. They also wouldn't allow the research assistants to come into Israel to meet with her. So she never actually got to have face to face meetings with any Palestinians during the project, and the phone connections sucked too. She ended up doing most of it by email, which just didn't cut it.

She finally said fuck it to that, quit her job there and got a position at a US uni and can now travel to Gaza to do her work.

[walto]

I don't know anything about (or have anything against) Finkelstein, but I don't like the idea of tenure, generally. It suggests something about universities that just isn't true, and while I like job security, I don't see why college profs should be treated better in that arena than anybody else.

[groover]

Originally Posted by Pedantic Wretch

Raul Hilberg, the leading scholar on the Nazi holocaust, has called Finkelstein's The Holocaust Industry "a breakthrough" and states that Finkelstein "was on the right track" in his documentation of how the World Jewish Congress, with the aid of the Clinton administration, extorted billions of dollars from Swiss banks in the name of Holocaust survivors, only to pocket the money for Jewish organisations.

It's one thing to fairly criticize, another to lie and distort as these clowns do. Never heard of Hilberg, what are his real credentials?

http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilre...-billions.html


Subject: Swiss kept billions in looted Nazi gold - report
Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 19:11:45 PDT




NEW YORK (Reuter) - A long-awaited U.S. government report will state there is conclusive evidence that the Nazis sold Switzerland gold stolen from individual Holocaust victims, sources close to the State Department said Friday.
The sources said the 11-agency report will also show that after the war, Switzerland failed to return billions of dollars worth of looted Nazi gold it received during the war.
The sources' comments were denounced by the U.S. official preparing the report. Under Secretary of Commerce Stuart Eizenstat, in a statement issued by the Embassy of Switzerland in Washington, said the sources' comments reported earlier Friday by Reuters were inaccurate.
The sources contacted by Reuters said they stood by their account.
``The Reuters story is based on pure speculation, contains inaccuracies and should be given no credence,'' the statement by Eizenstat to the Embassy said.
Eizenstat did not specify what the inaccuracies were but he cautioned that in the coming days interested parties would attempt to put their own slant on the report.
The Swiss Embassy declined comment.
The more than 200-page report, based on 14 million pages of U.S. government documents, was prepared under Eizenstat's direction. It is expected to be released next Wednesday, and the sources said it will be very harsh on the Swiss role in the war as bankers and even money-launderers for the Third Reich.
The report, however, will not make any recommendations as to whether the United States should reopen a 1946 treaty with Switzerland in which the Swiss agreed to return $58 million of the Nazi gold received during the war. Documents in the report will show that the Swiss took in $425 million in looted gold -- worth more than $4.25 billion by today's prices.
Sources who have read the report told Reuters it will contain proof that Germany not only sent Switzerland gold looted from the national treasuries of the countries it occupied, but also gold taken by the Nazi SS as loot from individual victims, something that the Swiss National Bank has previously denied as late as a month ago.
The SS looted personal jewelry, watches, rings and even the gold dental fillings of their victims, many of them Jews herded into notorious death camps like Auschwitz.
The gold from the camps was then sent to the German central bank where it was resmelted. Some of the items arriving at the Reichsbank bore the stamp Auschwitz as well as the names of other concentration camps, U.S. archival documents said.
The sources told Reuters that investigators had found the smelting records of gold sold to Switzerland by the Nazis and it showed conclusively that victim gold was mixed in with bank gold.
Documents to be appended to the report show that after the war, Switzerland returned to the Allies only about 15 percent of the looted gold it bought from Germany in return for Swiss francs, which were used to buy war materials and food.
According to documents, including some previously released ones, Switzerland knowingly received looted gold and in certain cases even asked the Germans to obtain it for them.
Documents also showed that Swiss commercial banks as well as the National Bank received the looted gold.
A World Jewish Congress official said that while he had not seen the report, he could confirm that documents the group had submitted to the U.S. government also showed that victim gold was sent for processing to the Reichsbank.
``One document revealed that 76 shipments of looted gold, including dental gold, were sent to the German Central Bank valued at more than $150 million today and some of the items even bore the stamp Auschwitz,'' Elan Steinberg, WJC executive director, said.
Meanwhile, sources close to the U.S. State Department said other documents showed that victim gold wound up in the gold pool of the commission set up by the Allies after the war to return the looted metal to its rightful owners.
The Allied-established Tripartite Gold Commission also has long maintained that all the captured Nazi gold in its holdings were from the banks of Europe and none came from individuals.
The distinction is important because all of the $4 billion worth of gold it has distributed went to central banks and not one ounce went to Holocaust survivors.
The commission has distributed all but 5.5 tons of some 377 tons it received from Britain, France and the United States.
Most of the captured gold was located in hiding places in Germany and Austria while some of it was handed over by the Swiss and the other neutral countries who did business with the Nazis during the war. The WJC has called on the commission to use the remaining gold for the benefit of Holocaust victims.
The sources said the report will also document that other neutral countries during the war -- Sweden, Spain, Portugal and Turkey -- received looted Nazi gold but returned only a tiny fraction after the war. Steinberg said, ``We are confident this report underscores the continuing commitment of the Clinton administration to secure justice for Holocaust victims. Special praise must be accorded to Ambassador Eizenstat and to Attorney General Janet Reno's Nazi hunting unit for their extraordinary efforts in this investigation.''

[Al in NYC]

Originally Posted by walto

I don't know anything about (or have anything against) Finkelstein, but I don't like the idea of tenure, generally. It suggests something about universities that just isn't true, and while I like job security, I don't see why college profs should be treated better in that arena than anybody else.

Well, that may be true, and I'm sure you feel that way (and I might not disagree with you), but it's really beside the point here. Tenure is a key feature of academic careers in the U.S. and most of the West (and, indeed, the world). One of the reasons for its existence, particularly in the U.S., is the question of academic freedom. So the denying of it on political grounds, by those who at the same time call that denial "academic freedom," is a notable event.

[walto]

No disagreement there, Al.

[Al in NYC]

Originally Posted by groover

Never heard of Hilberg, what are his real credentials?

Raul Hilberg is a well-known and respected historian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raul_Hilberg

[guy]

Originally Posted by groover

It's one thing to fairly criticize, another to lie and distort as these clowns do. Never heard of Hilberg, what are his real credentials?

http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilre...-billions.html


Subject: Swiss kept billions in looted Nazi gold - report
Date: Fri, 2 May 1997 19:11:45 PDT

I can't say I'm a big fan of Finkelstein, but the article you post only contests the "extortion" claim -- not the claim that money due to Holocaust survivors ended up in the hands of "Jewish organizations".

I can't find evidence for the latter claim. Not that it disproves the claim, but I imagine that given the slant of the article posted by PW there's more to the story.

Guy

ps.

I did find (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl.../etc/cron.html):

Swiss commercial banks agree to pay Holocaust survivors and their relatives more than $1.25 billion over the next three years to end claims that Swiss banks had withheld millions of dollars since World War II.

pps

Hilberg has credentials.

[groover]

Originally Posted by guy

I can't say I'm a big fan of Finkelstein, but the article you post only contests the "extortion" claim -- not the claim that money due to Holocaust survivors ended up in the hands of "Jewish organizations".

Since many of the Nazi's Jewish victims whose money ended up in the coffers of the Swiss were dead, who should have received the money?

[guy]

Originally Posted by groover

Since many of the Nazi's Jewish victims whose money ended up in the coffers of the Swiss were dead, who should have received the money?

Family would be the most obvious recipient.

Failing that, I think you could make a case that certain Jewish organizations would be worthy recipients.

Before this discussion can go any further, somebody needs to substantiate Abraham/Finkelstein's claims.

Guy

[Al in NYC]

The argument here is not really about Finkelstein's claims. Those claims are well-documented in his work and therefore open to argumentation, as is all scholarly work. The argument has to do with the blackballing of him and others due to the content of their work by some powerful people in the academic, intellectual, and political establishment, and the effect that has on academic freedom and the diversity of views permitted in American academic discourse.

[Pedantic Wretch]

Originally Posted by Al in NYC

The argument here is not really about Finkelstein's claims. Those claims are well-documented in his work and therefore open to argumentation, as is all scholarly work. The argument has to do with the blackballing of him and others due to the content of their work by some powerful people in the academic, intellectual, and political establishment, and the effect that has on academic freedom and the diversity of views permitted in American academic discourse.

Exactly. It seems that the Zionist lobby (use that as shorthand for whichever pressure groups are involved) has a disproportionate influence over the activities of US universities.

[rollhead]

Originally Posted by walto

I don't know anything about (or have anything against) Finkelstein, but I don't like the idea of tenure, generally. It suggests something about universities that just isn't true, and while I like job security, I don't see why college profs should be treated better in that arena than anybody else.

Another argument that supports our "race to the bottom."

It's similar to those arguments you hear about having health insurance, pensions, etc.

If someone has job security, good benefits, etc., you don't raise others up, you just lower everyone else down.

[Scott Dolan]

Communism at its best.

[walto]

Originally Posted by rollhead

Another argument that supports our "race to the bottom."

It's similar to those arguments you hear about having health insurance, pensions, etc.

If someone has job security, good benefits, etc., you don't raise others up, you just lower everyone else down.

I'm for giving all working people the same sort of tenure rights. I'm also opposed to university (and corporations) automatically being instructed to discriminate on the basis of age after a certain age. But these two ridiculous policies go hand in hand. Crappy professors get kept if they're young enough, and great ones get dumped if they're old enough.


And what are those arguments I "hear about having health insurance, pensions, etc."

[Pete C]

Originally Posted by walto

I'm for giving all working people the same sort of tenure rights. I'm also opposed to university (and corporations) automatically being instructed to discriminate on the basis of age after a certain age. But these two ridiculous policies go hand in hand. Crappy professors get kept if they're young enough, and great ones get dumped if they're old enough.

Are you assuming most Universities have mandatory retirement ages? I don't believe this is so. Also, what's your definition of a crappy professor? A great teacher who doesn't produce credentialized work will be dropped and denied tenure before a crappy teacher who is a "productive scholar," but what does that have to do with age? Also, tenure is not the end of the road where one rests on one's laurels. A tenured associate professor still has to work her ass off if she's going to make full professor, where the real money is. I don't understand your argument.

[guy]

Originally Posted by Pete C

Also, tenure is not the end of the road where one rests on one's laurels. A tenured associate professor still has to work her ass off if she's going to make full professor, where the real money is. I don't understand your argument.

Yes, but once somebody becomes a full professor they can certainly rest their laurels.

I don't think this is the kind of job security people should be endorsing in general.

Guy

[walto]

Are you assuming most Universities have mandatory retirement ages?

Yes. As I said, this generally goes hand-in-hand with tenure.

Also, what's your definition of a crappy professor? A great teacher who doesn't produce credentialized work will be dropped and denied tenure before a crappy teacher who is a "productive scholar,"

I don't have a definition, but a crappy professor is, basically, somebody who would be dumped "for bona fide reasons" if he or she were not tenured (where by "for bona fide reasons" I'm trying to exclude the kind of stuff that apparently got Finkelstein fired). Obviously, both teaching skills and scholarship should be taken into the consideration of what makes a good professor, just as both currently go (or should go) into tenure considerations.

but what does that have to do with age?

It has nothing to do with age at all. That's my point.

Also, tenure is not the end of the road where one rests on one's laurels. A tenured associate professor still has to work her ass off if she's going to make full professor, where the real money is.

That's completely irrelevant.

I don't understand your argument.

I can see that.

[Pete C]

I'll need some evidence that mandatory retirement is still the norm in the U.S. I believe things have changed considerably in the last 25 years.

[walto]

If that's true, I'm glad, but in Massachusetts there's a specific statutory exemption to the age discrimination law for schools.

[Pete C]

In the '70s CUNY had an age 70 mandatory retirement, and the top profs would then go to Columbia or NYU, which didn't. I believe CUNY abolished the mandatory retirement.

[Gary Sisco]

Hilberg is one of the foremost historians of the Holocaust. If you've ever seen the film "Shoah" (and if you haven't, you should), you've seen him throughout.

I've never seen where tenure has produced any more freedom of speech than anything else, at least in the US, where the perameters of "responsible" political discussion is as constricted as anywhere else. Self-constricted more often than not at that.

I've also seen those whose politics don't fit the mold be cashiered, tenure or not (and rightly or not).

It can and does as easily give a lifetime living to dullards as anyone else.

Everything has its flip side.

[walto]

Exactly.

[guy]

Originally Posted by Gary Sisco

Hilberg is one of the foremost historians of the Holocaust. If you've ever seen the film "Shoah" (and if you haven't, you should), you've seen him throughout.

I've never seen where tenure has produced any more freedom of speech than anything else, at least in the US, where the perameters of "responsible" political discussion is as constricted as anywhere else. Self-constricted more often than not at that.

I think there's a significant difference between freedom of speech and academic freedom. The issue with Finkelstein isn't that the former is being restricted, but the latter.

[Gentle Giant]

Originally Posted by Al in NYC

The argument here is not really about Finkelstein's claims. Those claims are well-documented in his work and therefore open to argumentation, as is all scholarly work. The argument has to do with the blackballing of him and others due to the content of their work by some powerful people in the academic, intellectual, and political establishment, and the effect that has on academic freedom and the diversity of views permitted in American academic discourse.

To which point I agree that it's wrong, and I'm on record here as being disgusted that it's a crime in some countries to deny the Holocaust. As someone who has received a lot of direct mail from a lot of Jewish organizations over the years, there's no question that playing the H card is key to almost every issue affecting Israel and the Jewish diaspora.

Just because we shouldn't forget the Holocaust doesn't mean we have to trumpet it every time someone discusses something related to Israel.

[Al in NYC]

Originally Posted by Gentle Giant

I'm on record here as being disgusted that it's a crime in some countries to deny the Holocaust.

I agree with you, but it should be noted that Norm Finkelstien is in no way a Holocaust denier.

From the CHICAGO SUN-TIMES:

DePaul chief may face vote of no confidence
Tenure denials of two profs upset many

June 13, 2007
BY DAVE NEWBART Staff Reporter dnewbart@suntimes.com
Faculty at DePaul University are considering taking votes of no confidence in the school president and other officials in the wake of tenure denials issued to two faculty members.

Separate faculty councils are meeting today and Thursday to discuss the rejections of assistant professors Norman Finkelstein and Mehrene Larudee despite strong support from their academic departments and a College of Liberal Arts and Sciences committee.

The tenure bid of Finkelstein, son of Holocaust survivors, had drawn widespread attention because of his suggestions that some Jews had exploited their suffering. Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz criticized Finkelstein's scholarship.

Larudee, who was to take over as chair of international studies, helped organize support for Finkelstein and now wonders if that hurt her.

Some DePaul faculty said they were upset the university did not support recommendations from faculty who work most closely with the two professors.

Gil Gott, chair of the college's Faculty Governance Council, said it was particularly surprising that Larudee was turned down because she had the unanimous support of her department, the college personnel committee and also Dean Charles Suchar.

He said faculty could debate no-confidence actions this week.

DePaul spokeswoman Denise Mattson noted that President Dennis Holtschneider simply accepted recommendations of the University Board on Promotion and Tenure to deny tenure.

Meanwhile, about two dozen students have staged a sit-in outside Holtschneider's office, demanding Finkelstein be given tenure.

About eight students slept there Monday night.

[john williams]

Originally Posted by Al in NYC

Raul Hilberg is a well-known and respected historian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raul_Hilberg

Yep, The Destruction of the European Jews is the essential starting point for any study of the Holocaust. It was first published in 1961 and the latest 3 volume 2003 edition stands up after only a few minor revisions - regarding Hitler and the decision making process and a softening of his tone regarding the Jewish response (particularly that of the Judenrat) but the essential thrust of the work is unchanged after 40 years.

[Gentle Giant]

Originally Posted by Al in NYC

I agree with you, but it should be noted that Norm Finkelstien is in no way a Holocaust denier.

Understood, I didn't mean to imply I was linking those two points. It's as absurd for Germany, Israel, and whatever other countries make denying the Holocaust a crime, as it is for Turkey to make it a crime to admit to the Armenian Genocide.

Words, thoughts, ideas. Damn, I'd rather we use these as weapons than weapons.