The son of Holocaust survivors and the talisman of those opposed to the policies of the state of Israel, Norman Finkelstein is a divisive figure, and both camps will probably get what they want out of this film.
To his supporters, who see in him the courage of a Jew willing to take a stand against the policies of the Israeli state, Finkelstein appears a dedicated and well-read scholar. His academic positions are not esteemed (and indeed, the more controversial his views, the faster his universities seem to want rid of him), but he can call on the likes of Noam Chomsky as supporters, the likes of Oxford University are willing to host his talks, his students adore him and his books continue to hit the top of best-seller lists.
To those suspicious of the origins of his views, the film illuminates his mother's pacifism and liberalism in the wake of surviving the Holocaust as formative on Finkelstein's worldview, whilst his opposition to the Lebanese War and time spent living in the West Bank with the Palestinians act as the catalyst to spending a lifetime exposing the 'crimes' of the Israeli state.
The problem with Finkelstein, and the reason why many see in him nothing but a 'self-hating Jew', is the manner in which he picks his fights. There are many scholars at respected institutions who are critical of Israeli policy, particularly in Europe, but they aren't releasing books called 'The Holocaust Industry' and taking their book tours to Lebanon, or publicly accusing the Harvard professor Alan Dershowtiz of fraud and plagiarism. Even Chomsky, who has never had an issue taking contrarian positions, appears to take issue with the figures Finkelstein decides to focus his efforts on.
There is surely room in the debate for a Jew who is willing to take on the Israeli state, even for one who is admittedly pro-Palestinian; in 'Budrus' we have seen the potential of Jewish citizens to shift perspectives on both sides of the wall. Yet there are surely better ways for Finkelstein to direct his energies than through arguments and acts that only exacerbate antagonisms in the region and act as diversions to the actual debate, which must be undertaken civilly.
Concluding Thought: Find it really difficult to pass judgement on Finkelstein without having personally read his books and weighed the arguments against the likes of Dershowitz'. As such, I found this enlightening, but ultimately restricted in scope.
To his supporters, who see in him the courage of a Jew willing to take a stand against the policies of the Israeli state, Finkelstein appears a dedicated and well-read scholar. His academic positions are not esteemed (and indeed, the more controversial his views, the faster his universities seem to want rid of him), but he can call on the likes of Noam Chomsky as supporters, the likes of Oxford University are willing to host his talks, his students adore him and his books continue to hit the top of best-seller lists.
To those suspicious of the origins of his views, the film illuminates his mother's pacifism and liberalism in the wake of surviving the Holocaust as formative on Finkelstein's worldview, whilst his opposition to the Lebanese War and time spent living in the West Bank with the Palestinians act as the catalyst to spending a lifetime exposing the 'crimes' of the Israeli state.
The problem with Finkelstein, and the reason why many see in him nothing but a 'self-hating Jew', is the manner in which he picks his fights. There are many scholars at respected institutions who are critical of Israeli policy, particularly in Europe, but they aren't releasing books called 'The Holocaust Industry' and taking their book tours to Lebanon, or publicly accusing the Harvard professor Alan Dershowtiz of fraud and plagiarism. Even Chomsky, who has never had an issue taking contrarian positions, appears to take issue with the figures Finkelstein decides to focus his efforts on.
There is surely room in the debate for a Jew who is willing to take on the Israeli state, even for one who is admittedly pro-Palestinian; in 'Budrus' we have seen the potential of Jewish citizens to shift perspectives on both sides of the wall. Yet there are surely better ways for Finkelstein to direct his energies than through arguments and acts that only exacerbate antagonisms in the region and act as diversions to the actual debate, which must be undertaken civilly.
Concluding Thought: Find it really difficult to pass judgement on Finkelstein without having personally read his books and weighed the arguments against the likes of Dershowitz'. As such, I found this enlightening, but ultimately restricted in scope.