Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Norman Finkelstein In Iran

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Veteran Member

To see the 22nd of Bahman demonstrations: http://webzine.mehrnews.com/FullStory/Video/?NewsId=11964

 

I believe this is his first time in Iran.

 

He's been interviewed by media. I haven't watched it yet though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Finklestein is a problematic figure - he is against the one state solution, and he is against the BDS (boycott campaign against the zionist entity) - although he does talk about Zionist attacks against the Palestinians, ultimately, he is a liberal zionist, and has been criticized by the Palestinians in the US. It is likely he went to Iran to explore openings towards the zionist entity by the liberal Rohanists. 

 

see: 

Finkelstein: Scholar, Advocate, Radical or Liberal/Zionist

http://road2tahrir.wordpress.com/2011/12/09/finkelstein-scholar-or-advocate/

Edited by skylight2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Finklestein is a problematic figure - he is against the one state solution, and he is against the BDS (boycott campaign against the zionist entity) - although he does talk about Zionist attacks against the Palestinians, ultimately, he is a liberal zionist, and has been criticized by the Palestinians in the US. It is likely he went to Iran to explore openings towards the zionist entity by the liberal Rohanists. 

 

see: 

Finkelstein: Scholar, Advocate, Radical or Liberal/Zionist

http://road2tahrir.wordpress.com/2011/12/09/finkelstein-scholar-or-advocate/

 

Finkelstein, the man who called Hezbollah the Lions of Lebanon?

Finkelstein who is barred from entering Israel?

Finkelstein who called Israel a "lunatic state?"

 

A liberal Zionist is someone who more or less accepts Israel and simply wants them to tweak certain policies.

Finkelstein's views show him to be very different from that.

 

 

 

If he opposes BDS, it's obviously not on some sort of pro-Israeli platform but rather due to some legitimate reason. Maybe he doesn't feel it is an effective approach. Maybe he thinks the boycott doesn't truly hurt Israel. Just because he is against BDS doesn't mean he is a Zionist. I mean, I barely even know what BDS is, aside from it being a boycott of Israel. How can I condemn someone who is against it? Especially when he is an academic who has proven himself learned on the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finklestein is a problematic figure - he is against the one state solution, and he is against the BDS (boycott campaign against the zionist entity) - although he does talk about Zionist attacks against the Palestinians, ultimately, he is a liberal zionist, and has been criticized by the Palestinians in the US. It is likely he went to Iran to explore openings towards the zionist entity by the liberal Rohanists. 

 

see: 

Finkelstein: Scholar, Advocate, Radical or Liberal/Zionist

http://road2tahrir.wordpress.com/2011/12/09/finkelstein-scholar-or-advocate/

I think you are confusing Dr. Finkelstein with Noam Chomsky

Edited by HellHound
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Finklestein has essentially the same politics re: the zionist entity as Noam Chomsky ... Iran is undergoing some very significant political changes, and these changes will be taken advantage off by liberals of all stripes, and political tendencies. 

 

people who are interested in examining political realities, should read up on these liberal zionists, the critiques against them... before hob nobing with 'em... Finklestein is very much of a liberal zionist, see more info. on him on the link below:  

 

http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/4289

 

Also see this article on: "Better Israeli-Iranian Relations" 

 

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/paul-pillar/better-israeli-iranian-relationship-9842

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

The BDS movement has turned into a cult, Chomsky and Finkelstein are two intellectuals of the highest moral integrity, they stick to their principles, even if majority of their traditional supporters happen to vehemently oppose them on an issue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

I actually have a good idea about what is going on in the ground ... he and Chomsky are in the business of legitimizing the zionist entity.  Now, what he said in Iran, I don't know... I'd have to see the show. But I know enough about the liberal zionists to understand that they have the interests of the Israelis first, then only secondarily, Palestinians. For them the issue is that they know that the zionist entity cannot survive as it is constituted now - with the occupation, and once a bantustanian Palestinian entity is formed, the zionist entity will be secured.  

 

There are two major issues blocking this move: 1) The prinicipalist Palestinian movement in the west, especially North America, who oppose this kind of liberal zionism - and 2) the situation on the ground in Palestine.

 

1) In the United States, it is not the religious Muslim people who strongly oppose zionism -but rather the non-religious secular left that opposes. The religious ones are far more accommodating, so "my uncle at the mosque" might actually end up being all for "normalization" if it suits his purpose.  This issue has little or nothing to do with religion per se- rather it is about an ideological understanding of the situation, that both religious and non-religious persons can understand. And both non-religious and religious people can end up being in bed with the zionists. 

 

2) The situation on the ground in Palestine is such that they would not accept the so-called "peace talks" - and fully support the BDS - which in fact has begun to show important results - with more and more groups, and important opinion makers joining in. To the extent that Kerry has warned the zionist entity that if they don't shape up, boycott is around the corner.  

 

Finally you need to read up more on why individuals such as Chomsky and Finklestein - i.e. liberal zionists oppose the BDS - it is essentially to protect the zionist entity... try dong up some more readings, and critiques about these individuals. 


see also: 

 

Chomsky and Palestine - Asset or Liability? 

 

http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/07/chomsky-and-palestine-asset-or-liability/
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Finally you need to read up more on why individuals such as Chomsky and Finklestein - i.e. liberal zionists oppose the BDS - it is essentially to protect the zionist entity... try dong up some more readings, and critiques about these individuals. 

 

Have you bothered to do this yourself?  Chomsky has never denied being part of the Zionist movement, which not far from inception was quite varied and diverse.  He was part of a Zionist wing that opposed the establishment of a Jewish state in what was then Palestine, he thought it was a terrible idea. In terms of their advocacy of the international consensus and scepticism of the BDS movement, its based on practical concerns, people can always disagree on tactics, the goals are the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Finklestein is a problematic figure - he is against the one state solution, and he is against the BDS (boycott campaign against the zionist entity) - although he does talk about Zionist attacks against the Palestinians, ultimately, he is a liberal zionist, and has been criticized by the Palestinians in the US. It is likely he went to Iran to explore openings towards the zionist entity by the liberal Rohanists. 

 

see: 

Finkelstein: Scholar, Advocate, Radical or Liberal/Zionist

http://road2tahrir.wordpress.com/2011/12/09/finkelstein-scholar-or-advocate/

 

You know skylight - I do think you make a good point about Chomsky and Finkelstein's opposition to BDS, and their support for the nonsense which they term the "international consensus", i.e. their support for the unworkable (and more importantly, unjust) 2 state solution, but I don't think it is fair to call Finkelstein a "liberal Zionist".  He has never identified himself as a Zionist, nor has he ever sought to explain away the crimes associated with the establishment of the state of "Israel".

 

He has always been truthful about what the Zionist entity is, and how utterly despicable it is.  I do realize that he supports the 2 state solution, but he doesn't identify himself with the Israeli state, in spite of his Jewish ethnic origins.

 

Perhaps a better term to describe his support for the nonsense of the 2 state solution would be "pro-Palestinian defeatist" rather than "liberal Zionist".

 

Greg

Edited by Greg Potemkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I've seen, Chomsky is a peaceful Zionist, meaning he wants Israel to survive, but at the same time he is heavily outspoken against Israel's current treatment toward Palestine. He even goes so far as to advocate complete eradication of US taxpayer money "aid" going to Israel every year.

 

Finkelstein has a slightly different view. I remember watching some videos of his lectures, and he has stated repeatedly that he believes someday that the state of Israel will dissolve peacefully, albeit slowly. But I've never seen him tread away from his realistic views.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Saying that Finkelstein advocates a two-state solution is like saying Imam Hassan al-Mojtaba advocated the rule of the Bani Ummayah. (And please, nobody tell me it's wrong to make this analogy; I'm not saying Finkelstein is the same as the Imam; just that the two situations are analogous).

 

Finkelstein's ideal is what he himself calls a "no-state solution." But he "supports" a two-state solution because in the short term, this is the best way for Palestine to gain any kind of political legitimacy in the world stage.

 

Which, let's be honest, he's right. In the world today, states matter. The Palestinians do not have a state. They have no rights, as far as the structure of the world is concerned. Stateless people are invisible. A state would be the best way to advance Palestinian advocacy. And it's rather telling that Israel ALWAYS resists the idea of a Palestinian state, even a laughably weak one with a joke of a leader like Abbas. They KNOW what a Palestinian state means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Finkelstein" The problem as I see it with the BDS movement is not the tactic. Who could not support boycott, divestment and sanctions, of course you should. And most of the human rights organizations, church organizations have moved in that direction. The problem is the goal. The official BDS movement that claim to be agnostic, neutral, whatever term you want to use on the question of Israel. You can’t reach a broad public if you are agnostic on the question of Israel. The broad public wants to know, where do you stand. And if you claim not to have a stand you lose them."

He's clearly saying that he agrees with the BDS if the official movement gets one position. What he is referring to is there are groups within the BDS that either want one state, two state, or no more Zionist entity that are all boycotting but cannot decide on an end game.

Finkelstein has always been an anti Zionist

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

From what I've seen, Chomsky is a peaceful Zionist, meaning he wants Israel to survive, but at the same time he is heavily outspoken against Israel's current treatment toward Palestine. He even goes so far as to advocate complete eradication of US taxpayer money "aid" going to Israel every year.

 

Finkelstein has a slightly different view. I remember watching some videos of his lectures, and he has stated repeatedly that he believes someday that the state of Israel will dissolve peacefully, albeit slowly. But I've never seen him tread away from his realistic views.

 

They pretty much have the same views, Finkelstein was inspired by Chomsky, he loves the man to bits.  Chomsky is opposed to states period.  In principle he wishes for a no state solution where Jews and Palestinians can live together, if not that then a bi-national state where both Palestinians and Jews have equal rights, he is totally opposed in principle to the concept of a "Jewish" state.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

They pretty much have the same views, Finkelstein was inspired by Chomsky, he loves the man to bits.  Chomsky is opposed to states period.  In principle he wishes for a no state solution where Jews and Palestinians can live together, if not that then a bi-national state where both Palestinians and Jews have equal rights, he is totally opposed in principle to the concept of a "Jewish" state.  

 

Finkelstein is way cooler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The BDS movement has turned into a cult, Chomsky and Finkelstein are two intellectuals of the highest moral integrity, they stick to their principles, even if majority of their traditional supporters happen to vehemently oppose them on an issue. 

The highest moral authority? They have to be Shia for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Finkelstein is way cooler

 

Depends on what's cool in your eyes, but for me, not really.  Finkelstein is from Chomsky's school, he's mostly focused on the Israeli-Palestinian issue and his scholarship is brilliant in this area.  Chomsky is a genius, he literally founded an entire field, and there isn't another public intellectual on the planet that can come close to his insight and knowledge in multiple disciplines (Cognitive science, philosophy, politics, economics, media/press studies, and world political history) combined.  He's become an intellectual moral authority that most sensible people naturally just defer to at this point, and this is earned based on his impeccable record.  He is by far the most important intellectual alive.

 

The highest moral authority? They have to be Shia for that.

 

No.

Edited by Bonafide Hustler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends on what's cool in your eyes, but for me, not really.  Finkelstein is from Chomsky's school, he's mostly focused on the Israeli-Palestinian issue and his scholarship is brilliant in this area.  Chomsky is a genius, he literally founded an entire field, and there isn't another public intellectual on the planet that can come close to his insight and knowledge in multiple disciplines (Cognitive science, philosophy, politics, economics, media/press studies, and world political history) combined.  He's become an intellectual moral authority that most sensible people naturally just defer to at this point, and this is earned based on his impeccable record.  He is by far the most important intellectual alive.

 

 

No.

Yes. Noam Chomsky and Finkelstein are nowhere near the level of Ayatollah Khomeini or even a Muslim like Malcolm X.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good lord, stop being annoying, it wasn't meant literally, and FYI Malcolm (wasn't shia) and Khomeini are dead.

That's why I said " A Muslim like Malcolm X" a You're disillusioned if you think chomsky and Finkelstein are greatest moral authority alive. Intelligent they are though, that's for sure

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Zizek can be entertaining but Chomsky is dead on about him.  Chomsky covers in 10 mins what Zizek rambles on about for hours.   

 

Anyway, just stumbled upon a very recent Finkelstein interview, just a couple of weeks old, he was actually asked about Chomsky: the whole interview is worth a read: 

 

http://urbantimes.co/2014/01/norman-finkelstein-interview/?utm_content=buffer85ad1&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

You’ve mentioned Professor Chomsky a few times in this interview  - a man I intend to interview in the future. I know he’s been a good friend of yours for many years. What do you most admire about him?

 

Everyone admires his brilliance but that’s a commonplace. And also, that’s the throw of the dice, God was very generous to him when it came to his mental capacity. Though of course the mental capacity is only, as Thomas Edison famously said, it applies in whole to Professor Chomsky: “It’s 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration.” Professor Chomsky is a perpetual motion machine. He is an indefatigable worker. But that’s not what I admire most about him, that as I said is discipline which of course I respect, the throw of the dice which is fortune. 

 

The thing that I admire most about Professor Chomsky is he is an absolutely faithful person, he will never betray you. He’s constitutionally incapable of betrayal. 

 

The thing that I admire most about Professor Chomsky is he is an absolutely faithful person, he will never betray you. He’s constitutionally incapable of betrayal. To the point that he will defend friends even though I think he knows they’re wrong, but he won’t ever betray you. And he has a sense of moral responsibility that’s just kind of breathtaking. I cannot tell you, because it’s really hard to imagine how many people I have met in my life who said “reading Noam Chomsky changed my life”. I can’t tell you, it is the most incredible testament to a single human being how many lives, including yours truly, were decisively altered as a result of his prose. It’s a marvel. There are legions of people in the world whose lives were turned upside down literally because of reading him.

 

I spoke at a rally in Kerala, India. It was about six months ago and it was a huge rally, it was about 60,000 people. These were the unwashed masses, it was a rally from a progressive Muslim organization. The only recognizable name for the rally from anyone in the West, except of course Obama for negative reasons, the only recognizable name for the unwashed masses of Kerala was Noam Chomsky. The organizer of the rally was an absolutely wonderful human being named Shahin, a really devoted, committed, principled fellow. “I want to visit the United States, I’ve tried several times but they won’t give me the visa. I only want to go for one reason. I want to go to Boston and shake the hand of Noam Chomsky.” That’s such an incredible testament for a single human being. From the state of Kerala, in India, this organizer, very smart committed guy, he has one purpose for coming to the U.S. Not the glitter, not the tinsel, not Times Square, not Disney World, not the Statue of Liberty. One reason and one reason alone, to shake the hand of Noam Chomsky. And that’s the impact he’s had on legions of people in the world, including myself.

 

 

Somebody said a few nights ago, I was out with a Muslim fellow from Pakistan named Ali Qureshi. He like many other people said, and it’s true, that when Chomsky leaves the scene it’s going to be a huge loss. Not just the loss in terms of the brain power, but I think the bigger loss is for an entire generation, Chomsky has served as the moral compass. That’s no small issue. 

 

With complex questions, whether it’s something like Libya, or Kosovo, or a whole number of other issues – people who don’t have time to research a question in its exhaustiveness – they look to Professor Chomsky to provide the moral judgement. What should we do, which side should we stand on? He served that purpose, and let’s be clear his answers were never obvious. On a specific political question, his answers were never easily predictable. In broad moral judgments yeah, you know where he stands. But should you support a foreign intervention in Libya, should you support the NATO intervention in Kosovo, now where should you stand on Syria? 

 

Those can be quite tricky questions, and the so-called Left can be sharply divided. But for the larger constituent of what you call the Left, the way they resolved their position was they looked to Chomsky because they trusted his moral and political judgment. And once he passes from the scene, that unifying factor will disappear. I think the so-called Left will become even more fragmented than it is now because Professor Chomsky has served as the unifying factor for a broad section of the Left, people just defer to his judgement.

 

That's why I said " A Muslim like Malcolm X" a You're disillusioned if you think chomsky and Finkelstein are greatest moral authority alive. 

 

Okay.  Now move on.

Edited by Bonafide Hustler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Two-and-a-half things:

 

1) To say Norman Finkelstein is a Zionist, of whatever variety or interpretation, is to laugh in the face of logic 101. I wonder what he himself would make of this charge lol.

 

2) Not calling for the complete dismantling of the state of Israel doesn't hey presto make you a Zionist. The state exists like any other state and the world has to work with it.

 

And related to 2:

 

2.5) Accepting Israel's existence within 1967 borders and pushing for an independent, sovereign, contiguous Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital is the best practical, sensible solution. You may call it comprise but you can't really brand people Zionist for taking this position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Forum Administrators

I quite enjoy Zizek, but he's not in the same league as Chomsky, seriously, lets not go there.

 

Let's do.

 

Chomsky is intelligent, insofar as he's simply a vast historical fact dumpster.  A does X to B.  C opposes this.  D didn't sign this.  There was a systematic effort by E, F, and G to undermine the process of Y.  H uses sophisticated media to promote Z.

 

I think Zizek was right, Chomsky is purely empirical, simply reads within the lines, and rarely extrapolates other than vague references to human's need for "power" .  His contributions have been meaningful, but I still feel a certain emptiness at the end.  What exactly is the meaning behind the mechanics?

 

Zizek at least attempts this.  Sure, he's more theoretical and speculative, and some may find that as gimmicky entertainment.  But I think that's exactly what we need.  That's what drives the mind.  Ideology is king.  That's what defines us.  What we extrapolate.  Not simply our material movements. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Two-and-a-half things:

 

1) To say Norman Finkelstein is a Zionist, of whatever variety or interpretation, is to laugh in the face of logic 101. I wonder what he himself would make of this charge lol.

 

2) Not calling for the complete dismantling of the state of Israel doesn't hey presto make you a Zionist. The state exists like any other state and the world has to work with it.

 

And related to 2:

 

2.5) Accepting Israel's existence within 1967 borders and pushing for an independent, sovereign, contiguous Palestine with East Jerusalem as its capital is the best practical, sensible solution. You may call it comprise but you can't really brand people Zionist for taking this position.

 

You all need to ignore him.... he calls a Zionist puppet, Mohammad Mursi (who called Israeli president as "dear friend" and wanted to wage Jihad in Syria on behalf of ZioSalafis) as a hero of Muslim world.... and now opposite to that he calls Finkelstein a Zionist... confused folks roam around this forum...

 

Two state solution or one state solution, it is up to the Palestinians to decide, the Takfiris in Gaza or the Bakris in West Bank are responsible for future of Palestine... WE DON'T CARE... Palestinians are leading Jihadists in Lebanon and Syria today on how to explode car bombs amongst Shia crowds in South Beirut and Damascus under the banner of Abdullah Azam Brigades... and all other Takfiri groups..while their own mothers and sisters are under the Zionists occupations and they are not interested to explode even once to free them.... We are here trying to blame the entire world for Palestinian cause and declare our opposition to the world over Palestine this and Palestine that.. while they want to kill us and they have no interest in our inputs or our sympathy over the so called Palestinian cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Let's do.

 

Chomsky is intelligent, insofar as he's simply a vast historical fact dumpster.  A does X to B.  C opposes this.  D didn't sign this.  There was a systematic effort by E, F, and G to undermine the process of Y.  H uses sophisticated media to promote Z.

 

I think Zizek was right, Chomsky is purely empirical, simply reads within the lines, and rarely extrapolates other than vague references to human's need for "power" .  His contributions have been meaningful, but I still feel a certain emptiness at the end.  What exactly is the meaning behind the mechanics?

 

Zizek at least attempts this.  Sure, he's more theoretical and speculative, and some may find that as gimmicky entertainment.  But I think that's exactly what we need.  That's what drives the mind.  Ideology is king.  That's what defines us.  What we extrapolate.  Not simply our material movements. 

 

These are some good points.

 

The issue I have with Chomsky is this: his obsession with this absurd notion of "objectivity." One can be academic and also take a clear stance. Some stances are very clear-cut moral issues.

 

For example: I don't know Chomsky's views on Syria. But I can guess what they are. They probably boil down to this:

 

- Issue in Syria isn't about democracy but about overthrowing a regime the US has been opposed to from the get-go

- Bashar al-Assad is a bad dude but he's not as bad as the dudes the US sponsor in the region

- There are crimes on both sides, etc...

 

Again, this is my guess, based on his other views. Since Bonafide is so in love with him, he can confirm whether this is correct or not. Either way, there are many other issues where he shrouds matters in ambiguity.

 

Syria is not an ambiguous question. "Imperial powers invade Syria using takfiri pawns" is a sufficient description of the events in Syria.

 

 

As for why I called Finkelstein cooler, I just find him to be more courageous in his stances. He came out and said that Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah is the only politician whose words he listens to and learns from. He has been very outspoken in his admiration for Hezbollah, which is political suicide in the US. He has dealt with every kind of defamation and insult from the Zionuts due to his views on the exploitation of the Holocaust. He lost his position at DePaul even though his little fingernail is a better academic than probably the rest of the entire DePaul faculty. He has all the traits of a real truth-seeker. And although most of his Muslim fanboys simply like him for his anti-Zionist positions, he is a fortress of an academic. We are very fortunate to have him. His books are not simply piles of facts but have remarkable clarity and direction.

 

And Chomsky talking about how Zizek lacks substance and it's just nonsensical musings... couldn't the same be said of all the great philosophers? Plato's ideas are not remembered and still studied after thousands of years because of their empirical nature

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Well, Zizek is cool but he writes in a grandiose style and often employs sophistry to make his point, which is entertaining and puts a smile on the reader's faces. This is just not how Chomsky operates. Besides, we are talking about serious political commentators and historians. Emotional outbursts and flights of fancy are for the novelists and poets.

 

Those who deprecate Chomsky's tremendous, tremendous scholarship put a question mark on their own understanding of solid, quality academia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Let's do.

 

Chomsky is intelligent, insofar as he's simply a vast historical fact dumpster.  A does X to B.  C opposes this.  D didn't sign this.  There was a systematic effort by E, F, and G to undermine the process of Y.  H uses sophisticated media to promote Z.

 

I think Zizek was right, Chomsky is purely empirical, simply reads within the lines, and rarely extrapolates other than vague references to human's need for "power" .  His contributions have been meaningful, but I still feel a certain emptiness at the end.  What exactly is the meaning behind the mechanics?

 

Zizek at least attempts this.  Sure, he's more theoretical and speculative, and some may find that as gimmicky entertainment.  But I think that's exactly what we need.  That's what drives the mind.  Ideology is king.  That's what defines us.  What we extrapolate.  Not simply our material movements. 

 

We already have an over-abundance of ideology, it's more of a disease than a cure, in its dominant use anyway, it isn't king, it's mostly dangerous.  This is why Chomsky is important, he can cut through the BS straight to the root of an issue.  Zizek was wrong, Chomsky isn't purely empircal, to suggest this is beyond ludicrous, he organizes his arguments based on a framework of understanding of ethical and moral principles (which he admits are not grounded in unshakable evidence), appeal to elementary human emotions and rich factual insight.  Zizek mostly just postures, you can take an hour long talk of his, shrink it down to a couple of sentences, and you wouldn't have missed anything of substance.  If it wasn't for his speaking style and typical European intellectual posturing, he wouldn't have much of an audience anyway.  Chomsky is the total opposite, his style is utterly mundane and lacks charisma, yet you have teenagers with an attention span of 5 seconds engaged for hours.  That says something, it isn't posturing, it isn't the big words, it isn't the humor but it isn't just strictly facts either. 

 

I am pretty left leaning myself, so I do agree with most of what Zizek has to say and I find him quite entertaining at times, but Chomsky is mostly right about him.  Ideologically speaking, they are quite similar anyway.

 

 

These are some good points.

 

The issue I have with Chomsky is this: his obsession with this absurd notion of "objectivity." One can be academic and also take a clear stance. Some stances are very clear-cut moral issues.

 

For example: I don't know Chomsky's views on Syria. But I can guess what they are. They probably boil down to this:

 

- Issue in Syria isn't about democracy but about overthrowing a regime the US has been opposed to from the get-go

- Bashar al-Assad is a bad dude but he's not as bad as the dudes the US sponsor in the region

- There are crimes on both sides, etc...

 

Again, this is my guess, based on his other views. Since Bonafide is so in love with him, he can confirm whether this is correct or not. Either way, there are many other issues where he shrouds matters in ambiguity.

 

Syria is not an ambiguous question. "Imperial powers invade Syria using takfiri pawns" is a sufficient description of the events in Syria.

 

 

As for why I called Finkelstein cooler, I just find him to be more courageous in his stances. He came out and said that Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah is the only politician whose words he listens to and learns from. He has been very outspoken in his admiration for Hezbollah, which is political suicide in the US. He has dealt with every kind of defamation and insult from the Zionuts due to his views on the exploitation of the Holocaust. He lost his position at DePaul even though his little fingernail is a better academic than probably the rest of the entire DePaul faculty. He has all the traits of a real truth-seeker. And although most of his Muslim fanboys simply like him for his anti-Zionist positions, he is a fortress of an academic. We are very fortunate to have him. His books are not simply piles of facts but have remarkable clarity and direction.

 

I think he agrees with you, he's quite opposed to the mainstream notion of objectivity.   Human affairs are an inherently complex affair, mostly, given how the world is run, you can be quite clear about where you stand, and in terms of strategy, it's usually more complicated.  What do you expect? For him to be a cheerleader for Assad?  I think he was very opposed to military intervention, he's always recognized and condemned the takfiris, and he acknowledges their not so benign interests in fighting Assad, same in Bahrain.  I doubt where he stands on Syria is much different from Finkelstein, they have very similar views on the recent events in Egypt as well, I also recall Chomsky having a lot of good things to say about Hezbollah.  Anyway, Chomsky or Finkelstein do not have to be right about everything.

 

I agree about Finkelstein, he is a very brave academic by conventional standards, but in terms of their scholarship, he's only really different from Chomsky in his tone, he has a very similar approach, very factual and detailed.  He even mentioned that he has mostly adopted his approach from Chomsky, so I don't see how you can be so impressed with one and not the other, who is essentially his mentor.  Chomsky is a pretty big deal now, but it's not like he falls short on intellectual courage either.  He was one of the first intellectuals who publicly denounced the Vietnam war and exposed the US state with virtually 0 support, his career was on the line as well and he faced a prison sentence.  There has been constant lobbying  in the past to remove him from his post at MIT, MIT just happened to stick by him.  You have to remember that Chomsky has been doing this thing for a while, when US society was far less receptive and quite hostile.  Anyway, they are both awesome.

Edited by Bonafide Hustler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Well, Zizek is cool but he writes in a grandiose style and often employs sophistry to make his point, which is entertaining and puts a smile on the reader's faces. This is just not how Chomsky operates. Besides, we are talking about serious political commentators and historians. Emotional outbursts and flights of fancy are for the novelists and poets.

 

Those who deprecate Chomsky's tremendous, tremendous scholarship put a question mark on their own understanding of solid, quality academia.

 

Calm down, dude. Nobody is deprecating Chomsky.

 

But there is life after Chomsky. He is not the be-all, end-all of intellectuals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...