Opinion L.A.

Observations and provocations
from The Times' Opinion staff

« Previous Post | Opinion L.A. Home | Next Post »

Norman, is that you?

hizbollahlos angeles timesmiddle east media research instituteNajat Sharafeddinenorman finkelsteinopinion l.a.

In the eternal struggle against The Jews, there can be no deserters.

That's pretty much the takeaway from this astounding interview that Norman Finkelstein, the historian, communist provocateur and academic-without-portfolio, gave last month to Lebanon's Future TV. Among many other Finkelsteinian aperçus: Any Arab who fails to resist the Israeli juggernaut to his last bullet will become a "slave of the Americans" reduced to "crawling on your knees"; interviewer Najat Sharafeddine reveals herself as neither a serious nor a level-headed person for suggesting that the 2006 attack on Lebanon could have been avoided; Hitler would have prefered to achieve his goals through peaceful means (I am not making that up); anybody who prefers survival to glorious death in service of the international Shiite jihad deserves no respect; Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is a "human freak"; any Lebanese who is presently alive has "no self-respect"; and of course, every situation everywhere always is exactly analogous to Hitler and the Nazis.

It's a mind-bogglingly arrogant, condescending, creepy, ill-informed performance. And in fact an overtly imperialist one that erases all marks of local politics and individual choice in order to make room for great-power conflict. In true Leninist fashion, Finkelstein does not believe in bystanders; any Arab who chooses not to engage the international struggle against the Zionist/capitalist enemy is not only expendable but beneath consideration. (Allah only knows what Fink made of Future TV's founder, the late rentier oppressor of the proletariat Rafiq al-Hariri.)

I've never given much thought to Finkelstein, who seems to have done some interesting historical (or at least historical-debunking) work, and my view of his long-running feud with Alan Dershowitz has never gone beyond a vague wish for both sides to lose. But at least Dersh contents himself with being a stateside nuisance of no danger to anybody except the wives of insulin-happy bazillionaires. Finkelstein, however, is speaking in the context of a goodwill tour of Lebanon on behalf of Hizbollah — whose views, don'tcha know, have been too long ignored in the United States. (Speak for yourself, Norm!) This is where the cesspool of leftwing extremism eventually flows, into a full-hearted alliance with any scuzzbucket willing and able to kill people. At Reason, Michael Young (who has had his own apparently bruising exchange with the no-nonsense Sharafeddine) expands on the pathology at work:

This behavior comes full circle especially for the revolutionary fringe on the left, which seems invariably to find its way back to violence. In the same way that Finkelstein can compare Hezbollah admiringly to the Soviet Red Army and the communist resistance during World War II ("it was brutal, it was ruthless"), he sees in resistance a quasi-religious act that brooks no challenge, even from its likely victims. What is so odd in Finkelstein and those like him is that the universalism and humanism at the heart of the left's view of itself has evaporated, to be replaced by categorical imperatives usually associated with the extreme right: blood; honor; solidarity; and the defense of near-hallowed land.

Full interview (courtesy of the invaluable MEMRI) and transcript.


Comments () | Archives (7)

The comments to this entry are closed.


After watching the interview, this article clearly misrepresents what Finkelstein meant about Hitler and peace. The comment "Hitler would have preferred to achieve his goals through peaceful means (I am not making that up)," is a real slander, since only a moron could have misunderstood what Finkelstein meant! The rest of the article is fairly misrepresentative as well. ALL READERS SHOULD WATCH THE VIDEO AND THEN RE-READ Cavanaugh's ARTICLE; you may reach different conclusions. Secondly, it looks as the video has had edits or cut-ups which may not accurately portray the speaker’s position. And I think anyone who knows MEMRI, knows they are not a bastion of objectivity.

Tim Cavanaugh

The comment "Hitler would have preferred to achieve his goals through peaceful means (I am not making that up)," is a real slander, since only a moron could have misunderstood what Finkelstein meant!

Thanks, Bobby, but I'm content to report what he actually said. And indeed, all readers should watch the video and then reread Cavanaugh's article, and are invited to reach any conclusion they please. You are invited, nay requested, to report back.


I'll post the quote: "I don’t believe there is another way. I wish there were another way. Who wants war? Who wants destruction? Even Hitler didn’t want war. He would much prefer to have accomplished his aims peacefully, if he could." Both the tone and the actual text are not complimentary to Hitler (as Cavanaugh's paraphrasing implies). Lastly Mr. Cavanaugh, do you have to write so snidely? Are you opposed to barefaced ridicule?


Only Israel and their apologists get to declare that resistance to Israeli brutality is an act of terrorism. Israel regularly imposes collective punishment, which was ruled a war crime in the Nuremburg tribunals.

Dr. Finkelstein accurately notes that standing up to Israeli aggression is to be applauded. Israel can pretend to abhore violence (as it inflicts it on innocent civilians) because it perpetuates a status quo that Israel feels is in its interests.


I just watched Finkelstein on Future TV and to me he sounds very rational and moral. He explians very clearly in the start of the interview that he "does not care about Hizbollah as a political organization" and aptly concludes: "it's irrelevant". The issue is not whether Hizbollah has some twisted philosophy. The issue is whether people have the right to resist the foreign occupiers.. that's the real question.

If tomorrow mexican army illegaly invades and occupies United States, do you think KKK will have the right to resist the mexican army on US land?

Most people would agree that KKK has a disgusting philosophy but in that situation, KKK's philosophy would be totally irrelevant. Just the way KKK's will have the right to resist the foreign occupier, Hezbollah has the right to resist the destroyer of their country i.e. Israel.

This article is unfair and trying to distort what Finkelstein was trying to say in that interview.


Not to mention that there is nothing particularly abhorrent about Hizballah's political philosophy. Especially when you compare theirs to Zionism.

Cavanaugh is a turd.

Steve Hunt

When will you "journalists" stop with your hatchet jobs on Finkelstein? Grow up, please. Or go read your Joan Peters book during "American Idol" commercials or whatever it is you do for fun.



In Case You Missed It...



Recent Posts
Reading Supreme Court tea leaves on 'Obamacare' |  March 27, 2012, 5:47 pm »
Candidates go PG-13 on the press |  March 27, 2012, 5:45 am »
Santorum's faulty premise on healthcare reform |  March 26, 2012, 5:20 pm »


About the Bloggers
The Opinion L.A. blog is the work of Los Angeles Times Editorial Board membersNicholas Goldberg, Robert Greene, Carla Hall, Jon Healey, Sandra Hernandez, Karin Klein, Michael McGough, Jim Newton and Dan Turner. Columnists Patt Morrison and Doyle McManus also write for the blog, as do Letters editor Paul Thornton, copy chief Paul Whitefield and senior web producer Alexandra Le Tellier.

In Case You Missed It...