To those familiar with his earlier work it will come as no surprise that Finkelstein's latest full-length book is a model of scholarly rigor and analytical prowess. The issues discussed are of critical importance, and should be read by anyone who might have an impact on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
My critique is of a moral nature, and I could be wrong here, but here it is:
Even taking into account the differing levels of political and moral burden on the sides to the conflict, I did feel somewhat uncomfortable with a small paragraph at the end of Finkelstein description of his visit to Gaza, where he recounts that he felt the need "to state publicly" his opinion that none of the young Hamas militatns guarding the delegation he was a part of, were "deserving of the death Israel attempted to inflict on them" (p. 106).My discomfort was not caused by an automatic wish to see all of Israel's official enemies dead, and not because I disagree with Finkelstein's critique of the "laws of war" - I agree with the moral critique implicit in Finkelstein's "etiquette for cannibals" (p. 106) quip, but because I feel he's less explicit in defending Israeli civilians, the majority of whom are jingoistic, no doubt, but are civilians nonetheless, not militants like the Hamas men Finkelstein addressed. Now, don't get me wrong, Finkelstein did condemn in print terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians (albeit somewhat ambiguously to my taste and in part on pragmatic grounds [the counter-productivity argument]), but in his commentary on the period preceding the deadly assault on Gaza, Finkelstein did make the argument that Hamas rockets could be justified on grounds of no alternatives. While it is true that the rockets were and are inefficient, and Israel was responsibile for breaking the cease fire and violating its end of the agreement, the rockets were fired at civilian areas. Had Finkelstein limited himself to justifying the targeting of military objects at situations of no alternatives, I could see the argument as morally sound, but, then, in the case of Hamas, death is somehow not a moral option even for militants.
This pretty much exhausts my critque, but it should be noted that my argument is a moral disagreement, and has nothing to do with the scholarly and even political qualities of the work (which is reasonable, moderate and lucid in the political solutions offered). Furthermore, the critique is directed at a tiny paragraph, which is a very small portion of the book.
In addition, I feel like this review would not be complete if I'd limited myself only to it's scholarly, political and moral aspects. Indeed, it should be noted that Finkelstein is also a very gifted, inspiring and engaging writer whose work is typically reader-friendly, sincere and highly educational.
Top reviews from the United States
There was a problem filtering reviews right now. Please try again later.
Glitterful
Full of personality and information!
Reviewed in the United States on December 8, 2011Mary Ann Tavery
another wonderful book by Norman
Reviewed in the United States on June 26, 2016Doctor B.
we need more scholars like you telling the truth the way it is
Reviewed in the United States on September 10, 2014