A FAIR FIGHT
(In response to Danny O’Connor’s Oct. 18 column “Reviewing Finklestein.”)
After [Norman] Finklestein finished his lecture, he asked for critical questions. No one came forward. I was disappointed that people weren’t being evaluative enough of his speech to respond and those who would have been critical didn’t even bother to show up. That’s why I was eager to read the review of Finklestein until I found not authentic counterpoints, but faulty analogies and assumptions.
Finklestein lectured on issues like the Gaza [Blockade] and the Turkish flotilla raid but most of O’Conner’s nearly page-long column was ad hominem attacks about Finklestein being denied tenure and being barred from Israel. Should we also attack the credibility of Gandhi, [Martin Luther] King [Jr.] and [Nelson] Mandela because they were jailed and barred for their statements?
Finklestein consistently cited facts from human rights organizations, accounts from Israeli soldiers, officials and international law. O’Connor didn’t rebut any “misrepresented facts” or prove why violence is Israel’s only option to exist. Finklestein never brought up his Jewish heritage or the Holocaust, but O’Connor said that his rhetoric “appears” heavily dependent on them.
O’Connor says Finklestein is polarizing because “it is not what he says but how and why he says it,” then he is polarizing because he advised the audience to be principled, reasonable and present all parties a resolution which enables everyone to preserve their dignity, self-respect and decent life.
No one denies that both sides in the conflict have a voice, but if this is about fighting the fair fight, then O’Connor didn't make much of an effort.
Nesima Aberra
Undergraduate
