[Marxism] Finkelstein chews up and spits out Zionist liar

Dbachmozart at aol.com Dbachmozart at aol.com
Thu Jan 8 22:37:11 MST 2009

clip --
AMY GOODMAN: Norman Finkelstein, do you agree with Ambassador Indyk  that 
Israel would have continued the ceasefire if Hamas hadn’t started firing  rockets 
into Israel? 
NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Well, the record shows that Hamas wanted to  continue the 
ceasefire, but only on condition that Israel eases the blockade. As  your 
viewers surely know, long before Hamas began the retaliatory rocket attacks  on 
Israel, Palestinians were facing a humanitarian crisis in Gaza because of the  
blockade. The former High Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson,  
described what was going on in Gaza as a destruction of a civilization. This was  
during the ceasefire period. 
Now, I think it’s important to keep in mind Mr. Indyk wants to talk about the 
 book. Well, I think we should talk about the book. In fact, I stayed up ’til 
 1:30 a.m. to complete the book, made sure I read up to page 415, read every 
word  of the book. The problem is, with his book, as with his presentation 
here, is he  systematically misrepresents the record of the peace process. He’s 
lying not  only to his readers, but to the American people. He keeps putting 
the burden of  responsibility for the impasse in the peace process on the 
A moment ago, he referred to the “rejectionists” who are trying to block a  
settlement of the conflict. What does the record show? The record shows, I 
said  a moment ago, for the past twenty or more years, the entire international  
community has sought to settle the conflict in the June 1967 border with a 
just  resolution of the refugee question. Are all 164 nations of the United 
Nations  the rejectionists? And are the only people in favor of peace the United 
States,  Israel, Nauru, Palau, Micronesia, the Marshall Islands and Australia? 
Who are  the rejectionists? Who’s opposing a peace? 
According to Mr. Indyk’s account of the negotiations that culminated in the  
Camp David and Taba meetings, he says it was the Palestinians that were 
blocking  a settlement. What does the record show? The record shows that in every 
crucial  issue raised at Camp David, then under the Clinton parameters, and then 
in Taba,  at every single point, all the concessions came from the 
Palestinians. Israel  didn’t make any concessions. Every concession came from the 
Palestinians. The  Palestinians have repeatedly expressed a willingness to settle 
the conflict in  accordance with international law. 
The law is very clear. July 2004, the highest judicial body in the world, the 
 International Court of Justice, ruled Israel has no title to any of the West 
 Bank and any of Gaza. They have no title to Jerusalem. Arab East Jerusalem,  
according to the highest judicial body in the world, is occupied Palestinian  
territory. The International Court of Justice ruled all the settlements, all 
the  settlements in the West Bank, are illegal under international law. 
Now, the important point is, on all those questions, the Palestinians were  
willing to make concessions. They were willing to allow Israel to keep 60  
percent of the settlements, 80 percent of the settlers. They were willing to  
compromise on Jerusalem. They were willing to give up basically on the right of  
return. They made all the concessions. Israel didn’t make any concessions. How  
is this rendered in Martin Indyk’s book? It’s rendered as, quote, “Barak’s 
bold  and courageous initiatives for peace” and “Arafat and the PLO rejecting 
the bold  and courageous initiatives of Barak.” Constantly, he turns reality 
on its head.  
full transcript --
(http://www.democracynow.org/2009/1/8/former_amb_martin_indyk_vs_author) >
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy 

More information about the Marxism mailing list