From the River to the Sea: Ibaitik Itsasora (43)

|/MTKBMNK\|@toriq555

ooo

Norman Finkelstein EXPOSES Senator Chuck Schumer’s Antisemitism Book

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbtNwn9JYj8)

Norman Finkelstein EXPOSES Senator Chuck Schumer‘s Antisemitism Book Watch as Norman Finkelstein criticizes Senator Chuck Schumer’s book on antisemitism in America. Norman Finkelstein discusses the controversial topic of antisemitism in America and the impact it has on campus protests and the situation in Palestine. This is a must-watch for those interested in the debate on antisemitism and free speech. Finkelstein exposes the truth behind Schumer’s controversial views on Palestine and more. Does Norman Finkelstein agree with From the River to Sea? Senator Chuck Schumer has recently released a new book “Antisemitism in America: A Warning” ‪@normanfinkelstein-kx5qm‬

Chapters

00:00 Highlight

01:19 Initial thoughts on Chuck Schumer’s book

04:28 After Oct 7, Is there is rise in Antisemitism?

14:16 Free Speech and Campus Protest

34:47 Why Chuck Schumer is raising Alarm bells of Antisemitism in the US

56:06 Did Chuck Schumer indirectly target Norman Finkelstein?

57:36 Why did he write the book?

Transkripzioa:

Highlight

0:00

Senator Schumer is slightly schizophrenic on

0:06

He quotes Bill Maher.

0:14

That’s your authority. I mean, why not quote

0:20

destiny? At another point, in order to disqualify the

0:27

chanters of from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free. A slok, which I

0:32

don’t like. I’ve made clear I don’t like, but that’s beside the point. This land

0:39

is mine. God gave this land

0:45

to me.

1:20

Hello and welcome to another episode of India and Global Left. If you are new to the show, please smash that subscribe

1:26

button. Also consider becoming a YouTube member, a Patreon, or donate through the

1:31

donate small amount to the link given in the description box. We rely on you.

1:36

Without further ado, let me welcome Professor Norman Finkelstein. Professor Finkelstein is a renowned scholar on

1:43

Palestine. His most famous book is titled Gaza, An Inquest into Its Martyrdom,

1:48

and his latest book is titled I Will Burn That Bridge When I Get to It, Heretical Thoughts on Identity, Politics, Cancel

1:55

Culture, and Academic Freedom. And today, Professor Finkelstein is with us to

2:01

discuss American Senator Suck Schumer’s latest book. On anti-Semitism in

2:06

America, a warning. Professor Finkelstein, welcome back to India and Global Left. Thank you for having me.

2:15

Why don’t you give your first impression or, you know, a set of

2:21

thoughts about the book you just read and we can take it from there.

2:27

Yes, my initial thought is, or my initial thoughts are how

2:32

unserious it was. Chuck Schumer is a very smart fellow.

2:38

He’s been involved in politics for the whole of his adult life. He’s

2:44

currently the Senate Majority Leader, and he has been a a

2:50

fervent, vociferous supporter of Israel. I’m not so

2:56

sure if it’s the whole of his adult life, but certainly a significant part of a

3:01

portion of it. And so one would have expected, given his

3:07

experience in politics, his impressive academic pedigree,

3:13

that you would have had something more substantial than what he

3:19

produced. And that, of course, then poses the

3:24

question why he wrote the book, and I think we

3:29

should return to that at the very end. We’ll try to keep this to a crisp hour,

3:36

but just at the very end, I think it’s interesting to reflect on

3:42

why he wrote the book. But the initial thought is not

3:48

just the thinness of the presentation,

3:54

but also the flatness of the prose. He’s

3:59

highly educated. And yet you find

4:06

the prose to be so uninspired.

4:11

And when he attempts to be inspired, he

4:17

lapses into schmaltz, which is the Yiddish word for corniness.

4:23

So that’s who did surprise me.

4:28

I guess I wanted to begin by asking you about the timing of the book, because a a core argument of his book is that

4:37

while anti anti-Semitism in in the United States has been there and it gradually

4:42

declined in the sixties, 70s and 80s, but there was a rise. I mean

4:48

he discusses 2000s, the global financial crisis, but I think the main argument is that after the October 7.

4:56

It’s a strikingly and concerningly there is a rise of anti-Semitism in the United

5:04

States and I think it’s it’s something that I wanted to

5:10

have your thoughts on. Well, there are two aspects to that.

5:16

The first aspect is there’s a long history which I myself

5:22

documented. In a previous book, it was titled Beyond Chutzpah on the Misuse of

5:29

Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History. It was published by University of

5:34

California Press, in which I showed that whenever Israel is facing

5:40

a public relations debacle after yet another of its

5:46

high tech killings, there is as a defensive measure.

5:52

The anti-Semitism is weaponized. The history of Jewish

5:57

suffering is weaponized in order to

6:04

in order to stifle the criticism of Israel, to deflect the

6:10

criticism of Israel. So beginning in the 1970s, when

6:16

Israel’s stock began to decline. As it became clear

6:22

that Israel was not going to withdraw from the territories it occupied in 1967, there was

6:30

there were these periodic public relations extravaganzas orchestrated.

6:38

so beginning in the 1970s, there was

6:43

these periodic extravaganzas orchestrated

6:50

by Israel and its American supporters under the rubric of

6:56

the new anti-Semitism. So you see books published, not one, but

7:02

a raft of books published each time, usually with the

7:08

title of The New Anti-Semitism. And the the usual

7:15

springboard for this extravaganza was the Anti-defamation League,

7:21

the B’nai Brith Anti-defamation League, which is just a an adjunct of the Israeli

7:27

Foreign Office. and then large numbers of others joined in.

7:33

So this particular claim that we are now being

7:40

haunted by some unprecedented anti-Semitism,

7:45

or outbursts of anti-Semitism, is standard fare for those

7:51

who know the history. The second point to make is

7:59

Senator Schumer is slightly schizophrenic on

8:04

the origin of these outbursts of

8:10

animus towards Jews. Sometimes it’s just part of this

8:16

age-old cycle. He says that there is this

8:21

cyclical recurrence of anti-Semitism. Over the last

8:28

several thousand years, and that there’s a

8:34

period of prosperity, a period of, so to speak, dislocation,

8:40

and then there is the outburst of anti-Semitism.

8:46

So it seems to have no

8:51

origin. It’s as he calls it, it’s timeless.

8:57

In its reach, and there’s no obvious

9:02

cause for it. It’s just a recurrent cycle.

9:08

But then at other points, he says what’s happened now in the

9:14

US was obviously triggered by Israel’s reaction after October

9:20

7th, the. He won’t use the word. He rejects the word. I will use the word, but with the

9:27

clarity that he does not use the word, rejects the word, not just doesn’t

9:33

use it, rejects it because of the genocide that’s unfolding. So it’s

9:39

not just some kind of some

9:44

inexplicable outburst due to this

9:50

recurrent. inexorable cycle of anti-Semitism, there’s a very

9:57

obvious secular explanation for it. It is a reaction

10:06

uh to what Israel is doing in Gaza,

10:11

which can’t make it by his own reckoning. It can’t make it

10:17

anti-Semitism. Because he says anti-Semitism is

10:22

always irrational and it’s born of the hatred

10:29

of all of Jews, hatred of Jews and all

10:34

things Jewish. Now the the reaction

10:40

and we have to gauge the nature of this reaction, whether it exactly who and what

10:46

it’s targeting. But this doesn’t have much to do with hatred of all things

10:51

Jewish. It’s not because you hate matzo ball soup,

10:58

or you hate challah, or you hate latkes. That’s not

11:04

why. It’s for better or for worse. It’s because you hate what

11:09

Israel is doing in Gaza. So I found that.

11:16

Schumer was not very consistent on this point. Is

11:21

this just another chapter in this inexorable

11:28

cycle of anti-Semitism? Or does it have a very clear

11:35

it springs from a very clear, a very obvious source

11:41

now, whether it’s anti-Semitism or not?I mean the manifestations of this

11:46

current phase, that’s a separate issue which we would have to examine.

11:52

But as to its origins, I think he himself makes clear

11:58

what its origins are. If you allow me, give me 1/2 moment.

12:24

He says already on page 2, the second page of the

12:30

book, he writes. Let’s find

12:36

it.

12:42

He writes the October 7 terrorist attack against Israel.

12:49

And the resulting war in Gaza and the ensuing conflict over

12:57

that war have triggered a rise in

13:02

anti-Semitism. So it seems like he’s

13:07

very clear that it’s not some irrational, inexorable.

13:17

Event in history has a very concrete cause.

13:22

At a second place, he writes. The ensuing and awful loss of an

13:30

innocent life in Gaza has left many feeling that

13:36

Israel has not done enough to minimize casualties or

13:41

provide adequate food, water and medicine to civilians.

13:48

In my view, now listen carefully. This is the number one reason

13:56

Israel is losing support in America. It’s not an

14:01

irrational anti-Semitism. By his own reckoning, there’s a

14:06

very concrete explanation for it. It’s called Israel’s committing A genocide.

14:16

Yeah, I guess you you mentioned about his objection to the word

14:22

phrase genocide. I mean he also mentions settler colonialism and Zionism is

14:28

racism, which you might not prefer to use for very different reasons for for

14:33

intellectual reasons I I suppose. But I I guess where I want to take this conversation is the college campus

14:40

because he. He dedicates a lot of this book to call his protest. He

14:45

started with the 1960s anti-war demonstrations where he

14:51

participated and where he admittedly was opposed to what he called

14:56

the radical left and the radical right. And from there he said that even during

15:01

the protest after October 7. It

15:06

went too far. And if I can quote a few lines, he said to me, many college

15:12

administrations were too slow to react to anti-Semitism in their own backyards and

15:18

even more hesitant to take disciplinary actions against offenders. And

15:23

and he goes on, he goes on to effectively endorse what the Trump administration is doing now and what the

15:29

Biden administration has started. We are also seeing people like. David Friedman, potential, you know,

15:37

U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, openly saying that we would have to

15:42

lock these people, we would have to cancel their funds, we have to strip them of their citizenships if if possible, and

15:49

so on and so forth. You had once told that the question

15:55

of free speech in the United States has now become centrally a question of. Gaza, and you have also written this in

16:02

your book. Can you comment on his writings on on on the on the campus

16:07

protests?Well, there are several things to say on that

16:13

point. Number one, there might have been an isolated

16:19

incident here or there. As you know, you can never prove a

16:24

negative. You can’t prove there wasn’t any incidents. But

16:29

those incidents were clearly blown if

16:34

they occurred, because I have to always qualify it. If they occurred, those

16:41

incidents where you can classify them as, let’s call

16:47

it unequivocally anti-Semitic.

16:53

I’m not sure if that’s the best formulation, but we’ll use it for now. Those exact those cases were so few and

16:59

far between, and they were representative of nothing

17:06

except some marginalia in the grand scheme of

17:12

things. If you listen, the professors who were at

17:18

who taught at Columbia have a long history there of having taught, know the students, know the milieu. Know the

17:25

ambiance people like Bruce Robbins at Columbia University.

17:31

I was recently in correspondence with him, curious as to what his experiences

17:36

were. I myself did pass by the

17:42

encampment at Columbia and it was, he said.

17:49

He’s Jewish, by the way. Was there was no anti-Semitism there. In fact,

17:56

during the period of what was called the second encampment, they made a point of having a Passover Seder

18:04

in the encampment as a way of showing solidarity between Jews and

18:10

non-jews. So the notion that it was

18:16

rife with anti-Semitism. Is simply a falsehood. It’s

18:22

it’s a fraud. It’s a fabrication. Secondly,

18:30

there’s the issue of what is and what is not permissible

18:35

under free speech. Now you have to bear in mind you’re a person from India.

18:42

We have a very robust. Tradition of free speech in the United States,

18:52

honored in many instances in the breach. I recognize that I’m not blind

18:59

to the real life limitations of that robust tradition, but

19:05

nonetheless it exists in our country. There’s a very

19:10

good book written by.

19:16

A professor where you currently teach. He was a a

19:22

larger than life figure at the University of Chicago. His name was Harvey Calvin. I think it’s Harvey. I have the

19:28

book here. I’ll check it. It’s called A Worthy Tradition. And Calvin

19:35

is very famous because he was the one who authored the famous principles

19:40

on university neutrality and free speech. Which were adopted by many other

19:46

universities. Are you familiar with Calvin?No. Oh, interesting, because he’s well known.

19:53

You’ll see his name constantly mentioned in any discussion of campus free

19:59

speech, the Calvin principles. Basically, he called for absolute university neutrality and full and

20:06

free discussion of ideas

20:13

in any event. So he goes through this history. You have to remember, in our

20:19

country, you’re allowed to abdicate the violent overthrow of the

20:24

government. That’s a protected constitutional right

20:30

defended by Supreme Court decisions. It took a long time for that

20:35

principle to evolve. There was originally it was a minority

20:41

position in the court. But eventually it commanded

20:47

the majority on the court. You have the right to advocate that in

20:53

our, and I’ll just say it on a personal note. So in the 1970s I

20:58

was a Maoist, a follower of Chairman Mao. I belonged to a Maoist sect,

21:04

and we would sit in the 12th floor, 8th or 12th floor of a building,

21:10

Manhattan. And we were advocating armed struggle to overthrow

21:16

the capitalist state. And we advocated openly, not just in the privacy of our

21:21

room. We advocated openly in our newspaper every week, the Guardian newspaper.

21:28

OK, now we were of course sensitive to

21:34

the possibility of agent provocateurs on our staff

21:39

who might try to. Exhort us to do something which was not very

21:44

smart. But speaking for myself, but I think for everybody

21:50

there, it never occurred to us that we were doing anything illegal. That never

21:55

crossed our mind. It was not as if I walked out

22:02

looking to my left and my right, ready to be snatched off the street and sent to Louisiana. That’s not

22:09

how our country was conducted. That’s not how affairs were conducted in ourcountry.

22:17

And you were not allowed to stifle speech on the

22:23

grounds that it hurt feelings or made you feel uncomfortable. A

22:28

signature case in the 1980s was when the

22:34

Nazi Party wanted to March through the. Community called

22:39

Skokie in Illinois, Skokie, IL, which was the home to, it was

22:45

said, many survivors of the Nazi Holocaust. Now we’re

22:51

talking about the Nazi Party. So you could imagine that that would hurt a

22:57

lot of feelings in Skokie. The state Supreme Court in Illinois

23:03

ruled they had the right to March. And I can give you a large number of

23:09

other examples. Remember, during the Vietnam War, there was a large

23:14

number of very patriotic Americans who did not appreciate the anti-war movement.

23:20

And one of the acts that became common during the anti-war movement

23:26

was burning the American flag. And that case also went to the Supreme

23:31

Court, and our court ruled it was a form of expressive speech. And it

23:37

was defended. It was defensible under our Constitution.

23:45

So I bring this all up to say chanting something like from the

23:50

river to the sea, Palestine would be free is very tame language

23:57

as compared to what has been ruled by the Supreme Court as

24:04

defensible. Under our Constitution. So the attempt to

24:10

curb this sort of speech is an

24:16

assault, a frontal assault on

24:22

a robust tradition defending very

24:28

wide parameters for freedom of speech

24:34

now. That brings me to my third point. At some

24:40

points, at some moments in in Senator Schumer’s book,

24:47

he says in tentative language, we have to find the right

24:54

balance between freedom of speech and language which might

25:00

cross the boundaries into anti-Semitism. So the first obvious point is,

25:08

no, Mr. Schumer, our Constitution, the Supreme Court

25:13

rulings, do not allow for those sorts of encroachments. They

25:19

just don’t. I have, and I’m sure he has,

25:26

very vivid memories over the issue of that March by the Nazis in Skokie. And the

25:33

ACLU defended the Nazis. In fact, it was the son

25:39

or actual. I can’t remember now. You could check it when you do your research. When we get off the air. His name was

25:45

Aria. A RYEH. Aria Nier. NEIER. He was, I think, the chief counsel

25:52

of the ACLU at the time. And he had some connection, maybe tenuous, but some

25:58

connection with the Nazi Holocaust. And he defended their right.

26:04

And that brings me to my last point. Every radical movement, as

26:11

Rosa Luxembourg pointed out, a critical part of a radical movement

26:17

is the capacity for self-criticism,

26:24

the need at various junctures for

26:29

a course correction. It was very striking when you read

26:37

Senator Schumer’s book, and this was illuminating. As I say, most of it was

26:43

not inspired. But one part of it I found quite illuminating,

26:50

and that is

26:55

when he has to defend Israel against the genocide charge.

27:01

You will have noticed it was a very half-hearted defense, he said.

27:06

By any fair definition, this is not anti. This is not

27:11

genocide. The Nazis killed more Jews than Palestinians have

27:17

been killed in Gaza. But then he quickly says, but the numbers aren’t necessarily

27:23

determinative. It was not what you would call

27:29

a. Robust defense. But then what did he

27:35

do?I wonder if you noticed it yourself. He kept lapsing

27:40

into the language of it makes Jews feel bad.

27:47

It makes them feel unhappy after what the Jews

27:54

experienced a real genocide. This makes them feel that, and he keeps

28:00

using that category. It’s not whether or not it

28:06

is a genocide. That’s not for him the relevant

28:12

category. It’s how Jews

28:18

feel about what happened, about the use of the term

28:23

genocide. And that’s. I think it’s fair to say, and I’m trying

28:29

to be absolutely fair. That is the thrust of his argument.

28:35

And I couldn’t help but think this is the residue of

28:42

woke culture. Because the essence of woke culture on college campuses was to say,

28:50

if some speech makes you feel unsafe, unwelcome, or

28:55

uncomfortable,It should be canceled. If it makes you feel unsafe, unwelcome or

29:02

uncomfortable, it should make it should be canceled. And so

29:08

he just appropriated the language of wokeness

29:14

and weaponized it against the demonstrations at the

29:19

university. And at that level, unfortunately, he had a

29:25

case. Because that was the language that’s been deployed

29:31

since the inception of this horrible thing called

29:36

wokeness, cancel culture and all the rest. A complete,

29:43

total disaster. So I was very struck that

29:48

first of all, on its face, what he’s saying is, let’s put it

29:54

euphemistically. Very implausible, because

30:00

if what you’re saying is true that to call Israel genocidal is anti-Semitic, that means

30:07

virtually every judge on the International Court of Justice, including

30:12

the American judge, was anti-Semitic. Since they found that Israel was plausibly committing genocide,

30:20

it would mean Amnesty International is anti-Semitic. Because it found that

30:26

Israel was committing genocide. It would mean that Human Rights Watch was

30:31

anti-Semitic because it found that Israel was committing acts of

30:36

genocide. So on its face, it’s not. Let’s

30:42

just put it this way. If Senator Schumer were serious,

30:49

he would have attempted to reply. To what’s now a a fairly

30:56

massive dossier of evidence that Israel

31:02

is committing genocide. I just printed out yesterday the latest

31:07

submission by South Africa to the United Nations Security Council

31:15

and it runs to 250 single spaced pages just

31:20

documenting Israeli. The rhetoric and the practice of

31:25

genocide by Israel since 19 since October 7th,

31:31

2023. And it’s been reported that they

31:37

submitted to the

31:42

they submitted to the ICJ a 750 page.

31:49

Dossier with 4000 pages of documentation. So if you

31:55

were serious and let’s not, let’s not

32:02

be, let’s not be. Let’s grant him

32:08

what he deserves. He’s a smart guy.

32:15

He graduated valedictorian of his class in high school. He got a perfect score on

32:20

the SAT. He may have been the only one at that point. It was a very different kind of test. He makes a great deal about 800.

32:27

Yes, he had. He makes a great deal about and we call it in

32:33

in Jews called kvelling, KVELLING, meaning boasting, bragging. But the

32:40

fact of the matter is, I thought to myself, you know what?He earned the right to kvell. It was a real achievement.

32:48

And there’s no question, he was a very smart guy. So

32:53

how do you account for the fact that a very smart guy

33:00

lapses into the most flabby, insubstantial

33:05

language, as in it makes us feel bad?I think the obvious

33:11

answer is because he couldn’t answer it. The evidence is too overwhelming.

33:18

He couldn’t answer it. So

33:23

uh he he couldn’t

33:31

make an effective reply. And so he lapsed into the language of

33:36

feelings, which was, as I said,had a residue of this

33:43

horrible woke culture that for a

33:48

period was dominant in

33:56

the liberal universities and most universities, I guess. I don’t know all university faculties. I don’t know what

34:02

goes on in the University of Alabama. I don’t know. Or the University of Mississippi. But the what you might

34:08

call the bicoastal elite universities, it definitely exercised, as

34:15

Gramscians would exercise hegemony in these universities, and it had a very

34:22

baleful influence. And now, as Malcolm

34:27

X would say, the chickens came home to roost. The other

34:33

side weaponized it. On on that note, something that struck me

34:40

as well was that on on one hand he in fact he admitted

34:45

in the book that I am ringing the alarm bells because he would constantly

34:50

talk about what happened to the Jews in Europe. He would of course the Holocaust is the larger contact, but he would

34:57

constantly talk about what happened to. The Jews in Russia in the early 20th century, and he would give all the

35:02

examples going back to Spain in the 15th century, France in the 14th century, England in the 13th century, even going

35:08

back to the Romans and the Egyptians. And you know, and when

35:15

of course he primarily discusses the United States, but he would then say that has the situation risen to that level

35:22

here?He says, of course not. But my task is to raise the alarm bells because you never know when it would reach that

35:27

state. So on one hand, you see this extremely, you know, as you said, schizophrenic,

35:34

hypersensitive and you know, so on and so forth. And on the other hand, when it comes to his discussion about.

35:42

What’s actually going on in Palestine towards the end?I mean the I personally felt the chapters as the book progressed,

35:50

it became worse and worse because it it came closer to the present. You know, the earlier sections were talking about

35:56

history, of course, although he was not a historian, but it still was just giving you the facts. There he

36:03

started nitpicking with what genocide is, what settler colonialism is. So on one side, this extreme hypersensitivity about

36:11

your own cause. On the other side, this total blindness about what’s going on in

36:16

in reality. Well, I have my own theory, you know,

36:24

I’ve been around the block, kind of know how the world works.

36:29

So if you read. Schumer’s book The 1st

36:34

140 pages. For your listeners, the book is 240 pages.

36:40

The 1st 140 pages. He just keeps referring to the war in Gaza. The

36:46

war in Gaza. So why is everybody so excited about the war in Gaza?Wars

36:51

happened all over the place. After around 140, you’ll see

36:57

he gradually becomes more graphic. His descriptions like this is not

37:03

quite an ordinary war. There is something very ugly happening among

37:08

the civilian population. So what was his strategy there?My

37:14

guess is the book, as you know, is lethally boring.

37:20

So he’s writing this book. He’s obviously not writing the book for non-jews because no non Jews are going to read this book.

37:26

They’re not interested. He’s writing this book for his donors. Now why he’s doing

37:31

that, I’ll get to, as I said at the very end. But he knows most of them because they’re most of them are in his age

37:38

cohort in their 70s to 80s. They’re not going to

37:44

get past page 140.

37:49

I’ll be honest with you, I struggle to get past page.

37:55

140 I kept turning the page. OK, how many more pages in this chapter?How many more pages I just found?It’s so,

38:03

so intolerably, insupportably dull.

38:08

So I think he wrote this book for his donors and so he figures he

38:14

leaves out the 1st in the 1st 140 pages, the ugly parts

38:20

he’ll get, he’ll he’ll. Get them behind him. You know, they’ll be happy. You know, they’ll be pleased with his

38:27

product. And his job is to make them happy. You know, that’s his job.

38:33

So also quite interesting,

38:40

the word Palestinians doesn’t appear until about page 180.

38:46

There’s no mention. He does talk about the 1948 war. He does

38:51

talk about it, but he never mentions that Palestinians were expelled during the war. He does not. The

38:59

first there were two mentions of Palestinian. Later he does. Yeah, that’s what I’m going to get to. There are two

39:06

mentions of Palestinians, one that they refuse these offers

39:12

for peace, the two state settlement. I won’t go through that history now, but

39:17

then not true, but. I’m not going to belabor that now because

39:23

time doesn’t allow us. But then there is on page

39:33

205, your readers, your listeners should listen

39:38

closely. He’s addressing the question of whether

39:44

Israel should be described as a settler colonial state. And he, of course, says no.

39:52

And then he says it is important to know the history around these

39:58

events, namely what happened to the Palestinians in

40:04

1948. So it’s his first mention of what happened in 1948. It

40:10

occurs on page 205 and the book ends on page 220.

40:16

So we’re talking about 15 pages before the book ends. Suddenly up until this, as

40:22

I said, it was prior to this dimension of Palestinians opposing the two state

40:28

settlement. That was just in passing. But he has to, he knows at some point

40:34

deal with the beginning of the current round. I

40:40

know some people want to go back to the Balfour Declaration. And so forth. But the current round, you say,

40:46

begins in 1948, OK? And he says as follows.

40:52

Here he’s again denying just for your listeners. He’s trying to prove Israel is

40:57

not a settler colonial state. And he says it’s important to know the history

41:03

around what happened in 1948. And he says

41:09

in November 1947. The UN passed a resolution

41:14

partitioning Palestine to create two states between the

41:20

river and the sea, Jewish and Arab,

41:25

period. It is true that it was expected

41:33

that Palestinians living within the designated boundaries of

41:39

the Jewish stateWould move to the Arab state.

41:46

So now he’s trying to say that the expulsion was no big deal because it was expected

41:54

that they would move. Where did he come up with that?

42:00

It’s just completely made-up if you read the UN Resolution

42:08

181. And when you broadcast this, you should put it up on the air on

42:14

the on the screen. It is very explicit about

42:20

the fact that there has to be equal rights for the minority in

42:25

both of the states, and they are at pains to emphasize this

42:31

point. In fact, the state was formed. It was called.

42:38

It looked as if it was 2 coiled snakes. It was like this. The state

42:43

was formed because the expectation was that they would form an economic

42:49

union between the two states. There was no thought about a population

42:55

transfer. Then he just made it up. That to

43:01

me was, I would have to say it surprised me. The

43:06

degree of let’s again use the the euphemism

43:11

disingenuousness. At another point, in order to disqualify the

43:18

chanters of from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free. A slok, which I

43:24

don’t like. I’ve made clear I don’t like, but that’s beside the point.

43:29

There are many patriots who don’t like our flag being burned.

43:34

There were many Jews in Skokie who didn’t like Nazis marching through their community. You don’t

43:41

get to regulate other people’s speech in our country.

43:47

So, so it’s it’s the beside the point. Just allow me to finish the thought and now you you

43:54

take over. In any event, he says at one point those who are chanting from

44:00

the river to the sea. Are chanting something that was taken from the Hamas charter. They say he says from the Hamas

44:07

charter. And I’m thinking to myself, well, you know, when I was a young man in

44:12

the 1960s and 70s, I’m not particularly proud of it,

44:19

but I belong to the radical fringe. We chanted from the river to the sea.

44:25

Palestine will be free. Hamas charter. Now

44:30

here again, I’ll kindly ask you to just go to when you look at

44:36

when you air this, go to the American Jewish. Just Google from the

44:42

river to the sea, the American Jewish Committee or

44:47

Google. Wikipedia has an article on it’s the slogan from the river

44:53

to the sea. They all say it goes back to the 1960s. He’s

44:59

just making stuff up as he goes, or whoever wrote the book is making stuff

45:05

up as the person goes along, you knowSo

45:12

we’re almost at the end of time. So I just want to speculate on

45:18

why he wrote the book. OK. Is that OK?Or you wanted to ask a

45:23

question?No, go ahead. Well. In March of this past year,

45:31

Schumer gave a major speech in Congress on what was

45:37

going on in Gaza. And it was a surprising speech.

45:43

First of all, he called out Netanyahu and basically said Netanyahu

45:48

has got to go. And #2, when he had to

45:54

address issues like settler colonialism.

46:00

And I think in that particular speech, he never, he didn’t

46:05

address the issue of genocide. I know he addressed the issue of settler colonialism, and I think, but you’ll go

46:11

back and check, he addressed the issue of apartheid, you know, calling us an

46:16

apartheid state. And what was striking about the speech was he

46:22

did not Call those allegations

46:27

anti-Semitic. He patiently tried to parse them

46:34

so as to demonstrate that in his view, they were oh, he didn’t talk about

46:39

apartheid. He talked about those who were calling for one state. Those were the two issues he took up were settler

46:46

colonialism and those calling for one state, and he just calmly attempted to parse

46:53

those two. slogans and why they were, in his view, wrong.

46:59

But I was very struck at the time because I spoke about it when I read the speech. I think it was when Orr Books,

47:07

my publisher, had an event in New York. I mentioned it because

47:13

I said it was an indication of how much the umm

47:21

the Spectrum had moved that now you could

47:28

calmly, you have to calmly. You can’t just call it anti-Semitism. You have to

47:34

calmly explain why you think it’s wrong. So why do I bring it up?

47:41

Because Schumer bet on the wrong course. He thought Netanyahu was out, and so

47:48

he wanted to proclaim that he was one of the persons who. Succeeded

47:54

in ejecting Netanyahu from office.

48:00

It didn’t happen. And his donors were

48:05

angry at him for what he said in that speech, that he

48:11

had legitimized, even though he disagreed with, he

48:16

legitimized talk about one state. He legitimized talk.

48:23

About settler colonialism, because he didn’t denounce them as anti-Semitic. He just

48:30

said, I think they’re wrong. So he legitimized the conversation

48:36

about that, those two issues. And secondly, Netanyahu

48:42

didn’t go. And so in my view, he

48:48

wrote the book in order. to get back his donors

48:54

who were not happy with what he said. And so now he–

49:01

it was it was very interesting in the book how he dealt with the Netanyahu issue. He

49:08

said he opposed Netanyahu because it wasn’t good

49:13

for Israel, that Netanyahu was turning Israel into a partisan issue in the US.

49:21

by aligning with the Republicans, and therefore it would no longer be a bipartisan issue, and it would

49:29

hurt Israel. Secondly, he said that

49:36

the horrors that are occurring in Gaza, but he doesn’t use the word horrors, but some places he goes pretty far.

49:43

He said that was alienating Americans, so that was hurting

49:49

Israel. So that’s his way of telling his donors

49:55

I I did what I did out of love for Israel.

50:01

So the whole book, little book in my view, because it was

50:07

so poorly conceived and executed and it was

50:13

just a mixture of silly apologetics for Israel.

50:20

It was as if, you know what really struck me?He’s not much older than me.

50:25

He was four years ahead of me in high school. I want to. I knew his sister in passing because his sister was my best

50:32

friend. Best friend’s girlfriend.

50:37

Boyfriend. His sister, yes, was my best friend’s

50:43

girlfriend. Friend. Yes. His sister was my best friend’s girlfriend. Yes. So friend. Brilliant young woman, for

50:50

sure. For sure. Not just brilliant. She possessed just a lot of

50:57

she was an interesting person. An

51:02

interesting person. So

51:11

he would the book. So the book is a mixture of Cavelling boasting about his achievements. Which I

51:18

have to acknowledge. You’re impressive. You know, as he puts it, the last

51:24

next to the last sentence in the book reads.

51:35

the United States is a country where the Jewish son of an

51:40

exterminator and a housewife could one day become the leader of the

51:46

United States Senate. It is an impressive story. There’s no

51:51

taking away from that. But it was such a it

52:00

was like my my impression when I walked away from it. It was like,

52:06

you know, he’s not much older than me. As I said, he’s four years older than me. But it was as if he were frozen in

52:13

time. It wasn’t written by a 74 year old.

52:19

It felt to me like it was written by a 94 year old.

52:24

It’s all the mythology from the 1970s.

52:29

It’s like he doesn’t even know all the new scholarship, which isn’t even

52:35

new anymore. The new historians are 30 years ago in the late, the mid to late

52:41

1980s. I mean, the book is so. Frozen in time, and I’ll leave it

52:49

off here. When I was a kid, there was a movie, it was called Exodus.

52:55

OK, very famous movie. I think the the person who made it

53:00

was Otto Preminger and the signature song, the director was Otto

53:06

Preminger and the signature song in the movie was it went like

53:13

this. It was sung by this guy named Pat Moon, who was kind of a

53:19

teenybopper idol back then. This land

53:24

is mine. God gave this land

53:30

to me. And every Jewish boy took piano lessons, and that was one

53:38

of the things we all learned to play. Bum, bum, bum,

53:45

bum, bum, bum, bum. I remember

53:51

my mother for altogether different reasons. She used to go, yeah, God gave

53:57

this land to you because she hated any notion of God. So whenever it says God

54:02

gave this land, she would get so indignant, not because of Palestinians or anything, but just by the idea of God

54:10

gave you this land. And at some point in the book, as I’m

54:15

sure you noticed, or I’m not sure if you noticed because it wouldn’t leap out to you, he says at one point,

54:25

let me just get it for you, he says on page 155.

54:36

He says to some of us, meaning Jews, Israel is a biblical

54:42

homeland, a place of destiny that our people were promised by God. In the

54:49

lyrics of the song from the film Exodus, this land

54:55

is mine, God gay. Are you serious?

55:03

You’re true. You’re drawing on that schmaltz song

55:11

in a in a in in a book that’s supposed to be a

55:16

serious inquiry into the origins of anti-Semitism.

55:23

And then at the end, the guy who boasts about his

55:29

perfect 800s several times. And then devotes a whole

55:35

paragraph. Again, a real achievement. But as I call it in something, I’m writing

55:41

this over-the-top Kveling.

55:47

He quotes Bill Maher.

55:55

That’s your authority. I mean, why not quote

56:01

destiny? On on on the quotation thing, he he

56:08

mentions that at one place that right after October 7,

56:13

not only there were shows of solidarity, some renowned

56:20

scholars. I don’t remember he used the word renowned. They wrote they were exhilarated. Was that an indirect

56:25

reference to you?I mean, he’s not. I don’t think so. I think it was.

56:31

It was Joseph Mossad at Columbia had written something like

56:37

that cause he put it in quotes and I I didn’t use that

56:42

word, right. Yeah. So I I I was confused. Of course he doesn’t cite anything. I mean, I’m not, I’m not trying

56:49

to distance myself from what I said. I kept it up. I don’t believe in a

56:54

censorship. I kept everything up that I said. And I’m I I

57:00

don’t have any regrets about it. I I made those statements on the basis of what the knowledge was at the time. And as you

57:07

you will recall, it took about three or four days before, at least in the US it took till Saturday or Sunday. I think the

57:13

first news was on Thursday. That’s my memory, but I could be wrong. But it wasn’t till Saturday or Sunday before the

57:19

full dimensions of what had happened. And then I I had to seriously think it through, you know, in light of this new

57:26

evidence, where do I stand? So I’m not trying to distance myself, but

57:32

I don’t think it was me. I don’t think so. Yeah, I think you hit the nail on the

57:37

head about the how you concluded, because that was my feeling. In fact, he was, he was very categorical. He say he said

57:44

very categorically that I’m writing this book to keep the bipartisan.

57:50

I don’t actually believe that’s why he wrote the book. I mean, you say it’s because to estuates the donor.

57:57

Yeah, but that’s what he, I mean, he burned the bridge in March of 2024 and

58:04

now he wanted to rebuild it. And that was the price he had to pay because the tone

58:09

is very different from the speech. Go back and read his speech. The speech was just very matter-of-fact. Well,

58:16

one thing, as I said, was surprising. He was calling for Netanyahu’s after. Yeah. But I I I guess the important point

58:23

here also to note is that that was in the middle of a mobilization. The election was due, there was a mobilization and

58:30

there was an internal discussion and debate within the Democratic Party that what would be. Yeah. And that all those

58:37

things have gone now. Totally correct. Totally correct. Because there was a.

58:44

There was a large part of the Democratic Party base that was very restive and in rebellion at what

58:51

Biden et al were doing. So yes, you’re absolutely correct. Part of it was to try

58:56

to keep that base in tow. That’s

59:02

definitely correct. And now, as you say, that’s ancient history. They lost

59:08

the election and now his main job is to keep his donors in tow.

59:14

And there is no mention of donors. I mean, there are so many quotations of of social media and he dedicated a chapter

59:20

on social media, but there is no mention on. I mean, he talks a lot about Soros and he’s probably right, but he doesn’t

59:27

mention about Jewish donations and and its impact on universities. Yeah, all that

59:35

is whited out. There’s nothing about AIPAC. There’s nothing about the Jewish

59:40

lobby. There’s nothing about how many candidates were defeated by that lobby.

59:46

All of that is gone. It’s as if he has no material stake in this. No, he has a

59:51

very big material stake. He was the one who went to the the Orthodox Jewish

59:57

rabbis in 2010 and said he called for, and I’m calling him now,

1:00:03

the economic strangulation of Gaza. That’s Mr. Schumer in

1:00:10

order to. Ingratiate himself with his donors.

1:00:16

He also feels very proud of attempting to sabotage the

1:00:21

ZCPOA negotiations with Iran, which which they did. And that was his

1:00:26

donors also. They’re only, as my memory is, the only two Democratic

1:00:32

senators who opposed the the agreement with

1:00:37

Iran were Schumer and Menendez. In New Jersey.

1:00:43

And they’re both for the same reason. The thing with people like Schumer, you

1:00:48

never know, you know, the human capacity for self-deception is infinite.

1:00:53

And you don’t know whether he really believes what he’s saying or he’s just totally cynical. And inside he says, I

1:01:00

know this is all BS, but that’s what I have to do to keep my donors. You

1:01:05

know, you don’t know. Parts of it were just nonsense. I mean, I I know that

1:01:11

era. He says we used to sit around the table talking about the Holocaust. Stop it.

1:01:18

Did did you read his mention about Rosa Luxemburg?He says he quotes one of his

1:01:23

professors saying I’m sure it was Adam Ulam. I I I’m positive it was Adam Ulam.

1:01:29

That was incredible. That she was someone who believed so much in humanity, but never liked a single human being. That’s

1:01:36

your face, right?Have you ever read her letters?No. Oh,

1:01:42

Mosa Luxemburg’s letters. Really. In the annals of world literature, they

1:01:47

rank up there. They’re so thrilling. I I’ve read her books on writings on

1:01:52

on on Poland, Russia, and so on and so forth. No, her personal letters are breathtaking. You know how many times

1:01:58

I’ve read them and how many times I’m so saddened. I can’t. There aren’t more.

1:02:04

They’re so beautiful. They’re so exhilarating. It was just

1:02:10

such a stupid remark. Adam Ulum, Professor

1:02:15

Chomsky’s one of his sons, Harry. He calls it the catastrophe. He called

1:02:22

it the catastrophe. What was the catastrophe?He said. When I got AB in Adam Ulum’s

1:02:30

course on Russian, Russian history. And he said to me, Ulan was Adam

1:02:36

Ulan. Your listeners won’t have any idea who he is, but he he was

1:02:41

his right wing anti Soviet writer, historian. And he wrote a book

1:02:47

on the 1917 revolution called The Bolsheviks. And it was standard in classes. We all read it. And he

1:02:54

said Adam Ulan was famous at Harvard as being the only professor

1:03:00

who fell asleep during his own lectures.

1:03:09

So I’m sure he was the one that said that about Rosa Luxemburgs. It was stupid.

1:03:15

You know, it’s kind of sad. I have to say the kind when you become an apparatchik, when you become an

1:03:22

apparatchik, the mental devolution, the mental degeneration, it was

1:03:30

such a bad book. There wasn’t.

1:03:37

There wasn’t. I mean, he has a great story,

1:03:43

but there was totally. It leaves you totally

1:03:49

flat. There was that. Where is that passage?

1:03:56

I I one second. I’m sure I won’t be able to find

1:04:03

it. I know I I know how to find it. Let’s see.

1:04:17

HuhThat’s strange.

1:04:22

One second.

1:04:27

So he writes. He talks about his family,

1:04:33

his distant family that was exterminated during the Nazi Holocaust.

1:04:39

And he writes his fellows. And he’s trying, you can see, he’s trying

1:04:44

to be poetic. He’s making an effort. And he writes,

1:04:52

Sometimes as a kid, I try to picture them.

1:04:57

Those long distant Schumers, living half a world away and

1:05:04

half a lifetime ago. Did they look like me?

1:05:10

What kind of food did they eat? Did they ride their bikes on the weekend

1:05:18

like I did?Who were their friends, neighbors,

1:05:23

school crushes? Did they like to dance?If

1:05:30

so, to what music?

1:05:36

It’s so pitiful. Now I have in my living room. I have

1:05:42

pictures of my parents, one of my parents, my mother’s family. The picture survived the war. Now,

1:05:49

occasionally I look at the pictures. I look at the picture of my mother’s

1:05:55

mother. It never occurred to me to ask the question,

1:06:01

did she ride her bike on the weekend? So stupid. Yeah, no, that can be

1:06:08

like, as a student of history, that can be a broader, you know, historical reflection about like in the 18th

1:06:15

century, what kind of food people eat. But that’s not about my family. That’s that’s a broader

1:06:21

curiosity of my friend. This was pitiful prose of an

1:06:28

emotionally impoverished mind. That’s it. I’m serious.

1:06:36

I’m reading this. I mean, this is the best you could do. This

1:06:42

is. I mean, this is the poignant moment in the book

1:06:48

where he’s trying to tap his emotional

1:06:53

resources. And this is the best you can do. The

1:06:58

prose. Oh, God,

1:07:07

let’s leave it. You should. You should read Rose’s letters. I will.

1:07:14

That’s counseling. Let’s leave it there. Professor Finkelstein, thank you so much

1:07:19

for your time. Hi, my name is Ayushman. I, along with Jyotishman, have started this

1:07:26

platform. The last two years we have tried to build content for the left and

1:07:31

progressive forces. We have interviewed economists, historians, political

1:07:36

commentators and activists so far. If you have liked our content so far

1:07:43

and want us to build an archive for the left, I have two requests for you.

1:07:48

Please do consider donating for the cause. Link is in the description below.

1:07:54

Also, if you are not able to do so, don’t feel sad. You can always like our videos

1:08:00

and share our videos to your comrades. Finally, don’t forget to hit the

1:08:05

subscribe button.

oooooo