US political author Norman Finkelstein denied entry to Israel

May 23, 2008, 16:30 GMT


Jerusalem - The US political author and critic of Israel Norman Finkelstein was denied entry to the Jewish state on Friday, his lawyer said.

Finkelstein landed at Ben Gurion international airport near Tel Aviv in the early morning and was told by a representative of the ministry of interior that he would not be allowed into the country on 'security' grounds, attorney Michael Sfard told dpa.

'This usually means a 10-year ban on entry,' Sfard added.

Finkelstein, who is Jewish and the son of Holocaust survivors, has written critical books on Israeli policies in the Palestinian territories and on what he called 'exploitation' of the Jewish tragedy during World War II.

Finkelstein has received with the fierce disapproval of some authors and academics, while others have praised his controversial works.

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/middleeast/news/article_1407232.php/US_political_author_Norman_Finkelstein_denied_entry_to_Israel

I guess free speech is not held in very high regard in Israel.

He's done nothing but give his opinions. Israel denying entry to the son of Holocaust survivors on the basis of giving an opinion -- it is not justifiable, and it sets an extremely troubling precedent.

perhaps explain to me in really really simple english how denying his entry in to israel some how limits his ability to speak, and write?...i'm sure your answer will be very imaginative.....

limits his his ability to visit Israel. However this leads to a few questions

Why would Israel "allow" Jimmy Carter to visit but not Norman Finkelstein?

Is it because Carter is more high profile or because Carter is a Gentile, there for he and his book can be dismissed as antisemitism?
Not so easy with Finkelstein, his writings challenged the "holy grail" and can not be as easily dismissed, at least in the same "sound bite" terms as Carters.

that denying Finklestein entry into israel is not denying his ability to speak or write..and that the initial response was just another irrational attack upon israel (looking up in google britan or US or Egypt denies entry.....,shows its used elsewhere as well).

accusation no 2 about Finkelstein and Carter....well Carter is an ex president of the US, that does carry a certain weight in intl affairs..but that too is obvious isnt it?
___

anybody for rational reason why israel should let a guest into their home..who has made it clear and public that they "dont like israel"?

so that equates to "hating Israel" did he deny Israel's right to exist? Not to mention that he is a Jew and it is not as if Israel hasn't allowed other Jews that have what could be called questionable if not outright criminal character in, Finkelstein fits neither description.
Perhaps it is a warning to other Jews that would dare speak out against Israeli policies.

where did i claim: not liking israeli policies equates "hating israel".....

and if you cant find it..perhaps explain why your wrote it?

then why keep complicating it?

Perhaps I misinterpreted this comment, were you speaking of someone else or just nitpicking a word? Generally hate and dislike have the same meaning

anybody for rational reason why israel should let a guest into their home..who has made it clear and public that they "dont like israel"?

Does Finkelstein actually "dislike" Israel or does he "dislike" the governmental policies?

really?...i hadnt realize that...which dictionary are you using?
Generally hate and dislike have the same meaning

------------
Does Finkelstein actually "dislike" Israel or does he "dislike" the governmental policies?

i really dont know..he does seem to rooting for hizballa, whos goal is israels destruction......

and according to them

Main Entry:
1hate
Pronunciation:
\ˈhāt\
Function:
noun
Usage:
often attributive
Etymology:
Middle English, from Old English hete; akin to Old High German haz hate, Greek kēdos care
Date:
before 12th century
1 a: intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury b: extreme dislike or antipathy : loathing <had a great hate of hard work>2: an object of hatred <a generation whose finest hate had been big business — F. L. Paxson>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hate

Main Entry:
1dis•like
Pronunciation:
\dis-ˈlīk, ˈdis-ˌ\
Function:
noun
Date:
1567
1: a feeling of aversion or disapproval2obsolete : discord

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary

So I will concede Israel barred Finkelstein because he "disapproves" of the governmental policies, is that what your saying? I did not know that Israel engaged in that type of political censorship, especially among Jews, but they did allow Meir Kahane in and to become a citizen.

if israel is not committing genocide, making concentration camps, engaging in extreme ethnic cleansing, apartheid, segregation, starving the gazans etc...but instead is using limited violence, checkpoints, walls etc to occupy and control the Palestinians, the conflict takes on a whole different perspective...one that isnt extreme and the israels arent pseudo nazis....

and it makes me and people like me a little more willing to be less defensive and offensive...

your going to honestly tell me you believed there was no difference between dislike and hate?...i find that rather hard to believe.
_______

but more interesting.....
finkelstein isnt an israeli..hence there is no "political censorship"....and what does that mean anyway?...does that mean politicians cant read his writing hear him speak (that super israeli power again?...or perhaps that if he does become a politician than his writing and talks will be censored in israel?....(i find that rather hard to believe..got any precedents?....- i doubt it...)

so how does "political censorship work?....what exactly is being censored?

I think Finkelstein is a prime example, he was barred from visiting Israel although he is Jew and the son of holocaust survivors because he not only criticized Israel but spoke to Hezbollah, BTW I thought Jews could not visit Lebanon.

but thanks or making me smile- first the quote

i dont like hyperbole... i thinks its counterproductive..

followed by

if israel is not committing genocide, making concentration camps, engaging in extreme ethnic cleansing, apartheid, segregation, starving the gazans etc...but instead is using limited violence, checkpoints, walls etc to occupy and control the Palestinians, the conflict takes on a whole different perspective...one that isnt extreme and the israels arent pseudo nazis....

hyperbole

He was pointing out other people's hyperbole.

Please provide evidence.

Last I checked, the Paletsinian population had increased 30% in ten years.

please use a dictionary definition, given that you believed that hate and dislike are similar expressions.....

what exactly is being censored? his writings, his speaking ability? .....

made an example, if you will. The censorship part comes if other writer modify their writings or if Finkelstein does in the future, which I doubt, this this "throws fuel on the fire".

Main Entry:
2censor
Function:
transitive verb
Inflected Form(s):
cen•sored; cen•sor•ing \ˈsen(t)-sə-riŋ, ˈsen(t)s-riŋ\
Date:
1882
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable <censor the news>; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable <censor out indecent passages>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary

In part the Israeli government stopped Finkelstein from visiting or meeting with anyone in Hebron, which is an act of censorship.

is that Carter was talking to Hamas in an attempt to get a ceasefire and push for negotiations for peace. Finkelstein was not attempting to get peace negotiations between Israel and Hezbollah; he was explicitly supporting Hezbollah and defending even their more violent actions. Supporting a country's enemy is very different from supporting negotiations between a country and its enemy. And although most Israeli officials probably view Carter less sympathetically than I do, they would still see this difference.

Also there's the little matter of Carter being a former head of state!

It would have nothing to do with Carter being a gentile. In fact, it's much more difficult to refuse entry to a Jew, due to their presumptive right to enter the country under the law of return.

And by the way, it is possible though unusual for a Jew to be antisemitic, just as it's possible for a woman to be anti-feminist; an African-American to oppose civil rights; or a second-generation immigrant to be a virulent anti-immigrant bigot.

As far as Carter being a former head of state, that is what I meant by him being more high profile-I did not think I needed to state the obvious, but for at least some I guess I should have.

It would have nothing to do with Carter being a gentile. In fact, it's much more difficult to refuse entry to a Jew, due to their presumptive right to enter the country under the law of return.

No but as gentile it is much easier to accuse him of antisemitism and he has been sometimes by Israelis even. As far Finkelstein goes they did not seem to have much difficulty with that one.

And by the way, it is possible though unusual for a Jew to be antisemitic, just as it's possible for a woman to be anti-feminist; an African-American to oppose civil rights; or a second-generation immigrant to be a virulent anti-immigrant bigot.

Well duh, I do not know if they show "The Boondocks" in the UK if not it is a pity there is a character called Uncle Ruckus who is a black man who is bigoted against Blacks, but are you saying that you think Norman Finkelstein is antisemitic? Could it be that he is disgusted at seeing the suffering his parents and so many others went through being used as political coin to excuse policies that he finds unconscionable.

(1) Why you think Carter could be accused of antisemitism but Finkelstein couldn't;

(2) Why the Israelis would be LESS likely to exclude someone who could be called antisemitic than someone who couldn't.

I think Finkelstein at least bordered on antisemitism when he said that 'the holocaust industry is one of the main causes of antisemitism'. I doubt that this is the main reason why the Israeli authorities are excluding him, however; they probably regard him as a security risk because of his support for Hezbollah.

1. I did not say could not I said easy or easier

2. Israel or the government is less threatened by criticism by someone who is not a Jew, and perhaps their actions towards Finkelstein were a "warning shot" of sorts.

3. Because of support of Hezbollah? Was he actting as a spy? would he help them across the border? would he gain secret information as to Israels defenses? what?

Here's what I wrote:

I guess free speech is not held in very high regard in Israel.

When people have actions taken against them on the basis of nothing but their words (their "speech"), that constitutes a lessening of the regard a government holds towards freedom of people to express their opinions openly.

It's a pretty simple concept.

direct or indirect contribution to The Satanic Verses in any role. For example, as far as I know, Finkelstein wasn't involved in translating Rushdie's works, didn't edit Rushdie, didn't offer criticism of Rushdie's pre-publication draft documents, etc.

However, even if Finkelstein had an actual co-author role with Rushdie, there would be a need for evidence to support any claim to the effect that Israel banned The Satanic Verses. Similarly, one would need evidence to support any claim to the effect that Israel offered million-dollar rewards to potential assassins of Rushdie's co-authors or translators.

that makes it possible to rely upon previously made court decisions in future court decisions?

Have I wandered into the Pakistan/UK forum?

I am a supporter of freedom of speech; but I think many countries would not welcome someone who had given public and explicit support to one of their enemies (he did not just support talks and negotiations with Hezbollah, or express support for their basic cause; he actively defended their violent tactics - and by the way I get my information about Finkelstein from his own site, and not from people like Dershowitz). I'm not saying that Israel are right or wrong to make this decision; but I don't think it's a very surprising one.

If I'm not mistaken, Norm Finkelstein has absolutely nothing to do with Salman Rushdie, but any claim that "Boojatta is never mistaken" is dangerous nonsense.

:rofl: But of course any claim that "LeftishBrit is EVER mistaken" MUST be dangerous nonsense! :evilgrin:

The Shin Bet security service detained and deported an American Jewish professor who is a prominent critic of the Israeli occupation when he landed at Ben-Gurion International Airport on Friday.

Professor Norman Finkelstein was interrogated for several hours and held in an airport cell before being put on a plane back to Amsterdam, his point of departure. Finkelstein said he was told he could not return to Israel for 10 years.

The Shin Bet said Finkelstein "is not permitted to enter Israel because of suspicions involving hostile elements in Lebanon," and because he "did not give a full accounting to interrogators with regard to these suspicions."

However, in e-mail and phone interviews with Haaretz after leaving Israel for Amsterdam, Finkelstein said, "I did my best to provide absolutely candid and comprehensive answers to all the questions put to me. I am confident that I have nothing to hide. Apart from my political views, and the supporting scholarship, there isn't much more to say for myself: alas, no suicide missions or secret rendezvous with terrorist organizations. I've always supported a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders. I'm not an enemy of Israel."

Finkelstein visited Lebanon a few months ago and met with Hezbollah operatives there, and subsequently published articles.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/986558.html

Reminds me a bit of the fiasco where Cat Stevens was deported from the US. Just like that deportation, this one is ridiculous and petty...

Right there in your very comment it states this.

Hizbollah are Israel's sworn deadly enemies. Israel has a right to view anyone who would voluntarily meet with Hizbollah as at least a potential enemy and refuse them entry to the country.

visit Israel? Or does being a expresident as opposed to exprofessor give him special dispensation?

refusing entry to a former head of state of an allied country would be quite an extreme statement by any country.

But as I said above, the two situations are not the same anyway. Carter (whatever some on the right may imply) did not express active support for Hamas; he met them in an attempt to engineer a ceasefire and peace negotiations. Finkelstein did express active support for Hezbollah.

Perhaps Israel overestimated the possible risk posed by Finkelstein (it would hardly be the first time a country has overestimated a security risk); perhaps it was simply pissed off with him. But quite generally speaking, as long as we have countries with borders, people don't have the RIGHT to enter other countries (I am not here speaking of citizens, their family members or asylum seekers; but people who simply wish to make a visit). It might be a pity if a country is excluding too many people from entry on flimsy grounds - but they are not denying them a basic freedom, unless one considers national borders as such to be a denial of freedom.

In this connection: you do realize that the right-wing Israeli politician Feiglin was recently denied entry to the UK, because of a record of hate-speech? Do you think that the UK had no right to make this decision? Personally, I consider both decisions acceptable.

Finkelstein and Feiglin being barred, while both countries have a right to do this if the country so chooses, are either of them actually criminals, to do this for political reasons makes the countries appear actually weak and fearful, the same would go for Yousef Islam/Cat Stevens being barred from the US.

silly me I actually wondered for a moment if it had something to do with not being able to guarantee his saftey while in Israel.

just like last week when they demanded the UN ban the word Nakba, it makes Israel appear petty, frightened, and vengeful,and like last week if they had just said nothing it would have gone away, or in Finkelsteins case made them appear a bit magnanimous.

Here's the Magnes' Zionist's take on it:

http://themagneszionist.blogspot.com/2008/05/finkelsteins-deportation-and-reaction.html


(snip)
Perhaps Noam Chomsky can be convinced to visit Israel. Finkelstein has written nothing that Chomsky substantively disagrees with. And Chomsky met with Nasrallah and praised Hizbollah. I doubt that Finkelstein is out ahead of Chomsky on the Hizbollah contact business.

Would Israel bar Noam Chomsky from visiting? No blanking way -- the man is too powerful a force in intellectual circles. The embarrassment would be too great. Chomsky is a protected high-profile critic.

Israel can go after Finkelstein because it knows that he won't have the support that a Chomsky would have. And that is what all this boils down to -- picking on a weak out-of-work academic who occasionally talks and writes like an annoying New York Jew. Heck, I even know Jews who call themselves progressives who wouldn't go to bat for Finkelstein. Everybody has his or her Finkelstein story to tell. So who will support him, besides the Palestinians who have been encouraged by a New York Jew who goes to bat for them? Does anybody besides a few socialist Brits and Palestinian supporters care that Finkelstein was barred from going to visit his B'Tselem activist friend in Hebron?

Listen up, Jews -- and I mean some of the progressive Jews who are hesitating on this one. Titbayeshu lakhem -- Shame on you! How can you profess skepticism about who is right here, when you know that the Israeli track record on truth-telling is a lot worse than Finkelstein's? How can you take a position opposed to that of the moderate Association for Civil Rights in Israel that has reportedly condemned the deportation?

If you are a progressive Zionist, the default mode must be to support Finkelstein until you have conclusive evidence that he constitutes an existential threat to the state of Israel And since you can never see that evidence, you have no reason to trust even a High Court decision against Finkelstein. Because the High Court has proven unreliable time after time in these matters. Its default mode is to back the security establishment. (Occasionally -- just occasionally -- it comes through.)

Frankly, I am surprised by the reaction of some of those who call themselves "progressive," who profess to hate Bush, who cry about the loss of civil liberties in this country, and then take a "wait-and-see" attitude about who is right in this affair, or who don't want to go to bat for Finkelstein because he annoys them, or because he said, "We are all Hizbollah." Criticize him, by all means, for kowtowing to the fundamentalists, but what does that have to do with the price of felafel?

Look, I don't understand why Chomsky and Finkelstein celebrate Hizbollah. OK, the enemy of my enemy is my friend and all that, and I don't think Hizbollah or Hamas should be demonized. But lionized? Please...as a modern orthodox Jew, I would be happy to put all the fundamentalists on a boat and send them out to an uninhabited island where they duke it out (More likely, they will find out how much they have in common.)

But that's not the point. The point is that the ongoing hounding of Norman Finkelstein should make any decent human being vomit. Let the guy alone. Let him publish his books and keep his website. Why shouldn't he be allowed to see the West Bank for himself and to visit his B'Tselem friend in Hebron?

By the way, it is not just Finkelstein who is being barred from Hebron Michael Sfard, is now representing the "Breaking the Silence" organization, which has been barred by the police from conducting its tours in Hebron.

Progessives should unite on this one. And if you don't want to join, then at least think hard before you write against.

then countries do have the right to exclude people from visiting. It may be a narrow-minded or unjust decision, but I would not call it a breach of civil liberties. It isn't part of my civil liberties (or Finkelstein's or Chomsky's or Dershowitiz' or Bush's) to be allowed to visit Israel.

I don't particularly support Israel's banning Finkelstein from entry. I just think it's their right to do so, just like it's my country's right to ban Feiglin.

I do agree with the following:

'as a modern orthodox Jew, I would be happy to put all the fundamentalists on a boat and send them out to an uninhabited island where they duke it out (More likely, they will find out how much they have in common.)'

As a modern secular Jew in my case, but the rest sums up my feelings!

and the world would yawn. He is a pretty obscure figure in the grand scheme of thing. He can't even be considered a household name in his own country.

Doesn't Shin Bet have more serious work to do, as opposed to crushing Finkelstein?

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/986558.html

Finkelstein makes bold statements, but his books are impeccable. "Beyond Chutzpah", for example, exposes Dershowitz as a pathetic apologist for Israeli foreign (& domestic policy) and should have begun the unwinding of Dershowitz's career as an academic. Instead, it began the unwinding of Finkelstein's career.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/reprehensor/45

This move will only embolden Finkelstein further.

(it will embolden Finkelstein).

I think you forget that the US isn't very forgiving of all the terrorist apologists.

Israel can do whatever it wants with regards to whom it lets in or not. Hell, every other country on earth does the same thing (try to visit an Arab country if you are Israeli!).

Most people don't know about Finkelstein and don't care.

The Shin Bet security service detained and deported an American Jewish professor who is a prominent critic of the Israeli occupation when he landed at Ben-Gurion International Airport on Friday.

Professor Norman Finkelstein was interrogated for several hours and held in an airport cell before being put on a plane back to Amsterdam, his point of departure. Finkelstein said he was told he could not return to Israel for 10 years.

...

"I was kept in a holding cell at the airport for approximately 24 hours. It wasn't a Belgian bed-and-breakfast, but it wasn't Auschwitz either. I had several unpleasant moments with the guards at the airport and in the holding cell, but since martyrdom is not my cup of tea, I'll spare you the details," Finkelstein said.

...

{Attorney Michael} Sfard on Saturday said banning Finkelstein from entering the country "recalls the behavior of the Soviet bloc countries."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/986558.html

So, being a critic nets you a 10 year banishment.

I could never live under that threat.

the first Amendment?

hasn't stopped your government from restricting the entry of members or sympathizers or even former members of organizations which they consider as subversive - at the time when it affected my ex-communist colleague it was the Communist Party; but now there must be many others.

While I think most of these restrictions - by many countries - often end up being rather ridiculous, 'first amendment rights' and their equivalents elsewhere do not generally apply to the admission of foreigners for visits. (And Finkelstein is definitely a foreigner - just because he's Jewish does not make him an Israeli citizen.)

I would say that internally, Israel, whatever its other faults, is very good on freedom-of-speech issues. For example, Ha'aretz publishes lots of articles that are very critical of Israel.

into your country.

The US has barred many people from entry.

:wow:

:sarcasm:

In other words, is "return" relevant to the actual fact situation?

Should I have labelled it?

NT!

PB

Calling Finkelstein a mere "Israel Critic" is not exactly accurate and well Understates the Fine line this guy has Went WAY across many times.

Don't you think they're terrorist supporters and enablers?

Of course they are terrorists and terrorist-enablers and are considered so by officialdom.

However, as most of the people who join them are Israeli citizens already, they can't easily be denied entry into the country. It's generally much easier for any country to refuse entry to a visitor than to deport a citizen!

Personally, I would agree that Israel has let in quite a few extremists (Kahanists who are not vetted at entry; people who become RW settlers; etc. - not to mention the bizarre recent episode of the neo-Nazis) that it shouldn't have; but they probably didn't all make their extremist views and intentions clear on arrival.

I categorically disagree with Israel's decision. Finkelstein should be allowed to speak in Israel. His views should be exposed to the marketplace of ideas, where they will be rejected as they have in most other parts of the world.

Alan M Dershowitz

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/29/israelandthepalestinians.lebanon