In a recent debate, someone seated next to Professor Benny Morris lectured me on the impossibility that Israel systematically breaches the laws of war.
Thank you for your enlightening conversation at Princeton! I am sorry you were cut-off at the end. Would love to hear your thoughts on Kushner! Thank you, Dr Finkelstein.
Quite frankly Borelli did nothing but engage in obfuscatory tactics designed to make him look good on camera rather than to engage in a substantive debate. Chief among his tactics was the use of red herrings. The exchange regarding the protocol for Israeli air strikes was an example. Neither Finklestein nor Rabbani made any claim about the protocol for Israeli air strikes. They made a claim about the results. The results weren’t disputed by Borelli or Morris. Four children were killed after exiting a fisherman’s shack. That shack was surrounded by journalists who witnessed the event. The issue of the IDF’s protocols was not at issue, but if they are indeed as stringent as Morris/Borelli claimed, then the undisputed fact of these children’s deaths provides even greater support for the contention that Israel deliberately targets Palestinian civilians than Finklestein may have realized.
I'd like to know why prof. Finkelstein gets so triggered by Destiny. It makes him look desperate as if he was challenging his world view? Also the tantrum of ad-hominen does not look good, when prof. Finkelstein always confronts people on this point.
Finklestein does not have that averse reaction to other interlocutors who make similar points. Destiny simply happened to draw an appropriately averse reaction because he attempted systemically and repeatedly to obfuscate, distract, and worst of all talk over his opponents. His evasiveness when Rabbani questioned his position that Jim Crow was not a form of apartheid was particularly telling. A person like that did not deserve to be there and frankly did not deserve respect.
Just look at Norm’s response to Morris versus Destiny. Did Morris not also challenge Norm’s views? Yet he didn’t elicit a similar response. Why is that?
What a great point, friend. That was the worst part of the debate, they always cut him off. I felt like the mediator, should have done a better job at regulating that. The only way they can refute Norman is by cutting him off. And because he speaks slowly, but powerfully might I add, they do it easily and purposefully. In an old debate between him and Alan Dershowitz, the same thing happened of cutting him. I was not surprised by Destiny doing that, but by Benny Morris. Because he has written many books on that topic. Their sly comments, that border on racist was disappointing. If only people debated to reach the truth, but instead the arrogant make it battle of eloquence. Disappointing really.
I am in favor of debate formats where parties are not allowed to interrupt the other at will. Sadly few people are capable of letting others finish their points. Many people cannot control their emotions and want to jump in whenever something irks them. Others simply know that constant interruption is a way to gain a non-merits-based advantage.
The reasons are many but the point is singular: the rules of any debate, even informal ones, cannot permit the other side to interject at will.
You make a good point, I agree that not everybody deserves respect. And your explanation is a valid one of why Prof. Finkelstein reacted like this. Could you expand a bit on the Jim Crow point? Was Jim Crow considered Apartheid?
Jim Crow and Apartheid only overlapped briefly and contemporaneously I do not think you’d find many references to Jim Crow being a form of apartheid. This is because the crime of apartheid wasn’t defined until much later on, after the apartheid regime in South Africa fell and long after Jim Crow was ruled unconstitutional in the U.S.
But in every politically and historically salient respect, they were the same thing. They were both regimes of domination of a weak racial/ethnic group by a strong one. They both utilized the power of the state to enforce a regime of physical racial segregation that existed for the (supposed) benefit of the stronger racial group over the weaker one. There were no illusions about who was supposed to benefit from Jim Crow and apartheid. The state-enforced segregation regimes in each case also had widespread popular support among the more powerful racial groups and drew universal condemnation from the weaker groups.
Destiny dodged Rabbani’s question but appeared to say that Jim Crow was not apartheid because one was enacted by a legislature and the other was not. (This is incorrect. Souther States in the U.S. passed laws requiring racial segregation of public accommodations. The Supreme Court didn’t create this regime, it only decided that it wasn’t unconstitutional. South Africa’s legislature enacted apartheid through the legislative process.) This formalistic distinction is frankly meaningless. I am not surprised that Destiny quickly tried to change the subject.
Thanks for taking the time in addressing this point. I agree with you. Both apartheid and Jim Crow laws enforced strict racial hierarchies, denied basic rights and freedoms to non-white individuals, and perpetuated systemic racism and inequality. As such, many historians, scholars, and so on draw parallels between the two systems, recognizing them as different manifestations of similar oppressive structures based on racial discrimination and segregation My next question is, is Israel an apartheid state?
This is so funny, he’s talking about Destiny but instead said someone seated next to Benny Morris. I doubt it is a spiteful omission, however it is amusing given the fact, that you, Norman, pronounced his name wrong several times throughout the debate accidentally. What a great piece, I cannot help but laugh. Professor I request that you post more frequently, or whoever is posting for you, since I know you don’t like these “machines” lol. Please do topics on organized religion, why does it produce terrorists, and sexual predators? Or is it because organized religions, have the most populous following them, so it seems like it is a rampant issue in their communities? Maybe I’m wrong, India follows Hinduism which is not necessarily a major major religion, yet they engage in terrorism as well? Sorry to add, Israel ascribes itself to Judaism for example, and it is no doubt terrorist in its rhetoric and nature.
Message for Prof. Finkelstein: What do you get so triggered by Destiny? Is it because what Destiny says challenges your world view? You always despise ad-hominen, however, it was your only weapon to undermine Destiny’s points.
Thank you for your enlightening conversation at Princeton! I am sorry you were cut-off at the end. Would love to hear your thoughts on Kushner! Thank you, Dr Finkelstein.
Quite frankly Borelli did nothing but engage in obfuscatory tactics designed to make him look good on camera rather than to engage in a substantive debate. Chief among his tactics was the use of red herrings. The exchange regarding the protocol for Israeli air strikes was an example. Neither Finklestein nor Rabbani made any claim about the protocol for Israeli air strikes. They made a claim about the results. The results weren’t disputed by Borelli or Morris. Four children were killed after exiting a fisherman’s shack. That shack was surrounded by journalists who witnessed the event. The issue of the IDF’s protocols was not at issue, but if they are indeed as stringent as Morris/Borelli claimed, then the undisputed fact of these children’s deaths provides even greater support for the contention that Israel deliberately targets Palestinian civilians than Finklestein may have realized.
I'd like to know why prof. Finkelstein gets so triggered by Destiny. It makes him look desperate as if he was challenging his world view? Also the tantrum of ad-hominen does not look good, when prof. Finkelstein always confronts people on this point.
Finklestein does not have that averse reaction to other interlocutors who make similar points. Destiny simply happened to draw an appropriately averse reaction because he attempted systemically and repeatedly to obfuscate, distract, and worst of all talk over his opponents. His evasiveness when Rabbani questioned his position that Jim Crow was not a form of apartheid was particularly telling. A person like that did not deserve to be there and frankly did not deserve respect.
Just look at Norm’s response to Morris versus Destiny. Did Morris not also challenge Norm’s views? Yet he didn’t elicit a similar response. Why is that?
What a great point, friend. That was the worst part of the debate, they always cut him off. I felt like the mediator, should have done a better job at regulating that. The only way they can refute Norman is by cutting him off. And because he speaks slowly, but powerfully might I add, they do it easily and purposefully. In an old debate between him and Alan Dershowitz, the same thing happened of cutting him. I was not surprised by Destiny doing that, but by Benny Morris. Because he has written many books on that topic. Their sly comments, that border on racist was disappointing. If only people debated to reach the truth, but instead the arrogant make it battle of eloquence. Disappointing really.
I am in favor of debate formats where parties are not allowed to interrupt the other at will. Sadly few people are capable of letting others finish their points. Many people cannot control their emotions and want to jump in whenever something irks them. Others simply know that constant interruption is a way to gain a non-merits-based advantage.
The reasons are many but the point is singular: the rules of any debate, even informal ones, cannot permit the other side to interject at will.
You make a good point, I agree that not everybody deserves respect. And your explanation is a valid one of why Prof. Finkelstein reacted like this. Could you expand a bit on the Jim Crow point? Was Jim Crow considered Apartheid?
Jim Crow and Apartheid only overlapped briefly and contemporaneously I do not think you’d find many references to Jim Crow being a form of apartheid. This is because the crime of apartheid wasn’t defined until much later on, after the apartheid regime in South Africa fell and long after Jim Crow was ruled unconstitutional in the U.S.
But in every politically and historically salient respect, they were the same thing. They were both regimes of domination of a weak racial/ethnic group by a strong one. They both utilized the power of the state to enforce a regime of physical racial segregation that existed for the (supposed) benefit of the stronger racial group over the weaker one. There were no illusions about who was supposed to benefit from Jim Crow and apartheid. The state-enforced segregation regimes in each case also had widespread popular support among the more powerful racial groups and drew universal condemnation from the weaker groups.
Destiny dodged Rabbani’s question but appeared to say that Jim Crow was not apartheid because one was enacted by a legislature and the other was not. (This is incorrect. Souther States in the U.S. passed laws requiring racial segregation of public accommodations. The Supreme Court didn’t create this regime, it only decided that it wasn’t unconstitutional. South Africa’s legislature enacted apartheid through the legislative process.) This formalistic distinction is frankly meaningless. I am not surprised that Destiny quickly tried to change the subject.
Thanks for taking the time in addressing this point. I agree with you. Both apartheid and Jim Crow laws enforced strict racial hierarchies, denied basic rights and freedoms to non-white individuals, and perpetuated systemic racism and inequality. As such, many historians, scholars, and so on draw parallels between the two systems, recognizing them as different manifestations of similar oppressive structures based on racial discrimination and segregation My next question is, is Israel an apartheid state?
Are you a real person or AI?
This is so funny, he’s talking about Destiny but instead said someone seated next to Benny Morris. I doubt it is a spiteful omission, however it is amusing given the fact, that you, Norman, pronounced his name wrong several times throughout the debate accidentally. What a great piece, I cannot help but laugh. Professor I request that you post more frequently, or whoever is posting for you, since I know you don’t like these “machines” lol. Please do topics on organized religion, why does it produce terrorists, and sexual predators? Or is it because organized religions, have the most populous following them, so it seems like it is a rampant issue in their communities? Maybe I’m wrong, India follows Hinduism which is not necessarily a major major religion, yet they engage in terrorism as well? Sorry to add, Israel ascribes itself to Judaism for example, and it is no doubt terrorist in its rhetoric and nature.
I thought you'd left Substack, Norman. Did you start again?
https://www.facebook.com/share/r/LivYHFRZ5ruKut5w/?mibextid=UalRPS
Message for Prof. Finkelstein: What do you get so triggered by Destiny? Is it because what Destiny says challenges your world view? You always despise ad-hominen, however, it was your only weapon to undermine Destiny’s points.
First